Talk:Political correctness/Archive 7

History section

old stuff and that.. lolz

The section contains quite a few theories explaining the origin of PC, but none of them seems articulate enough to me. Personally I heord of another one, saying that the actual movement of PC began with the protests by Afro-American population against being permamently called "blacks" (this one is given here as an example and therefore bracketed; the usage of this word is not to be regarded as meant to assault anyone). Then the practice was picked and actively embraced by feminine movement. I can't assert myself to be a specialist in this, but if there is anyone with good knowledge of the subject, I'd recommend checking it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.110.16.218 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, this is all utterly wrong

I agree entirely with the comments of 62.97.164.14. In Britain, even the concept of being 'for' or 'against' PC is ridiculous to the majority of people, who see the phenomenon as a distructive disease that has afflicted the Western World.

I would support his view of PC entirely, but not his condemnation of Wikipedia. What a pity he writes so well on the talk page but will not simply edit the article. Yes, the article is badly written: for a start the opening definition is grammatically incorrect. Political correctness is a noun phrase, and as such cannot be used 'to describe' anything (that requires an adjectival phrase). Adding 'is a term', is just a cheat to make it seem to work. So I am going to put his excellent 'formal' definition at the start. Perhaps he would support me, by helping to keep it there - that's how Wikipedia works, and it can work well. I do not accept that the important statements in this article are supported by valid citations at all. For example, the citation used to support the claim that PC is almost exclusively used in the pejorative sense refers only to names, not even articles, let alone quoted sentences. Lind and Buchanan would never support the idea that PC is used in the pejorative sense, nor would they 'oppose' it. Rather they claim it to be a very serious technique, with traceable origins, used in ernest for 'political' ends by agents of Cultural Marxism, an application of Critical Theory. The above writer is also quite right to point out the repeated use of phrases like 'some would argue', which are clearly discouraged by Wikipedia policy under Weasel words. This page has been tagged as disputed and not representing a world view for some time. I'd like to see it rewritten, with the intention of getting the tags removed? --Memestream 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd be somewhat hard-pressed to support this theory that getting people to call stewardesses "flight attendants" is part of a Marxist plot to foment revolution. Andrew Levine 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention a 'Marxist plot to foment revolution' - no I did not. On the contrary my understanding is that the Frankfurt School of philosophers declared Marxist attempts at uprising to have failed, and launched a new mode of attack on existing structures in society which they called Cultural Marxism, which would work to change peoples ways of thinking. Nevertheless, I do not find it at all difficult to explain how getting people to call stewardesses "flight attendants" furthers Marxist aims. Traditional societies recognise different roles for men and women whom they regard as having different mental and physical strengths. Evolutionary psychology offers much evidence in support of such claims, backed by sound evolutionary reasons for such specialisation. Marxism has always recogised that the empowerment of women weakens traditional societies, because the caring, conciliatory, tendencies of the woman, which evolved to protect her family, conflict with the tendencies of the man to expand his territory, and offspring. Calling stewardesses 'flight attendants' is just one example of the many changes towards gender-neutral terms that PC encourages. Making job-titles gender-neutral reduces the barrier to women taking on powerful roles traditionally limited to women. I don't expect this to convince you, but I hope you can acknowledge that it has substance, such that the theory is by no means 'far fetched' as you imply. --Memestream 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the notes, and all the times where only an author name is given refer to works referenced in full elsewhere in the article. It would be good to go through and add more complete referencing, but I don't think there's a problem in terms of actually having reliable sources. Also, I removed your definition from the intro - the idea that political correctness is some kind of Marxist plot is extraordinarily marginal; as far as I know, no-one with relevant academic expertise believes that to be the case (the people in quoted as holding that view are either academics in other areas, or pundits; in neither case are they reliable sources for anything other than their own POV). VoluntarySlave 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that your reference for the opening statement is even remotely relevant. Yes, lets tighten them up a lot. A reference in support of a key statement should be a quote that supports that statement, along with its source details so that others can judge the relevance. Your statement that 'the idea that political correctness is some kind of Marxist plot is extraordinarily marginal' is simply your point of view, and carries no weight without supporting evidence. I would not, and have not, used the word 'plot', so please be more careful with terms (plot, like conspiracy, is a 'tag word' used by political correctness to take away credibility and make discussion appear ridiculous). Finally, does Wikipedia only accept citations from 'acedemics'? I think not, nor does it necessarily frown on citations from experts in other subjects. Acedemics, by definition, are reliant on employment in Universities and colleges, and it is widely agreed that PC has had its most drastic effects on college campuses, with many publicised cases of professors losing their jobs simply because they went against the tide of PC. Furthermore, I know of no professors of political correctness, or study courses in it, or books explaining it written by its originators - all of which would be expected in any 'legitimate' subject. So this is one case where the views of acedemics are not going to be useful. Acedemics who refuse to be PC keep quite, or they lose their jobs! --Memestream 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any citations linking political correctness to cultural marxism in any way. You haven't even shown any understanding of what cultural marxism is--it's a mode of analysis used to interpret culture and the media for academic study. Try actually reading Frankfurt School, for instance; it may not be your cup of tea, but it isn't what you seem to think it is. I do agree with you, though, on one thing:

• Furthermore, I know of no professors of political correctness, or study courses in it, or books explaining it written by its originators - all of which would be expected in any 'legitimate' subject.

I quite agree; political correctness is not really a legitimate subject. Its definition changes arbitrarily to match whichever political pundit is mouthing off about it at the moment, and it lumps together vastly disparate things with disparate causes. --Aquillion 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you agree, but I don't think you can say it is not a legitimate subject - it just doesn't go under the name of 'PC studies'. There are many serious writers who point out that the aims and methods of PC are part of a very well documented project in 'social engineering' carried forward by a string of famous people who wrote quite clearly of their aim to 'change society', and to 'bring down Western institutions and culture'. The most blatant of these were probably Kurt Lewin and Edward Bernays, though they follow in the line of Marx, Lennin, and the 'Bloomsbury set' and have used techniques borrowed from Freud, LeBon, and Wilfred Trotter. Their writings can be found in books that are used in courses in Sociology and crowd Psychology, as well as in papers in the Journals pertaining to these subjects. In particular Kurt Lewin's 'Sensitivity training' based on 'Critical theory' describes PC exactly. Are we not justified in making this vital link, despite the modern name, which probably arose because the masses perceived something to be going on, but not being experts in crowd psychology, were unable to put a better name to it. It's no secret in sociology circles that 'sensitivity training' was propagated through hundreds institutions from Schools and Universities to management circles and NGO's and hence became what we now refer to as PC. I'd like to put more about all this in the article, but there's little point if it just gets reverted as 'a minority view'. I think it can be shown to be the credible serious view, though I'm not against including the alternative view, which I consider to be much less substantiated. --Memestream 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting - please read up Cultural Marxism

I am reverting for the above reasons. Before reverting back this new opening section, which was not written by me, I ask you to read up on the claims made, ie on cultural Marxism and Sensitivity training, etc, and give reasoned explanations of what grounds you have for oposing each claim made. Simply saying that it is the view of an extreme minority is pure POV and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I also urge you to examine my claim that the opening sentence was grammatically unsound. The word correctness, like many words ending in 'nous' is an abstract noun, a state of being, like 'redness'. A noun cannot descibe anything. Redness is a state of being red, not a description of colour (for which the word is red). Consider the sentence 'redness' is a term used to describe cars that are coloured red. It fails grammatically, because redness is a state of being red. It also fails semantically by confusing the general and the particular (cars can be red but redness is in no way defined in relation to cars). This is an exact analogy with the opening sentence that was on this page, because political correctness, by simple virtue of its grammatic form, cannot be about language. 'Political' means, 'to do with the control and running of societies'. As this page stood, the word political was given no relevance. If the page had begun, 'Politically correct language' is a form of language which ..... then it would be gramatically correct, because both subject and object are nouns - but it would not be a page about political correctness, instead it would be about a special subset of the latter, and hence cannot be a definition. I suggest that it is not possible to form a grammatically correct sentence that equates PC with language, since a 'state of being' cannot equate to a language. Nor can it describe a form of language, since a noun cannot describe another noun! On these grounds alone, I hope you will not revert without re-writing. --Memestream 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The grounds I have for opposing your opening about cultural Marxism are simple - you have provided no reliable sources showing that this is a widely accepted understanding of political correctness. I'm agnostic about whether it's ungrammatical or not, but I'd rather have the opening be ungrammatical than POV. VoluntarySlave 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it still fails grammatically, and the reason it fails, as I explained, is that it is impossible to construct a correct sentence to explain what you are trying to explain, simply because what you are trying to explain cannot be. Political correctness is a state of being - that's clear from the ending. It's related to politics - that's clear from the word political. To try to make out that it is a form of language is not just wrong it's impossible, because it has the wrong grammatical form. --Memestream 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

meaning!?

what is the meaning...in english terms not using big words!

Is being a PC good or bad is PC is like a campaign run, to stop discrimination?? if I say I am PC..is that good or bad

Yes, it is a campaign run to stop discrimination, and that might seem good, and you are meant to think it is good, except that those trying to influence your thoughts through political correctness do not declare themselves and do not discuss or debate. That means its BAD. It's not just about discrimination, it's about forcing multiculturalism on people who feel they don't want it, and judge that it is not working, but find that they cannot speak up without being tagged as 'not politically correct' and hence bad. So you are meant to think that PC is good, but really you should be thinking and debating and questioning its assumptions. And you are supposed to think that to say you are PC is good, because then you will be no trouble to those who want to control the world. THEY, are Marxists, in other words International communists, the same people that many say brought us the French revolution and the Russian Bolshevic revolution, but not necessarily the people you might associate with those revolutions, as Marxist likes to work behind the scenes through others. Read George Orwell's famous book '1984' - this is what it's about. That's why this page is controversial, and tagged as disputed. --Memestream 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is a page for discussing the article, not discussing its subject. For anyone thinking of editing the article and needing a brief background, though, I will note that Memestream's views above are highly controversial. The opposing view is that "political correctness" in the narrative Memestream outlined above is a concept concocted by conservative commentators as a spurious attack on their political opponents. In this opposing view, the recent shifts in public discourse that get lumped into a broad category of "political correctness" in fact result largely from globalization and changes in the media--globalization forced corporations to consider the views of many more people when trying to keep customers, an expanded franchise did the same for politicians, while a 24-7 news cycle caused everyone to become much more careful in their speech simply because anything you said that could offend, say, 5% of the population would instantly be broadcast to all of them, turning tens of thousands of people against you. It is true that essentially nobody views political correctness as a good thing; but people disagree on how useful the term is, on what it means, and on what its causes are. --Aquillion 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I justify my reply above on the grounds that the questioner felt it necessary to ask here 'what is the meaning, in English'. If the page were doing its job he would not need to ask. So now that we have two opposing views in fairly brief terms, and an agreement that 'nobody views political corrctness as a good thing', how about putting them in the article, because at the moment I don't think it makes clear those two views at all, and the paragraphs 'for' and 'against' make no sense to me. --Memestream 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable, verifyible source, go ahead and add it.

'Minimum offence' - to who, by who's rules?

