Talk:Political correctness/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Lead changes

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

Here are some of the dictionary definitions for the term:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct

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

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

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

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

Proposed amendments to definition in lead

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

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

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

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

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

Stable version:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is an ordinarily pejorative term [8 sources] used to describe language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.

Proposed version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nb edit conflict, reply to Aquillion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really used as a pejorative

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you are describing something as pejorative that can't be described as a pejorative. How is a noun a pejorative? It makes zero sense. Political correctness is the philosophy. Politically correct is the pejorative. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive quotations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring yet again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Why is D'Souza being singled out' tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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