I cannot accept the opening paragraph at all. Saying that PC is a term that describes language or behaviour that causes minimum offence is not a sufficient definition, since one man's offence is another man's cherished principle. Patriotism, for example, is still a highly cherished principle for many people, yet they are increasingly afraid to defend their true views because they get labelled 'racist'. Even racism is perfectly legal in most countries (as distinct from incitement to racial hatred), and is held to be a repectable position by many who believe that there are good scientific grounds for believing that races are made differently and should live separately in their own cultures. So the real question is, 'why is it alright for political correctness to insult the beliefs of some groups, while it claims to minimise offence.' The answer of course is that Political Correctness is tied to one particular political view - that of Cultural Marxism. Just saying that it aims to 'minimise offence particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups is not good enough. Are not British patriots an identity group? Are not the British or the Welsh or the Scottish a 'racial group'? Of course they are, but PC carries the implicit message that we must not say that, because they, under the unspoken rules of PC, are BAD groups, while 'ethnic minorities', 'gays' and liberals are GOOD groups. That implicit message is the 'political' bit in 'political correctness'. If it didn't come from Cultural Marxism, then where did it come from, because it's certainly very selective and did not arise out of the will of the British people at the time that it arose, though it has largely succeeded in embeding itself in the minds of the younger generation. In Britain, I suggest, PC is certainly not looked at ironically, its hated by most people, along with the spin and lies of the Blair government. --Memestream 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Patriotism, for example, is still a highly cherished principle for many people, yet they are increasingly afraid to defend their true views because they get labelled 'racist'. Oh, do they really? I can't speak for other countries like Britain, but in the U.S., it's the opposite that is true -- people would certainly be afraid of declaring in public "I am not a patriot". Even those on the left in the U.S., for the most part, use patriotic language. It would be unimaginable, for example, for one of the eighteen current Presidential candidates to renounce patriotism. Their political career would be over.

The answer of course is that Political Correctness is tied to one particular political view - that of Cultural Marxism... If it didn't come from Cultural Marxism, then where did it come from? The answer, "of course"? why "of course"? Can't use in the media of terms and language used with the intent to offend as few people as possible be tied to the simple capitalistic desire to retain as large an audience as possible? If a TV host says things that rankle certain groups, they start to protest and the network loses advertising dollars. So market forces dictate the way broadcasters, journalists, etc., speak. That's a motivation for inoffensive language which is in fact the opposite of Marxism.

why is it alright for political correctness to insult the beliefs of some groups, while it claims to minimise offence. Yes, obviously it's impossible to avoid offending everyone at once. That's way it says "seeks to minimize offense" rather than "eliminate offense." The "seeks to" implies clearly that the person speaking is the one who believes his or her language reduces offensiveness, and (to answer what I think is your main question) yes, of course, there is the possibility that he or she is wrong. Andrew Levine 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I speak for Britain, where people very rarely call themselves patriots now, for fear of being persecuted as racist. In Britain patriotist has a long history of association with race and culture. I guess in the US this is not so, as the US never existed as one race and culture. I agree that my use of 'of course' was sloppy. Nevertheless, in my opinion your other explanation is highly contrived, while the link with Cultural Marxism is made by many writers. --Memestream 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've used the generalised definition which attaches political correctness to political aims, regardless of interpretation (i.e. patriot vs. intellectual traitor). It should be noted that "patriots," (i.e. persons indoctrinated and compliant with nationalist principles) are held to political standards just as, or more "politically correct" as those persons to whom the term is usually associated, although the definition of what is "correct" is correct by "patriotic" principles. At the extremes of the right-left divide, intolerance for those who are not "free" is as much a contradiction in logic as intolerance for those who are "free," the interpretation of "freedom" being itself a polticially controversial subject. Further, the modern movement is remarkably amercentric, yet largely ignores the ruling principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which by any other name would be as intrusive and restrictive by American Constitutional standards. It is academically imperative to identify the influences of right and left politics, in order that their roles in its history become better understood, and their limitations become better defined. It is also necessary to balance the amercentric nature of the article with better examination of "political correctness" (as the component of multiculturalism which ameliorates negative reaction to visible difference in minority groups) in other nations, in order to illustrate its roles and limitations in the global community.````ColonelDoctor

"Politically correct" politically correct??

The gender-neutral language article says that this term is used chiefly by opponents. Does this mean that the term "politically correct" lacks political correctness?? What would a term used by both advocates and opponents be?? Georgia guy 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where in the article? Also that would just raise political correctness to a new level of stupidity, even though it is a stupid ideal to begin with and has no proper foundation... Ah, I see it, I believe you misread it - "Gender-neutral language is sometimes described as non-sexist language by advocates, and politically-correct language by opponents". This means that the opponents of gender neutral language(gender neutral language being another silly idea), call it "politically-correct language", not that politically correct is not politically correct. Imperator Honorius 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[In the 1965 book, "Is Paris Burning?" was the word "correct" used somewhat in the way "politically correct" is used]?

It is "incorrect" by definition of what is politically correct, because stripped to its core, any society is divided into people who are considered "good" and "bad," however those terms are interpreted. Seeking to homogenise the "good" people with the "bad" people is an important aim of "political correctness" (modern interpretation), and so recognising any characteristic in any person which is incongruent with them being considered "good" is "bad," the inherent paradox making itself clear immediately. Those who are allowed to freely participate in society without major restriction are generally "good," and those who are restricted from participation are generally "bad." Being "politically incorrect" seriously restricts the ability of someone to fully participate in society, and makes them "bad," which is politically incorrect, and therefore nullifies the meaning of the term. This in turn nullifies the meaning of most political terms, which leads to the malaise often associated with intellectually isolated (out of touch) politics, as participation in a meaningless system relies chiefly on opportunistic motives and ideologic dedication. It should be noted the last two sentences illustrate key components of unproductive corruption, gods forbid administrative pragmatism should enter a discussion of political correctness.

The impetus placed on rehabilitation and reintegration of violent offenders is one example of a politically correct ideal, one which suggests the commission of crimes is not worthy of stigma, and that being the victim of a violent crime is neither worthy of stigma, but that both are inherently equal and accessible to the benefits of society as a right. To many, this nullifies the meaning of Law, and the quality of being a civic-minded citizen at the same time.

"Orthodox" was used until ecclesiastical purity and canonical law became euphemistic for oppressive dictatorship, and as a result of the clergy losing its place in history. After that "acceptable" and "accepted" ran its course, although it never carried the red-eyed threat of "politically correct." It must be understood that revolutionary language is also evolutionary, and an invented term's relevance to its subject will change as it is used and abused (ironically, the rapid shift in officially "correct" terms during the politically correct movement reflect this truth exactly). At this point in history, the term itself has lost much of its meaning. The next big term describing academic terror in modern democratic freedom will either be "shut up, plebe," ("sup" to remain hip with ebonics-speaking persons, which itself is a racist act by supposing persons who use ebonics in certain social circles are unable to speak English, and require non-white accomodation before intelligent communication can begin), or something like, "Zero Impact Language", which term is copyright 2008, Theodore de Groot.

"Zero Impact Language Communicating Harmony" (zilch) would be too poetically correct, and is copyright 2008, Theodore de Groot. "Poetically correct," is copyright 2008, Theodore de Groot.

Any term using "neutral" to replace "correct" is politically incorrect, because the global warming issue has given rise to the idea of "carbon neutrality," which involves taking away from one what is put into another, then considered to come out "even" in the end. This is incongruent with "correct" politics, because calling a black person by a racial epithet, then telling everyone persons of African descent are some of your best friends is by no means "neutral." This "neutral" idea is the domain of unintelligent Canadian politicians and should therefore not be considered worthy of inclusion in a resource of facts. Ultimately, the only nonoffensive phrase is that which deletes itself from the vocabulary before being uttered.Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

"Pejorative sense"?

I am unconvinced by the claim that the term is almost always used in the pejorative sense.

This would mean that phrases like "not politically correct" almost always mean "righteous", which is false.

And by the way, what kind of reference is "Lind, Buchanan, Sobran, Hentoff, Schlesinger"? Is it a book? Is it a journal? Is it a plane? 83.67.217.254 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the type of reference used for many years in the real world. It refers to some of the books listed near the bottom of the page. Amazing. --Cberlet 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, amazing that WP would accept such a substandard citation scheme. How about Sobran? Since I don't see a reliable source I have removed it. 83.67.217.254 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to improve the citations, feel free. Although it reads in a rather cumbersome way, it would probably be better to use explicit references in in the info, just in case later references are removed (as seems to have happened with Sobran).JQ 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Go and check your local bookshop to see books proclaiming themselves "Politically incorrect". Then look for books saying, critically, that X is not politically correct. JQ 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research. Can somebody please tell me how I can verify using reliable sources that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense"? I think that citing three books for such a specific and bold claim is not acceptable. We need a more specific reference, possibly a quotation. Short of that, I will remove the sentence.

Also, you seem to misunderstand either my objection above, or the whole meaning of "pejorative". 205.228.73.13 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter that you disagree with the assessment, what matters is that several authors have made the claim. To rebut it, you need to find a cite from a reputable published source.--Cberlet 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please quote said authors saying that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". 83.67.217.254 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the authors we've cited are illustrations of the point, rather than people making it. But it's easy to find a direct source for the statement. Go [1] here and we can quote "By the early '90s, political correctness had become a pejorative term associated with Thought Police, ridiculed in the media under such headlines as It's a Sexist, Racist, Fatist, Ageist World or No Free Speech Please, We're Students." Google will turn up plenty more.JQ 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I propose we change the wording to a more balanced "Some take the view that the expression is pejorative" or something like that. The opinion is divided, so stating only one opinion as a hard fact is extremely biased. 83.67.217.254 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First you need to find examples of people using the term in a positive way (ideally, to avoid original research, people stating that the term is one of praise, and endorsing its use in this way). Otherwise, the only change required is to remove "almost", and say the term "is now used exclusively in a pejorative sense". I assume, from your comments, that you yourself use the term as one of praise, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples of this kind. JQ 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very balanced view from which is clear what the original meaning is, and how the right wing agenda is bending its meaning. Also see virtually any dictionary.

[2]

[3]

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary: politically correct (also PC) (of language or behaviour) that does not offend particular groups of people Example: It is politically correct to use `he or she', and not just `he', when you mean a man or a woman.

[4]

Also interesting how according to Wiktionary, Politically correct, while listed as an antonym of politically incorrect the definitions do not read like they are antonyms at all. This is because the original definition of PC has been omitted. 83.67.217.254 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article makes clear the meaning in the same way as these dictionary definitions. The point of the sentence about pejorative use is that no one in fact uses the term favorably and in its original sense any more. It was, as the article continues, used ironically on the left and then pejoratively (mainly, though not exclusively on the right). The quote from 1970 is a good one, showing that the term was used unironically then, although I'd read it more literally as "adhering to the correct political line", rather than as a reference to PC language.JQ 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries, by definition, illustrate the current language in use and are authoritative sources. This is in line with my everyday experience, telling me that the phrase is used mostly without any intent of ridicule (at least it is in the UK).

Anyway, I'm glad you like the article I quoted. Do you agree to use it as a reference to say that the 1970 quote is a "use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and that "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'."? 83.67.217.254 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Cade reference, which helps with the history. On the other hand, we still have no evidence of the term being used in anything like this sense currently, and plenty of evidence that it is now used pejoratively and understood as a pejorative term. Maybe if you could clarify why you think the favorable use is still current, it would help the discussion. In what contexts have you encountered favorable uses? If you can identify them, maybe we could find some reliable sources to illustrate this use.JQ 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence apart from what I've already provided you mean? Dictionaries, by definition, illustrate the current language in use and are authoritative sources. In particular, this makes it clear that there are two distinct meanings of the expression, one original and one acquired. The current article as it stands is biased. Goodbye. 83.67.217.254 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is not "politically correct," in the pejorative sense is technically always righteous by generally recognised principles of the politically correct movement. Since revolutionary change and challenging predetermined maxims of questionable origin with scholarship is the means by which politically correct change in fact occurs, even if one is sarcastic or sardonic in their use of the phrase, "politically correct," they are acting in accordance with politically correct principles. One might say they are playing from their opponents' rulebooks, which is a Gramsky-ite principle. Thus, they are, both by the standards of political correctness, and by the standards of their beliefs which dictate intellectual tyrrany must be "struggled against," so principles of life and liberty return to democratic life, acting in righteous ways. The nature of the term and its significance is such that any use outside of criticising political correctness itself is politically correct. The only alternative to this idiosyncratic truth is that it is part of a social revolution which seeks to upset and overturn tradition and heritage in Western countries, which thus far has been violently disowned as a guiding principle by principals of the movement.

No discussion - no tags

Removed.--Cberlet 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They were discussed, above, but that didn't seem to generate any consensus. Octane ^{[improve me]} 25.07.07 0255 (UTC)

Well, yes, there has been no serious discussion of editing text based on either tag for many weeks, and there have been several additions of material for countries outside the U.S. The page in an NPOV way shows both sides of a contentious debate. Why stir up trouble? What's the point?--Cberlet 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I'd just like to see the discussion I mentioned above closed amicably. It rather seems that it just tapered off, without any conclusion. I suppose if no one came back, then that's an indicator that nobody really cared, but still. Octane ^{[improve me]} 25.07.07 0319 (UTC)

This page is so highly contentious that it attracts emotional partisans on both side with narrow POV's. They arrive, freak out, discuss for a time, then wander off after other editors point out the long history of disagreements here and the long history of building a consensus that struggles to achieve NPOV. If someone wants to retag and start another discussion over specific text they are welcome to do that. But just restoring the tags without having a serious discussion over specific text is just not constructive, no matter how well-intenioned.--Cberlet 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - yes tags. 83.67.217.254 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No discussion of edits means no tags. Keep this up and I will ask that the page temporarily be locked against anonymous users.

--Cberlet 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-added POV tag, please stop reverting (3RR). I offered several reliable sources with a balanced view in the discussion above (yes discussion), but they were disregarded (no consensus). 83.67.217.254 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, your threats are not conductive to a civil discussion. Please stop. 83.67.217.254 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed the tag again, stating that there was a consensus. I think that from this discussion page it is obvious that this is a very controversial article and we have not found a consensus, in particular about the sentence I disputed. Please stop removing the tag. 83.67.217.254 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of an NPOV dispute tag is to warn the reader that a dispute is ongoing on the talk page. Not just that you disagree with the state of the article, but that there is actually a discussion of the NPOVness of the article taking place.

A discussion of whether to have a tag or not is not a discussion of the NPOVness of the article. The fact that you are squabbling over the tag is not itself evidence that the tag should be there. In order for the tag to be there, you need to be making constructive arguments about how to make the article more NPOV. --FOo 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done just that in the section above. I have now rearranged the introduction and hope that this is an acceptable way to resolve this dispute. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

John Quiggin reverted the contentious point. Dispute stands. Re-adding POV tag. 83.67.217.254 11:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See Also Links

In the 'See Also' links, the link 'Spin (political)' redirects to 'Spin (public relations)'. Can someone correct the original link to prevent the redirect?

I would do that, but the page is now semi-protected, for reasons that frankly escape me. 83.67.217.254 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Grow up people. PC is a term of the 21st century and not of a Marxist 19th century. I would suggest you move to the semantics area of this site if you want to discuss the differences between political correctness or being politically correct (although an understanding of the difference between adjectives, adverbs and nouns would help). The term 'politically correct' is self explanatory as it simply corresponds to to the ethics and beliefs of the political powers of the time. Hence in 19th century America n***er was acceptable; in 20th century South Africa 'coloured' was acceptable. Neither terms are acceptable now but who knows how that will change in years to come.

Cited text to improve page?

OK, everyone has an opionion, and they often conflict, especially on this entry. Sooooooo. Does anyone have text from a reputable published source that would improve this page and make it conform more to the goals of NPOV?--Cberlet 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See above. 205.228.73.13 05:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I proposed quotes from various dictionaries [5] [6] [7] and a quote from this to the effect of "the 1970 quote is a use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'." This last quotation in particular was dismissed as "OR". 205.228.73.11 06:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not share the same goals as an encyclopedia; they provide only a bare-bones definition of what a word means, with (outside of the occasional usage note) little regard for how it is used. They are not useful when better sources are available, and, in particular, it is absurd to suggest that the one sentence devoted to definition in a dictionary can be used to respond to multiple entire published works analyzing the origins and usage of the term at hand. The 1970 quote is plainly not using 'politically correct' in the manner referred to in this article; it makes no connection to language whatsoever, and, indeed, is from 1970, before the word assumed much of its modern meaning. The website you linked to is not a good source, since it itself provides no sources... it is hardly better than a blog, representing the off-hand opinions of the author and nothing more. Given the controversially of the subject, if you honestly believe that there are a significant number of people in the world today who use 'political correctness', unironically, as a favorable term today, it should be simple enough to provide sources that describe this phenomena. --Aquillion 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reputable sources and the definitions of the terms describe their current use.

Gary Martin and Phrase Finder are indeed verifiable and reliable sources, and they are used and accepted as such in many Wikipedia articles. If you really think that it is not a reliable source, I challenge you to have such references removed from said articles.

In any case, dictionary definitions and quotes from the Phrase Finder are worth much more than a POV bold statement backed by vague (and POV) references.

The burden is on whoever defends the disputed sentence to find quotes to back it up. 205.228.73.11 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you have that backwards. We have cites to back up the current text. You must locate and provide cites to back up your claims. I agree with what Aquillion posted above.--Cberlet 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not have any quotes that support that "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense." On the contrary, I don't see how you can deny that I have located and provided (multiple times actually) references to back up my claims.

Also, I am confused. First, you seek sources "that would improve this page and make it conform more to the goals of NPOV". Now you are saying that "we have cites to back up the current text". 205.228.73.11 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense. Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense. Please find a cite where the term is used in a positive sense, or a cite where someone claims the term is used overwhelmingly in the positive sense. We already have in the entry the claim that liberals and leftists use the term in the positive sense, and the counterclaim that this is not true. You need to mnove beyond a omne-sided POV on this term. The page is trying to explain a complicated situation where claims and counterclaims about the term, its usage, and origin conflict. What you are citing is insufficient, and superficial. AN encyclopedia entry seeks to have more depth than a dictionary definition.--Cberlet 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.

"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact.

"Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. (And by the way please change "in Aufderherde" to ""in Aufderheide", or even better "in Aufderheide (ed.), 1992".)

I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.

I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To repeat a point that's been made many times already, what's needed, if you want to change this text, are some actual instances of the word being used in a non-pejorative sense some time in the recent past (say, this century). It seems clear in fact that to the extent that other encyclopedias claim there is a non-pejorative use t they are out of date, or just plain wrong. Since you seem to dispute this, I'd ask you personally - do you use the term "politically correct" in a favorable sense? Does anybody you know use it this way? If not, why are you pushing a claim which, on your own experience is false?JQ 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the burden of finding reliable and verifiable sources to support that "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense" is on you. Else we have to remove that claim or change it (as I explained above).

You cannot discount the sources that I put forward proving the contrary as "out of date" or "plain wrong" just because they disagree with your POV. The whole point of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The way I use this term is even less relevant to this discussion than how Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff and Schlesinger use it. 83.67.217.254 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've established that you've never heard or read the term being used in the way you want to define it, and that the same is true for everyone else here, despite access to Google and lots of other sources. PhraseFinder may have failed to get the usage right, but Wiktionary gets it right, and so should we.JQ 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep citing sources that disagree with your POV as wrong, and even cite a dictionary to support your argument, right after you and two other editors have dismissed all dictionaries as sources for reasons that I cannot understand.

Also interesting how the dictionary you choose to quote is a dictionary that Wikipedia cannot accept as a reliable source, and whose definition of "politically correct" I have exposed as inconsistent with its own definition of "politically incorrect".

Feel free to draw your misguided conclusions about my having never heard this or read that, but all my points regarding the sentence that you are defending still stand. Please stop asking me to prove that the sentence you want to keep is wrong, because, I repeat, the burden is on you to prove it correct, in the way that I have explained above.

You seem to be more interested in getting rid of the POV tag than actually improving the article, given that none of you have fixed the mistakes that I and other unregistered users have pointed out and that we cannot fix because the page is for some reason semi-protected. 83.67.217.254 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not happy to find that this page is fully protected, and wish to join in this discussion in support of the above. Will you please unprotect? --Memestream 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On closer reading, I apologise to PhraseFinder. The definition "Description of the practice of using speech that conforms to liberal or radical opinion by avoiding language which might cause offence to or disadvantage social minorities" is quite accurate, and pretty close to what we already have. Of course, this description is invariably pejorative, as noted in our article. PhraseFinder doesn't say anything explicit about this one way or the other, but it's clear from the examples "Personchester" for example, that this is the case . So, I'd be happy to quote the definition in PhraseFinder with the observation, supported by our references, that the term has been used in primarily pejorative or ironic senses since the late 1970s, and is now exclusively used this way.JQ 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that definition is close to what we have, but I do not consider it adequate as it only covers the use of the phrase politically correct in relation to language. There is overwhelming evidence (which I will try to give in detailed citations if I ever get a chance) that political correctness is being used to censor actions and opinions, especially on University campuses and, in Britain, within local councils and by the 'Commitee for standards in public life'. In all these places it passes effectively as law, and has been used to fire professors, expel students, block talks and lectures, and even to suspend the mayor of London (despite his protests). I would be happy to see the definition relating to language, but only as one example of the application of the term, which I believe is fundamentally coercive in accordance with a particular set of values. Please note that one of the above dictionary definitions makes clear the fact that we are dealing with a NOUN phrase, not an adjectival phrase, as I have stressed before. I want to change the opening line of this article to make it into a sentence, which currently it is not, as it fails grammatically. This is important, as a noun cannot describe anything - it certainly cannot describe language. The inclusion of 'is a term used to describe' is a bit of word juggling that pretends to bridge the meaning gap, but fails to do so. When I went to some effort to get this across before, I was answered to the effect that it didn't matter. It matters a lot to me, as the grammatical error is being used to hide the linguistic impossibility of the current meaning. Can I insist please on grammatical correctness? Do I have support for that? --Memestream 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "'political correctness' describes..." may be inaccurate on grammatical grounds, but it's not ungrammatical. In the same way "'to walk' is a noun" is inaccurate on grammatical grounds but not ungrammatical. "Political correctness" is the name of a noun-phrase, and that noun-phrase is the subject of the sentence; "describes" is a verb, and agrees with the subject. If you don't like saying that a noun-phrase describes something, we could say it is "a name given to", which doesn't, AFAICS, alter the meaning at all. VoluntarySlave 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a view on the grammatical issue, but I'd be happy with something like "The term is also used more generally to refer to any action seen as restricting or censoring the expression of views inconsistent with political orthodoxy, particularly where this orthodoxy is liberal or leftwing"JQ 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Memestream. Can someone offer a counter-proposal for the opening sentence, perhaps in a separate section? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To JQ, you keep being dishonestly selective about quotations and sources. As I have already said, since you accept the PhraseFinder as a source, then you should have no problems citing it in support of the fact that the 1970 quote is a "use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and that "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'." Both of which contradict the sentence that you are so desperately trying to defend, which remains unsupported by any citations, and should therefore be removed or changed as I have explained above. 83.67.217.254 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the accusation of bad faith above, I won't engage further with you, 83.67.217.254.JQ 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just having reading comprehension problems, but I can't figure out what "some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'" means. Could someone explain it? VoluntarySlave 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with JQ's proposal "The term is also used more generally to refer to any action seen as restricting or censoring the expression of views inconsistent with political orthodoxy", provided that the sentence I am disputing is removed. Note that this alternative usage is pretty much consistent with the second definition of the American Heritage dictionary, which we can use as a reference. If we also want to include the last part, "particularly where this orthodoxy is liberal or leftwing", I would like to see some kind of (politically neutral) reference to back it up. As JQ pointed out, the PhraseFinder would seem adequate for that purpose. 83.67.217.254 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not happy that 'Political correctness describes ..' is grammatically correct, though I suspect that a full technical explanation of why it is not correct would be somewhat obscure. What bothers me is that Political correctness is a state of being, and I don't think a state of being (which is passive) can be the subject of the verb (which does the doing). I would therefore like to see the opening sentence read something like: "Political correctness is the state of being judged acceptable according to a widely understood and implied set of values. While the term has in the past been used to refer to the values of a particular political party in power, modern use relates to values which are more obscure in origin, but generally considered to be in accordance with liberal or leftwing politics or orthodox theory." I include 'orthodox theory' because I can cite cases where scientists have claimed that political correctness was behind their persecution over legitimate work which resulted in theories that challenged the current accepted wisdom (for example Ted Steele in his book Lamarck's signature). Another example I would cite is Noam Chomsky in relation to 'inconvenient truths' that have nothing to do with non-offensive language. We could follow the opening definition with something like: "language, actions, teachings, beliefs and theories can all be judged politically correct or incorrect, though some people emphasis the language aspect, regarding language that is calculated not to offend certain groups (especially . . .) as a major feature of political correctness." --Memestream 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not acceptable on this page. Cite, quote, edit text. The rest is a time vortex--Cberlet 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

The recent set of discussions here are almost all original research. Please find cites, rather than making assumptions that there are actually significant numbers of people, even on the left, that make judgements that anything is "politically correct or incorrect." The whole dispute is over the claim that this is true at all. The contemporary use of the term is almost entirely as a perjorative, as the current cites suggest.--Cberlet 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Can you give us an example of what you consider original research in this discussion?

Also, I disagree that the current cites suggest that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". This was explained in my latest reply to you

When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.

"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact. "Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. (And by the way please change "in Aufderherde" to ""in Aufderheide", or even better "in Aufderheide (ed.), 1992".)
I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.
I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

83.67.217.254 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot make sense of what is meant by 'the term is used in the perjorative sense'. I understand the words, but that sentence is just too convoluted, given that Political correctness is a noun phrase, a state of being, and so just does not fit in. Is it supposed to mean 'Political correctness is regarded as bad'. Or, 'Political correctness is used to condem people as bad'. Or 'Political correctness is condemned'. Or 'Politically correct language is used to label people as bad'? Please can we drop that sentence as it lacks adequate subjects and objects (yes it has a subject and object, but not for the perjorative action). 'In the perjorative sense' is a meaningless phrase unless defined in relation to something or somebody. --Memestream 10:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I think that this discussion should pause and wait for an apology from 83.67.217.254 to JQ. Aggressive bullying has been tolerated for too long. We cannot simply ignore it. Driving editors with whom one has a disagreement off a discussion page with a personal attack violates basic Wiki gidelines. I await a response.--Cberlet 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what was said constituted a personal attack or an attempt to drive you off the discussion page. Saying that you were being dishonest in certain matters as described was a reasonable expression of opinion, not the same as calling you a downright liar. The user appears polite, if forceful, and uses no bad language. --Memestream 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my above post. I am not JQ. I am objecting to the personal attack on JQ. --Cberlet 06:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did realise that, but slipped up in the writing where I should have worded my comment a little differently, replacing 'you' with JQ. Nevertheless I think the meaning is clear.

I apologise if I offended anyone. 83.67.217.254 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

Does anyone know what this sentence is trying to say? It is currently garbled:

• Critics often use terms such as inclusive language and civility are often used to praise language that they see as "politically correct".

Yikes...--Cberlet 06:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what was meant was

• Critics often use terms such as inclusive language and civility to praise language that they see as "politically correct".

83.67.217.254 07:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible it meant to say:

• Critics sometimes realise political correctness is canonical law imposed upon secular societies, but making the game that plain takes away a lot of incentive to federally fund intellectual terrorism to the incredible extent it exists in modern liberal democracies. In fact (the sentence might continue), what we are witnessing is akin to pre-Renaissance hegemony over knowledge held by the First Estate of the Realm being fortuitously, and beneficially--to the cause of human freedom--overturned in the name of yet another return to democratic empowerment of individuals; the discredit of those institutions which officially lord knowledge over the masses, and the reemergence of the dynamic, relevant citizen.

But only maybe. Coloneldoctor (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

Please unprotect

Why exactly was this page(fully) protected, and by whom? I've just come to it, and though it is difficult to get a full picture of what has gone on, I see no evidence of an 'edit war', or abuse, or vandalism, just very active argument. If the one unregistered editor is considered the problem, then why not ask him for an undertaking of some sort (he seems amicable enough to me) and then unprotect - or else follow the necessary procedure to block him if you really feel that to be justified. At the moment the page appears to be frozen at a supposed consensus by a few editors, and yet it still carries the disputed template, and I for one, having no connection with any dispute, would like to edit it. --Memestream 10:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for a semi-protection, let alone a full protection. I am not aware of any discussions about protecting the article, definitely not on this talk page. The only thing I was involved in that could possibly be construed as an edit war (not without a lot of imagination) was the adding/removal of the POV tag. Please (fully) unprotect. Users have already requested at least two specific uncontroversial changes, and nobody has effected them. 83.67.217.254 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the story: Cberlet requests a semi-protection specifically against me, and with motivations that I do not accept as corresponding to the truth. (Look at the page history and judge for yourself.) Pax:Vobiscum fully protects. 83.67.217.254 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See this section for a better understanding of the context of this protection. 83.67.217.254 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If the request was for semi-protection, why can I not edit the article? I'm a well established registered user. --Memestream 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see the log shows full protection. I've just pointed out this error to Pax:Vobiscum and requested that he unprotects the article. --Memestream 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested (in order to exclude only one party, me, from an alleged edit war), and the admin protected fully. 83.67.217.254 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I used full protection to enforce a cool down period (Wikipedia:Protection policy) since there was a revert-war going on regarding the POV-tag. Semi-protection was requested but wasn't appropriate (semi-protection is used to stop vandalism, not in content disputes). I'm going to lift the protection now so that editing can continue, but I will protect the article again if the revert-war continues. Pax:Vobiscum 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Editorialising

I've reverted a set of changes made by Memestream that breach WP:OR, bear no relation to anything discussed on the talk page, and appear to be expressions of personal opinion. The only substantive change I've made since protection was lifted was to include an expanded definition suggested by Memestream (I also fixed a sentence that had been garbled in editing). If we're not going to have to lock the article down again, can I suggest that no change be made without seeking consensus on the talk page first.JQ 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Would that apply to you as well? You have introduced a sentence that you have proposed in this talk page and that has been accepted by one editor (me) conditionally to the removal of another sentence ("pejorative" etc). Since Memestream also expressed his doubts on that sentence, I am now going to remove it. If you want it reintroduced, please resume the discussion above. 83.67.217.254 08:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

John Quiggin reverted all changes since the unblock with comment "Obviously, we're going nowhere here", and no comments left on this talk page. This revert included typo fixes and a link disambiguation. 83.67.217.254 12:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are going nowhere, as John Quiggin comments, then I suggest that it is because the page has been held in a state that I (and too many others) regard as POV for a long time. During that time, many editors have stopped by, had a go, and left, saying that the page is essentially wrong (I'll quote them all here if you really want me to, but that would be tedious). Now, two of us want to change things. Of course, our POV may be no better than what we see as the existing POV, but the real point is surely that you have had your chance to achieve consensus, and have never achieved it, as witnessed by the 'disputed' template. Might I suggest that you (JQ and CBerlet in particular) agree to stand back a little for a while and let the page develop along a different course. I do not know to what extent 83.67.217.254 and I agree, but I do know that both he and I have persisted long and hard in the face of almost total reversion of everything we have written. I also know that we are being asked repeatedly to submit our ideas first, on the talk page, for scrutiny by just a few people who seem to think they know better, and yet have managed only to keep the page in an unhappy state of constant dispute. --Memestream 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several key arguments being used against our material, which have been repeated again and again, but which I do not accept. The revert of my material on the basis of OR is one I reject. I also reject the accusation that I am writing my own ideas. Original research in relation to Wikipedia is a tricky business, and I have thought long and hard about it. I would argue that if placing together quotes from reputable authorities leads the reader to new conclusions, possibly conclusions that have not been stated so well before, that is a strength of Wikipedia. It's aiding what E. O. Wilson calls consilience. It's not original research. I would also argue that good editing requires 'paper' research - for example, I have bought six books and studied them in the course of editing this page. True original research is not 'paper' research, it's pushing your own theory. I happen to think that the ideas of Buchanan, for example, deserve serious consideration. They are certainly not 'minority views' inasmuch as that they are our there, repeated over and over on the web and elsewhere. On this page, writers like Buchanan are dismissed as 'crackpot conspiracy theorists', but this is pure POV and we do not have to just accept it. I suggest that it is very hard to prove that the ideas of Buchanan are crackpot, because proving a negative is never possible - you have to show that every conceivable explanation is false, but if the ideas are reasonable, then it should be possible to demonstrate, by citations, that this is the case. I want to do this by adding a whole section on cultural Marxism, critical theory, and Kurt Lewin's 'sensitivity training'. Then the reader can judge whether political correctness looks like an aspect of critical theory maskerading under another name, as Buchanan and others claim. I made changes to the introduction which I believe would set us on a better course, but I cannot make my case for the validity of those changes in one edit, and if every edit I make is reverted instantly, without discussion, by a couple of people who are convinced that their POV is right, I can get nowhere. The proper place for detailed citations in support of the changes is in detail sections, not in the introduction. Demonstrating the case for Buchanan's theory is not original research, it's providing the reader with the supporting evidence that a significant writer has put forward, to counter the 'crackpot' allegations. Incidentally, I intend to cite several new major sources, such as Noam Chomsky. Is he a 'crackpot'? It's hard to add citations that mean anything if I cannot establish the context first. Incidentally, I think all citations should now quote actual text, and where possible a page reference. Just listing three names is rubbish. --Memestream 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole Cultural Marxism theory is, in my view, a crackpot far-right conspiracy theory, tainted with antisemitism. So you see the problem. If I were writing this entry it would look even worse to conservatives. This page is already a compromise. It satisifies few. That's OK, becasue it is cited and NPOV. I think that this page has had the contributions of many editors across the political spectrum who have come here, edited text, and provided citations from reputable sources. We are here to edit text, not insert our uncited opinions -- from any political viewpoint -- into the enty. An encyclopedia aspires to a higher level of information than a dictionary. It is that simple.--Cberlet 15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Would that be in your view as "opinionated but willing to talk", who proudly displays the 'all-seeing eye' on his personal page along with the declaration, "this user serves the will of the Illuminati"? Hardly good credentials for NPOV editing, especially given that those commentators who denounce PC also denounce the Illuminati. You are, it would seem by your own confession, a man on a mission. By the way, I'm not the least bit interested in 'conservatives'. This whole 'tagging' business has no place on Wikipedia, and is part of PC. I judge men by the whole of their writings, not how they get tagged by their enemies. --Memestream 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA Political Research Associates: (I reproduce this here as I think it relevant information for other editors, considering this editor's denial of a Marxist connection, and not as a personal attack). The David Horowitz Freedom Center accuses PRA mainstay Chip Berlet of engaging in "smear" tactics and accuses PRA of promoting a "hard-left agenda". The article on PRA at Horowitz' Discover the Networks (DTN) site says the organization's purpose is to promote the Marxist doctrines of "dialectical materialism" and "progressive internationalism". It says PRA endorsed the adoption of the Plan of Action from the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, "largely a forum for anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric".

I've done a lot of work on the intro, and I now ask that it be left in place and discussed here. I've given serious and specific citations, and I've left all opposing views in place. If you give me a chance I will now write a section on Cultural Marxism and PC, explaining how Buchanan and many others link this with PC. That section will expand on the ideas in the intro, allowing the reader to make sense of the claims of Buchanan etc. --Memestream 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this material is fine for the article, except that it is not backed up by proper citations. Some of it's a bit marginal, like the quote from someone who was on the Archers, but I don't have a particular problem with it. However, this material belongs in the body not in the intro. Note also that the examples added by Memestream all support the conclusion that this term is used exclusive in a pejorative fashion.JQ 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my citations are better than any produced so far, in that they give a specific quote of what was said, and where. It isn't 'somebody who was in the Archers', it's the long standing producer of the Archers, which makes her a major figure in the BBC, and a major figure in any discussion of 'media propaganda'. The Archers may seem insignificant to Americans (and to me), but, given its status as the longest running 'soap' in the world, together with the allegations of writers like Peter Hitchens that soaps are being written to comply with politically correct values, and the considerable discussion that has taken place in Britain over changes in the nature of Archers storylines (which brought massive complaints many alleging political correctness as the basis of 'unrealistic and contrived storylines'), I suggest to you that this stunning confession from its producer represents a very significant quote indeed. Of course, it is possible that she didn't say it, but the book by Peter Hitchens is mainstream, well known and much reviewed, so I think there would have been trouble by now if he had got it wrong. Please can we drop this term, 'in a perjorative fashion'! I've explained why, but got no response, and others want the term dropped. I do agree that the references would be better in main sections, but I've explained all that, again without reply. Those of us who want to change the article significantly cannot get anything in place for long enough for anyone else to comment on it, or build the structure in which the citations make sense. Currently this is down to two editors, yourself and Cberlet. I think I am justified in reverting back now. It took a lot of effort and time and research. Please leave it for others to see, and challenge only one item at a time before reverting, so that I can make my case as I have done regarding 'the Archers'.

Your comment that all the examples I have added support one side of the argument seems superfluous. There is nothing wrong with that. You are at liberty to add the other side, and Wikipedia rules specifically require fair space to all 'mainstream' points of view. If you want to argue that my material is not 'mainstream' I will challenge you, as I think the idea ridiculous. Please remember that I am in Britain. This page has had a template complaining that it did not represent all parts of the world (which I will put back if I am not allowed my entries). Surely it isn't hard for you to see that Americans might just be living in a different (even blinkered) world, from others, and stop trying to trivialise what I add because it doesn't seem the case in your world. Have you read 'The Abolition of Britain'? It's not 'crackpot conspiracy theory' it's just honest description of what he perceives as happening, which has been said by reviewers to reflect what 'many in Britain feel, but dare not speak'. --Memestream 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a quote and a cite, Memestream. If you are going to edit a controversial entry, is is your obligation to learn the difference and provide an actual citation where other editors can verify the quote and examine the context. Your arguments are often hard to make sense of, and your claims are highly POV and often reflect original research WP:OR. Please take the time to learn more guidelines for editing here before claiming that other editos are engaging in bad actions. Please refrain from further personal attacks. Please do not post false and asinine claims from any of the David Horowitz websites here as proof of anything except the penchant of David Horowitz to allow false and asinine claims to appear under his auspices. As Aaron Barlow explains: "Why lie, if it can be so easily discovered? The point, for Horowitz, like McCarthy before him, seems to be to lie in such a way that the rebuttal sounds like a splitting of hairs." See the reference here: Aaron Barlow, "The Art of the Slur: From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz," the Public Eye Magazine, Fall 2006. I consider what you did above by posting these false and asinine claims to be a personal attack.--Cberlet 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please let's keep it cool. I have a few comments to make, but let me ruminate a bit more. 83.67.217.254 205.228.73.11 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it cool, but I think this constant and quick reversion despite abundant complaint, and lengthy reasoned discussion by me is a breach of Wikipedia policy.

Cberlet: Your writing is condescending. I am an experienced editor, and have studied Wikipedia policy on many occasions, being totally familiar with NPOV and especially the subtleties of OR. If my arguments are hard to make sense of it might be your problem, and a more polite approach would be to tell me what you don't understand, not trash my efforts. On the issue of personal attack, I am very familiar with the rules there too, and did not seek to discredit you by association, which is strictly not allowed. So get your facts right, I did not post material from David Horowitz, I posted a bit of a Wikipedia page on the organisation you work for, which is very different. If you do not like what it says about you personally you can of course object on that page. I posted the material to point out a peculiar contradiction, which is that you constantly delete material in any way connected with conspiracy theories, by labelling them crackpot without furthur explanation. I took this to mean that you think conspiracies, and specifically those discussed by Buchanan and LaRouche, do not exist. Is that right? If so, it is surely very peculiar indeed that you say on your personal Wikipedia page that you 'serve the will of the Illuminati. I think it fair to say that this is (broadly speaking and without going into claims and counterclaims of definition) the very conspiracy group that Buchannan and LeRouche talk about. Perhaps you claim that the Illuminati does exist but is not a conspiracy group - you think you are 'illuminated'? Unless that illumination is openly shared it would seem that you do 'serve the will' of a secret group. That is, I suppose, no bar to editing Wikipedia, but it could explain your persistent grip on this article. --Memestream 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An experienced editor should know that the Wiki editors who post the icon stating that we "'serve the will of the Illuminati," are being ironic because we have been attacked by crackpot conspiracy cranks who claim it is true. It is meant as a joke. We do not "serve the will of the Illuminati" because that organization was disbanded in the 1700s.--Cberlet 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia seems to be becoming an irony-free zone. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony and Satire on the web in general is a bad idea, because no matter how silly or extreme you make your statements, it can never be as extreme and silly as what some people will post in earnest. --86.154.218.67 12:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert, and Original research in relation to this article

I have said that I think the constant repeated reversion of large chunks of material without discussion goes against Wikipedia rules and advice. The advice given with regards to reverting is:

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

I do not think that revert is being taken seriously by certain editors, and what is occuring here is certainly not vandalism. The good faith of my edits, and those of 83.67.217.254 205.228.73.11 is abundantly clear from the sheer amount of work we are putting in, and the seriousness of our comments. I think I will revert again, reluctantly, and request that editors take note of the above, and do not remove valid information, but seek to improve it, or add to it, or request more info on citations etc. I also ask that you do not move it to less conspicuous paragraphs yet because that will restore the unbalance of the intro which is all important. Also because I do not agree that it fits the titles of those paragraphs.

Otherwise, I think you are going against the rules and this paragraph stands as my evidence in any further action you may try to take, like requesting protection for the page.

On Original research I would draw your attention to the following, from the OR page. I think it covers what I am writing, which is definitely not OR.

• Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. (from Wikipedia:No original research).

--Memestream 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with every assertion and conclusion in the above post. Plopping large amounts of marginal material representing one-sided POV into an entry is not constructive. Please discuss first.--Cberlet 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! You revert within minutes saying you disagree with every assertion in a post that quotes WP! No explanation. I will point you again to the WP statement:

• If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

Then you say 'discuss first'. What on earth do you think I am doing? Furthermore, I am accused of failing to give proper citations, but it seems that the references I added at the bottom of the page to two books have been deleted, without discussion. Is that so? If so why? I was about to proceed to integrating them into the references with proper inline citation, but the template used is complicated and I did not get time before all was gone again! Please will others help by adding those books back for me, in the references perhaps, or say why they are taken out. They were:

• The Abolition of Britain, (2000), Peter Hitchens, Quartet books, ISBN 0-7043-8140-0
• Lamarck's Signature ((1998), Edward J. Steele, Robyn A. Lindley & Robert V. Blandon, Allen and Unwin ISBN 1-86448-796-8

--Memestream 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As promised, a few comments in no particular order.

• Let's all relax a little.
• Please if you must revert, do it carefuly and with consideration of edits that are not controversial. Case in point, "Aufderherde" -> "Aufderheide" and the "spin" disambiguation, which have been mistakenly reverted twice by inconsiderate blanket reverts. The references are currently completely broken.
• Do I think that the information that Memestream added was original research? Mostly, no. There were quotations from reputable sources, of much better quality than POV assertions passed as hard objective facts and supported by vague, POV and, I agree, "rubbish" citations (yes, I'm referring to the "almost exclusively in a pejorative sense" paragraph, which I agree with Memestream should be discarded, although I suspect for different reasons). Do I think Memestream's changes should stay? Mostly yes, but I agree with JQ that they should mostly be moved in the body of the article, probably under "criticism". Do I agree with the views portrayed in those edits? The answer to this question is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
• Memestream's edits are, I think by his own admission, POV. And I mean this in the best possible of ways. They enrich WP of well-documented criticism of the term/concept. However, I do think that putting all that in the introduction, well-sourced though it largely is, creates an even worse imbalance between advocates and detractors of PC than there already was.
• One specific objection I have on Memestream's material, is about PC's aim "not to offend certain groups (especially ethnic, feminist, or racial)". I may be missing something, but was by "feminism" meant gender discrimination?
• Another general (mild) problem I have with Memestream's writing is that I personally find it difficult to follow and inadequate for the average reader.
• However, I think that none of these objections, individually or collectively, are sufficient grounds for obliterating Memestream's contributions with inflamatory reverts. The world is not going to come to an end if we leave those well-meaning changes there for a few days while we discuss them.
• I suggest we try to find a consensus on the intro first, and then move on to the main body. This is why I think that the dual dictionary definition of the American Heritage dictionary is a good starting point.

83.67.217.254 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider my edits POV in the (not allowed) Wikipedia sense of being just my point of view and hence unsupported by citations. What I meant was that all edits on a controversial page are POV, in that they are selective, and there are two or more points of view out there in the world, non necessarily more valid than the others so far as Wikipedia is concerned. I deliberately avoid the word 'gender' since being told that the word was commonly mis-used, as it refers strictly to grammatical classification. My concise Oxford dictionary confirms this, saying 'Gender: the classification of nouns and related words, roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness'. The point is that it refers to words, not the things they represent, and is therefore not interchangeable with the word sex. I guess in a PC world I should therefore say, 'sex discrimination'. Otherwise, I can go along with this. --Memestream 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted warning by MastCell

I have been threatened with being blocked from editing by the above user, who has taken little part in the discussions apart from criticising my seriousness. This, he says, is because I continually revert and there is a revert war on this page.

By my count I have reverted twice today, and once yesterday, and that's it, in months! If this is a revert war, then I'm not in it, am I? Can I have an appology? I never break the 3-revert rule, and three reverts in two months represents restraint by most peoples standards? --Memestream 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been threatened. You've been apprised of the 3-revert rule, because you're engaged in an edit war. The other editors are already aware of it, no doubt, but I wasn't sure if you were. Hence the note. Let me caution you against going right up to three reverts every 24 hours, because in the past, that sort of gaming the system has been frowned upon. As your edits are being reverted by several different editors, and the onus is on the editor seeking to add content to justify its inclusion, please consider working toward consensus here before reinserting your proposed changes again. Also, please centralize discussion; you've posted the same note to my user talk page, and I've responded further there. No need to cross-post. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to caution me in this condescending way - I've already told you (on your Talk) that I know the rules and NEVER break the three-revert rule. While I acknowledge that the onus is on me to justify inclusion, this is still overwritten by the rule that reversion is not to be used to delete content that adds something - no matter how much you think it is POV. I have discussed everything at great length and given full references to reliable sources. If anyone thinks this is not the case, then they must start a debate about the reliability of the sources, not just revert. This is made clear in WP:revert:

• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

• Generally there are MISCONCEPTIONS that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

Yes, there are indeed misconceptions. --Memestream 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cautioning a user of the three revert rule is standard practice, and if I recall correctly, an advision to inform parties that may or may not be aware of the rule is explicitly mentioned on the 3RR page itself. MastCell did not warn you maliciously but out of concern that you might violate it unknowingly. --ForbiddenWord 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I checked the quotes added to the intro by Memestream. The quote from the editor of the Archers (a long running BBC soap) was imputed by a hostile source (Peter Hitchens) and doesn't appear anywhere on Google, so I deleted it. In any case, this person can't be regarded as a notable example of usage in the UK. The quote from Latham was critical of "new correctness" - anyone who knows anything about Latham would know he is far from PC. I left the Ukrainian English teacher, as this might help to allay the concerns about a global view. She does at least indicate that we need to say "almost exclusively pejorative".JQ 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is a well known British journalist, author and broadcaster. What makes him a 'hostile source', and what is a 'hostile source'? Hostile to the political left no doubt, but that's not relevant here surely. Nothing on the wikipedia page for him, nor anything I found on a quick Google search suggests that he is anything but a respected and significant person. Who wrote this, it's unsigned? --Memestream 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote I gave, was from a secondary source admittedly, but a reputable one in a book from a mainstream publisher and hence arguably better than Web sources. Take a look please at Humbridge - political correctness in The Archers for an article in which the term PC abounds - 'politically correct storylines' and 'Mr Parkin, who worked on the show for 26 years, finally becoming the agricultural story editor, walked out after a string of clashes with Miss Whitburn. In particular he was said to be annoyed by her promotion of politically correct, and in his view unrealistic, plot ideas.' Here we surely have evidence of useage of the phraPC which supports what I have been saying - that it is not about speach primarily, it's about instilling values, or what Noam Chomsky and others call 'the manufacturing of consent in so-called democracy'.

Take a look too please at Political correctness gone mad Where you will read, "It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you: the nanny state interfering where she doesn't belong." Again not about language surely, but unwanted propaganda.

Then there's PC Thinking is harming society (on the BBC website - a very good source indeed) where you will read "Civitas says political correctness has allowed the creation of "Muslim ghettos" which produce suicide bombers." and "PC thinking now dominates schools, councils and the media, Anthony Browne says in The Retreat of Reason." 'PC thinking', note, not language.

Or Angry Harry where you will find detailed analysis of how science content is manipulated to arrive at desired PC conclusions. Again, manipulation, not language to avoid offence.

There are thousands of examples like this. Just Google BBC+political correctness, or Archers+political correctness, or Vanessa Whitburn+political correctness, and search the pages for PC. Thousands, all in the sense I am urging is the major British one. --Memestream 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just found the ARCHERS quote repeated on the web, at Shooting Parrots where you will find, "Vanessa Whitburn, editor in chief of the BBC Radio-4 soap opera The Archers, set in the non-existant village of Ambridge, is one of these unacknowledged power-wielders. I might add that she once declared that 'to be politically correct is really to be moral. It is having a moral stance. PC is, in fact, my moral plank'." I'd be grateful if anyone else would use these quotes and insert them inline appropriately. --Memestream 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To put this context, going to the blog indicated by Memestream, you find an extract from an article by Peter Hitchens attacking Ms Whitburn (this is what it means to be a hostile source), in which he says, without any supporting evidence " I might add that she once declared that 'to be politically correct is really to be moral. It is having a moral stance. PC is, in fact, my moral plank'". There is nothing remotely approaching a reliable source here, and in any case the material is too trivial to justify inclusion.JQ 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You will find there a blog which says after the quote, "so wrote Peter Hitchens on the Mail on Sunday last weekend". The Mail on Sunday is a reliable source, which is easily tracked down. The point is that the blog, and the Mail on Sunday and the book are all sources that demonstrate use of the phrase in the sense I am demostrating. This is valid, whether they are reliable sources for what Ms Whitburn said or not. Trivial? Try telling that to the millions who listen to and complain about 'the most listened to programme on BBC radio4'. In Britain 'The Archers' is an institution, and hugely important (don't get me wrong, I can't stand it). The fact that it has been at the centre of a big row over PC makes it very relevant here. When it comes to talk radio, Radio4 is the original of course - once the Home Service, the first broadcast radio channel in the Britain and possibly the world. It's very British. --Memestream 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A recurring pattern in our discussions and citations seems to be that there are three PCs.

1. Historical use (sticking to behaviour acceptable to the party line)
2. Behave in a way that does not offend or discriminate (currently the main meaning according to dictionaries and the PhraseFinder)
3. Being obsessed with this kind of behaviour and imposing it on others in a way that critics see as curtailing their freedom (PC "gone mad")

While I do not deny the existence of the latter, I do think that putting undue weight on it, especially in the intro, is inappropriate. It makes no sense to me to make an article on "X", however controversial, look like an article on "Criticism on X".

Take the article on George W. Bush, which I would guess has been one of the most debated articles in WP. The introduction is mostly neutral, with reference to criticism confined to the last part of the last paragraph (and backed by hard facts from independent sources). Then after four sections there is a "Criticism" section, plus two separate articles about criticism and public opinion (which may or may not be applicable to our case).

I find that balanced. 83.67.217.254 06:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I do not think that well-sourced edits that shift the balance to one side should be removed. As Memestream suggests, other editors, knowledgeable about the opposite view, can always edit away and re-establish that balance. But until then, a POV tag should advertise the need of such edits. 83.67.217.254 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the third definition completely, and reject language like 'being obsessed with'. The third definition is something more like, "As a coercive movement, thought by some to have just come about, and by others to be traceable to a conspiracy to destroy Western culture, which seeks to suppress some types of thought and behaviour and limit open discussion." Like it or not, call it 'crackpot' if you like, this is the main message that is out there. The phrase 'being obsessed with this kind of behaviour' refers to the the second definition - not offending, and in Britain this is not the primary meaning. In Britain it's seen as a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought. I know Americans don't get this, but I must insist that the links I have given very much demonstrate that I am right, many of them referring to 'politically correct thought'. --Memestream 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we may have four definitions.

There may have been a misunderstanding here. When I say "obsessed" in the third definition (used loosely here) I am not referring to PC critics being obsessed about pervasive PC in our society, but rather I refer to PC advocates being obsessed with PC and taking the concept to the extreme (reverse discrimination etc), hence "PC gone mad". This is I believe the second meaning in the American Heritage dictionary, which uses a probably better word for "obsessed": "overconcerned". I also believe that this is the "pejorative" meaning/usage that the article mentions.

I disagree (and so do the reliable and most importantly neutral sources that I cited) that the primary meaning of PC in UK is "a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought", although this may be so in some circles. 205.228.74.11 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The opposite is true. The critics of "Political Correctness" see it as "a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought." Thus the critics are using the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense. The counter argument is that the term "Political Correctness" was hijacked by right-wing critics of diversity and non-offensive language to imply there is a large "Political Correctness" movement which, in fact, does not exist. We have noted in the entry that a handful of people use the term in an affirmative sense. But it is clear that the vast majority of people use the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense to describe a tendency that they claim exists and of which they dissaprove.--Cberlet 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least five definitions over time:

1. First historic use -- ideas or actions seen as the proper political course.
2. Second historic use -- ideas or actions seen as within the Communist Party line.
3. 1970s-1980s -- ideas or actions seen as overly obsessed with a particular sectarian political viewpoint.
4. Ideas or actions that are designed to not offend or discriminate.
5. 1980s-2000s -- the claim that "Political Correctness" is infringing on free speech and trying to dominate the culture and enforce restrictions on language and ideas.

There is very little evidence that #4 ever existed among a significant number of people.

There is very little evidence that #5 can be demonstrated outside of citing people who claim it is true but offer only anecdotal evidence.

In any case, today it is mostly used in the perjorative sense by critics who use #5 as the frame.--Cberlet 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Thus the critics are using the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense." - I have no problem here.

"There is very little evidence that #4 ever existed among a significant number of people." - I disagree. The sources I have quoted report it as the main usage, some of them as the only one.

"But it is clear that the vast majority of people use the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense" - It is not clear to me, given the sources I have quoted. Do you have a quotation to back that up?

"There is very little evidence that #5 can be demonstrated [...]" - Should I take that as a "no"? 205.228.74.11 13:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to prove a negative. It is easy to demonstrate that the vast majority of people who use the term "Political Correctness" use it in the perjorative sense, even when they are claiming (without evidence) that there is a vast "Political Correctness" movement. We quote a number of people who claim there is a "Political Correctness" movement. That's NPOV. But try to find evidence (other than unsubstantiated claims) that there is a "Political Correctness" movement. Where are the social movement organizations that state they are building a "Political Correctness" movement? Where are the books extolling a "Political Correctness" movement? Where are the study guides for "Political Correctness" training? Where? Other than a tiny number of anecdotal examples, there are none to find. It is a myth.

This is from an interview I did for Lip Magazine:

• In 1988, you would have been hard-pressed to find a dozen citations of the term or any of its versions. By 1992, there were 10,000 articles in the English language on political correctness. Now, even a dullard could figure out that something had happened between 1988 and 1992. So you look for the period between 1988 to 1992 to determine what happened to suddenly make this such a hot term. And really, it starts out with a series of critiques on multicultural projects in higher education. A series of books come out, like Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals, and [D'Souza's] Illiberal Education, criticizing higher education and implying that a liberal authoritarian orthodoxy had taken over college campuses. We're talking here about a reframing of the idea of multicultural education and diversity. And it percolated. All of a sudden these books were prompting newspaper and magazine articles, and there was a series of [conservative] think tanks, such as the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, and groups like the National Association of Scholars, and Accuracy in Academia, who suddenly pick this up, and it becomes a bandwagon. Eventually, it escapes the confines of a critique of multiculturalism and diversity in higher education, and turns into a general critique that liberals and the left are engaging in an Orwellian project of thought control to force people to accept certain language, to re-educate them.

• But what's being criticized here? Attempts to redress inequalities of power on campus, to look at issues of race and gender, power and privilege, and what belongs in the canon—all of these are absolutely appropriate for discussion on a college campus!

Is that POV? Sure! Is it what I am trying to turn this page into? No! I am seeking an NPOV entry--not an entry that only reflects one POV. That's the goal here. Not writing what one person thinks is the "truth" about "Political Correctness."--Cberlet 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two slightly different things. I'll repeat my question. Does anybody have a quote from a reliable and neutral source supporting that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense? I have at least one saying the contrary, and therefore, unless some evidence comes up, I will remove that sentence. 83.67.217.254 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about different things. You have no support for your proposed deletion in reputable published cites, whereas the current sentence is supported by several cites.--Cberlet 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I will have to repeat myself once again, then. I don't need any "reputable published cites" (and yet I'm pretty sure I have offered a few) to remove an allegation that is not supported. The onus is on you to find quotations that support what you is being passed for a hard fact. The fact that we have something enclosed between <ref> and </ref> does not mean that those are supporting the assertion. What exactly do you mean by "cite"? (Is it even a noun?) I still cannot see a quote supporting that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. Perhaps I should copy and paste once again my remarks on which you have not commented yet

When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.

"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact.

"Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. [...]

I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.

I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

83.67.217.254 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not accurate and POV. See: Schultz, Debra L. (1993). To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the “Political Correctness” Debates in Higher Education. New York: National Council for Research on Women. According to this study, the term has been appropriated by the right to attack the left. If you want to argue otherwise, please find a cite in a reputable published source. Otherwise, it is just another right-wing conspiracy theory attacking the left. --Cberlet 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not accurate and POV." What does this refer to?

You are not addressing my concerns and not answering my questions. We still have no quote to support that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.

What you offered can be used to support that "Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term 'political correctness' is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." But not that "the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". 83.67.217.254 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Newly-offered "cite" moved as per rationale above. 83.67.217.254 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete references. There's no point appealing to the discussion when it shows you have no support on this.JQ 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would like to join the discussion again and provide a quotation that supports that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense, because as I have explained, the references that I have removed do not do that. Also please note that I have not "blanked" references. The sources were left in the article for use by other citations. 83.67.217.254 09:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the Schultz "cite" was restored in support of the fact that the term is usually perjorative. The reason why I moved it elsewhere was that I thought that what she suggested in that article was that the term "has been appropriated by the right to attack the left". Now it turns out that what that article suggests is that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". Can we have a quote for that please? One (biased) author saying that the term is used that way in this or that circle does not in any way equate to proving the allegation that the English-speaking population uses the term almost exclusively in that way. 83.67.217.254 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is PC an old movement under a new name?

Many people who have asked the questions above, eg.where are the training centres, where are the people with the avowed aim of changing society, have also asked, 'given that this new phenomenon arose rapidly, apparently from nowhere, could it be that we are seeing an existing movement under a new name'.

This is a reasonable question, and a potential stumbling block in trying to get to the bottom of PC. Supppose I said, 'Protestantism is Catholicism'. Many people would say, 'of course it's not'. And yet no one would argue that Protestantism was not the continuation of Catholicism, which was the only form of Christianity for a long time; modified and under a new name.

Just as Protestantism is not Catholicism, Political correctness is not Cultural Marxism, or Critical Theory, or Sensitivity training, but people like Pat Buchanan point out the remarkable similarities and the possible chain of links. They also quote some revealing statements by key figures, such as: "A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries" - Georg Lukacs. Georg Lukacs was part of the 'Frankfurt School', a group of intellectuals led by Horkheimer who 'launched Critical theory, shorthand for 'critical theory of society' 'oriented towards radical social change' (quoted from Wikipedia). Then Kurt Lewin a psychologist associated with the Frankfurt school set out to discover a way to engineer society so that groups got on better, and called it Sensitivity training. His biographer, Alfred Marrow leaves us in no doubt that Lewin's aim as a psychologist was not to understand people, but to change them, hence the title of his book "Kurt Lewin - the Practical Theorist. Lewin set up a number of institutes specifically to teach and spread sensitivity training. Later, Carl Rogers another psychologist, would say, in 1968 that sensitivity training had entered every area of life, and was changing society.

Here we have a possible chain of events leading, by the 1970's to something that looks like Political Correctness, since sensitivity training is all about being sensitive to the other's point of view and avoiding offence. It might just be the 'politically correct speach' which we agree is one part of PC. Critical theory might just be another part 'oriented towards radical social change.

This, very roughly, is the theory of Buchanan and others. To call it crackpot and dismiss it, is not a reasonable approach. To prove it true or false is not our task. The point is that it exists as a possible explanation, in books from respectable publishers, and on the Internet. Buchanan is a key political figure and intellectal. He is not an idiot. Is it not our task to mention the existence of this theory, give an outline of it, and list references to it so that readers may consider it for themselves? --Memestream 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This theory is widely regarded in academia as a crackpot conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, we have long had a mention of and a link to this argument at the Cultural Marxism entry. To add more than a sentence and a link would be to unbalance this entry by giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to a fringe conspiracy theory.--Cberlet 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion, Cberlet, and of course you are extremely well known publically for it, making your comment rather redundant. Wikipedia policy only excludes 'viewpoints held by an extremely small minority'. That is not the case here. A Google search for "political correctness"+"cultural marxism" gives 14000 pages, and while many may be repetitions there are more serious well written articles than I can ever read. WP:NPOV says, 'When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance'. I'm sure you don't regard many of the sources concerned here as reputable, but I do, and many others do. Can you quote Wikipedia policy on how to determine if a source is 'crackpot'. Are you calling Patrick Buchanan 'crackpot'? His book is published by a mainstream publisher, and carries the banner "The New York Times Bestseller". This makes it quite a reputable source under WP:verifiability. The latter says its best if others have commented. The Washington times review says, "a timely,provocative study that asks the question that quietly troubles millions". The Baltimore Sun, says, "Well Reasoned and well researched". These are pretty mainstream sources and they are a long way from calling it 'crackpot'. What gives you the special ability to cast such damning judgement here without proof? I say that the article as it stands is a long way from meeting the requirement for a balanced view of competing theories. --Memestream 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We already mention the claims, and link to a longer discussion at Cultural Marxism. We already include both academic and popular views on this page. Most of the page has text critical of "Political Correctness." The page is relatively NPOV at this point. It can always be improved, but plopping a pile of far-right views into the page will unbalance it. A contentious entry here at Wikipedia is not governed by Internet search hits or bestseller lists. There are thousands of Internet pages that claim Black people are inferior and Jews own all the banks. We do not favor those claims on the Wikipedia pages on Jews and Black people. --Cberlet 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that the fourth hit on the Google search I just did is "Reframing the Enemy: 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right."--Cberlet 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That article also says, "Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream." The inclusion of the words 'bizarre' and 'anti-semitic' does not alter the fact that the theory is said to be 'catching on mainstream'. That's the important point for our purposes. If it's catching on mainstream it's not just the view of a very small minority is it? Therefore, it warrants balanced treatment. Unlike you, I do not regard this page as remotely balanced and NPOV yet. --Memestream 13:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Cultural Marxism is another page that has been in dispute for a over a year and has been heavily edited by you. Linking to it therefore solves nothing. --Memestream 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reference in Cultural Marxism saying it is a conspiracy is from the SPLC, which is hardly a source for high-brow academics. There are more than 300 hits in Google Scholar for the term [8], so one does not even have to look "far right views" in order to make a good article about this topic. Intangible2.0 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is alleging that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy are they? I don't think I have even used the term conspiracy. There may be a present day conspiracy that has its origins in cultural marxism, but that's quite a different matter, as I thought I had explained clearly. Crackpot conspiracy and 'far right' are tags being used by Cberlet, which I think have no relevance at all here. I am not trying to add 'far right views' I'm trying to give a fair assessment of what various people have written about PC, in particular Pat Buchannan and Peter Hitchins. Cultural Marxism, according to them, and as I explained above, is part of the chain of events that can be linked to PC. While it is often wrongly portrayed as being 'critical' in the sense of 'analysing' or 'reviewing', one only has to look at what its founders wrote (such as the quotes I gave above) to see that it was movement aimed at changing society, by undermining old values (Lukac's words not mine!) That was certainly not an innocent and proper aim for a purely acedemic group. Whether those people managed to achieve what they set out to do, ie undermine the existing values, and whether that has anything to do with PC today is a subject for much wider study, and I have indicated some of the further links in the chain that such study brings up. You really should read the books and understand what is claimed before jumping to simple conclusions and allowing meaningless words like 'right wing' and 'conspiracy' to cloud the issue. --Memestream 11:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We already mention the concept of Cultural Marxism. It is marginal. It already has the space it deserves.--Cberlet 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Lead

Please do not make changes to the lead paragraphs without seeking consensus.--Cberlet 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this apply to everybody, or only to some? 83.67.217.254 05:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing grammar, improving clarity of what already is there, and other housekeeping does not require prior discussion. Making claims and adding or deleting text in a way that does not conform with the entry text generally requires a consensus discussion on controversial pages. Here is what is posted at the top of this page:

• This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

It applies to everyone.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cberlet, do we really need to have all that repetition in the definition? Are you the manager of this page? Who do I ask?

Well, no, and if you can figure out a way to rewrite it so there is less repitition, try it here on the discussion page and we all can discuss it. There are no page managers. We write text collaboratively based on a majoritarian consensus model bound by certain guidelines.--Cberlet 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you do not have to obtain consensus before editing; you may be be bold. However, you will probably get reverted by the ochlocracy guardians of this article. You might want to seek the advice of disinterested parties here. 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That unsigned comment was very unhelpful and disruptive. This page carries a banner that specifically states: "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." How hard is that to understand? If you object to the standards and guidelines of what you refer to obliquely as ochlocracy aka "Mob Rule," here on Wikipedia what is the constructive purpose of your addition to this discussion page?--Cberlet 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is constructive in the sense that it may be useful advice from a disinterested wikipedian for a user who is being (incorrectly) told that a notice on a talk page trumps official wikipedia policy. In general, if edits are disputed, it is often better to take rational and disinterested advice regarding adopt-a-user than advice from others actively editing or protecting the article. 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and the other elements of the page banner are official Wikipedia policy. If you are so concerned, why not stay and help edit this page?--Cberlet 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned with the article, but with the information that a contributor is getting. It would be better for the project if other perspectives were encouraged to work within the wikipedia framework. 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article already includes multiple perspectives, primarily critical of PC. What are you trying to accomplish? What is your point? How is this constructive?--Cberlet 02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find "Mob rule" very fitting actually. As observed by other users, I agree that there are two (rather novice) users in particular who seem to be owning this article and scare or bore other editors away with serial reverts. This can't be good for the project. 83.67.217.254 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. I have found that I can make no significant impression on the article despite a huge amount of work backed by excellent citations. Why do you think this page has been disputed for so long Cberlet? Does it not occur to you that it might be because, actually, it is not NPOV, no matter how much you insist that it is? The article does not include multiple perspectives, it pretends to include them, in a manner distorted by the fundamental POV of the page. --Memestream 12:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we please drop the complaining and personal attacks and focus on editing text. There have been a number of changes to the entry in recent weeks by Wiki editors who seem able to write clear, accurate, and NPOV text. Text here needs cites to back them up, either new ones or ones already cited that support the lead language. There are a number of conservatives who have criticized PC who could be quoted. Buchanan is already quoted. What text is being contested?--Cberlet 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited addition

"In certain cases, political correctness attempts to use the threat of public shame as a means of controlling people. For example: "If you don't attend our protest rally against apartheid, it means that you support white supremacy." In this case, the speaker is forcing the listener to choose sides in the political arena, even though the listener may be nonpolitical, have personal matters to attend to on the day of the protest, etc."

This was moved to talk page because it did not provide a citation and appears to be original research. Spa toss 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote lead sentences

I was encouraged to contribute, so I have made a stab or two. Feel free to revert if my contributions were not an improvment to the article. Spa toss 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All that you did was convert the lead from a nuanced NPOV into text that only reflects POV from a narrow right-wing perspective (and not even all the right-wing perspectives on the page). Please try to understand that while many people might accept that lead as written, the nuances and complexities that you deleted reflect the range of ideas in the text on the rest of the page. The lead needs to be a fair, accurate and NPOV summary of what the reader will find in the entry text. That is Wiki policy.

I also moved an improperly placed cite lower into the text.--Cberlet 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that it was from a narrow right-wing perspective. Thanks for letting me know. A summary would be fine, but it looked like it was trying to explain every nuanced meaning of the word in the first sentence or two, to the point that it sounded weaselly. Spa toss 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the lead is trying to encompass the range of theories and claims in the rest of the article. That is the point. It is not a least common denominator synthesis. It is a fair, accurate, and NPOV summary of what follows in the entry.--Cberlet 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we please give it some time before reverting? This is getting a bit hysterical. Some people seem to think that as soon as they see a contribution, and they judge it unworthy, it's their precise duty to revert it and perhaps add a note in the discussion. Well, guess what, there are other editors who would like to see the contribution without having to dig in the history and voice their opinion about it.

I actually like Spa toss's version better than the current version, and I don't think it's right-wing at all. What I don't like in the current intro is:

1. "Or said to be intended": by whom? This is unnecessary clutter that hampers readability and only adds ambiguity. I also removed it once, but it was reverted as POV (together with another good change that was later accepted by the Holy Custodians). Interesting how the comment suggests that editors have to have quotes to support deletions, whereas it is in fact the opposite.
2. "A broader critical usage suggests": This does not make much sense to me - do we really mean that the usage of the term suggests something?
3. "language or ideas seen as unconstrained": again, why do we need "seen as" when we can simply say "language or ideas [that are] unconstrained"
4. Also, I do not like the asymmetry between PC and PI. As the intro suggests, PC has two current meanings, one neutral (or left-wing if you like), one critical (or right-wing if you like). Shouldn't the definition of PI reflect the same dualism?

83.67.217.254 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not there are a significant number of people who promte "political correctness." There is little evidence that there is any such thing as a "political correctness" movement. There are movements for promoting diversity, equality, and sensitivity in language, as the entry explains. Most people "said to be" prmoting "political correctness" do not agree, reject the term, and consider it a right-wing smear. Thus the first part of the definition is being contested. So "Or said to be intended" refers to the critcs of so-called "political correctness" claiming they know the intent of the people they are criticising as "political correct." The original right-wing usage was concocted in the late 1980s, and soon broadened into a criticism of orthodoxy of any sort. This is an important distinction.

The problem on this page is when editors from either the pro or con side of the use of the term come here and rewrite the lead to reflect their narrow POV as the "truth." Feel free to improve the lead, as several editors have done in the past few weeks. I ti s better now than it was a few weeks ago. But please do not remove all the nuance and complexity from the lead and convert it into a POV assertion that reflects only a narrow view.--Cberlet 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Points 3 and 4 have been addressed. I will ponder on the other two. 83.67.217.254 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"please do not remove all the nuance and complexity from the lead and convert it into a POV assertion that reflects only a narrow view" This is the problem. You're trying to jam an article's worth of nuance and complexity into the lead sentence, and its readability is suffering. If you try to say everything, you might end up saying nothing. Leave the nuance and complexity for later in the article. (You might mention that nuance and complexity exist, but why attempt to explain it in the first two sentences)? Spa toss 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, let us focus on readability and accuracy. I just modified and added a reference back in. Consider introducing the article instead of condensing it into the first two sentences. Spa toss 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Spa toss. Also, wouldn't a neutral reference to a dictionary be better suited to the introduction than the current citation of an extremely opinionated author? 83.67.217.254 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out the first occurance of this reference just now. On google books, which has a preview, the book is not about PC, but about framing scientific fads with a Politically incorrect viewpoint.[9] Consequently, I don't think it is a good source for this article. This is an article on Political correctness, not on science. That PC was used to frame a book about science is interesting, but to introduce this book in this article, without out some other party doing so, is original research in my view. Spa toss 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference indicates original research

^[2]See, for example, the work of Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger.

Verifying the sentence with the above refernece requires specialized knowledge and skills. Also indicates original research. Moved reference from article to this talk page for disucssion. Spa toss 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, let's get rid of that rubbish once and for all. 83.67.217.254 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Spa toss, I notice you modified the Aufderheide reference. Please note that the same reference is being used pretty much everywhere in this article, so you may want to propagate the changes. Even better, I understand that there is a way to factor repeating references out, so there are no more maintenance problems. Does anybody happen to know how that's done? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the Perry/Aufderheide references. The format probably could be better, but I think this is what you were requesting. 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks. 83.67.217.254 06:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of Politically correct

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Short of another dictionary offering a different meaning of the word, emphasis should be placed on this meaning, with detracting and alternative viewpoints presented and identified per due weight. Spa toss 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have to go considerably beyond a dictionary definition in our article. The lead should summarize what the article is about. Sunray 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the article should be about the subject, and it should not identify fringe left-wing apologetics as NPOV. Spa toss 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been arguing pretty much the same since many pages ago. I have offered many times the following reliable, authoritative, verifiable and neutral sources and they have been routinely discounted: [10][11][12][13]. 83.67.217.254 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definition is relevent, but the other user has a point about this not being a dictionary. Even so, I think relying on apologetics to set the tone of the article is also problematic. Spa toss 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this is not a dictionary, but it looks that, on this subject, dictionaries and the PhraseFinder reference I put forward are much needed balanced sources that can be used to, as you say, "set the tone" in the introduction of the article. I never said that we should limit the article to a dictionary definition. 83.67.217.254 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we agree. I think I will wait for others outside the choir to offer their viewpoints. Spa toss 22:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

History

The article says this:

The term "political correctness" is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the "party line", [8]and was used in communist countries in this way:

Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation...

The problem is that the quote used here describes Stalin, and understood in that way the usage being claimed makes no sense (he used violence instead of proving his adherence to... his own party line?) It is clear from context that "political correctness" is not being used here as a meaningful idiom in its own right -- Khrushchev's speech could be more accurately translated as "instead of proving that his politics were correct, yadda yadda." In other words, the quote cited does not support the assertion being made. --Aquillion 05:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not expressed perfectly but not far off the mark. Krushchev is making an ex post revision of the correct line, so that Stalin's policies were retrospectively judged as incorrect. There was an implicit assumption that the party line would always be correct, except when it was distorted by deviationists, many of whom Stalin liquidated and among whom he was posthumously classed in the secret speech. JQ 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on political correctness is politically incorrect ?

Its cute in a way, and reflects the difficulty in saying a truth without offending...someone, sometime, someplace.

For example, "The Jews killed Christ' is one of those statments that is politically incorrect, but whose truth lies in that it is a half-truth as well.

Some Jews, together with the Roman authority were responsible for his crucifixtion, however, when you realize that Christ was Jew himself, then it only makes more sense. It is normally people of the country that execute their own ?

To suggest that because one person, or several of one types were responsible does not give one the authority to blame an entire group, that is false logic, black and white thinking that mankind often gets into trouble with.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, original research exposing political correctness in North America, has been often rejected by those who find the info politcally incorrect; so then what do you do, if no one will publish it ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, there is 'bad' in all things, through corruption, the Church, a political ideology that gets corrupted, even the angels...

So perhaps every listing in this encyclopedia, could and should outline the 'bad' side to it.

Water - basic to human existance

Bad side - in excess can cause death, flooding and destruction.

To those who are black and white about the topic, polarized about it, they may see one side or the other.

The only thing that was, (is ? - no, nothing in a perfect state does not exist today), or was perfect would be the conceptnothing, and that might be God.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Need more cites and attempted crisper and more accurate lead

Back from fishing trip. Take a deep breath before reverting the lead. Let's talk. It is clear that the term is being used today to describe "orthodoxy" in general. The "Party Line" orthodoxy in communism (democratic centralism) was not limited to Stalinism, but was used across Leninist groups. There is no doubt that the political left in the 1960s picked up the term from Marxist-Leninist usage. As someone active in the U.S. left in the 60s and 70s, I recall this process of converting the term from serious to sarcastic usage. I will find a precise cite for this after the holiday. The phrase "seen as" is not superfluous. It opens up the controversy without distorting the usage. Try letting it just sit there for a few days. Many serious conservative writers could have their thoughts cited in this entry, rather than popular right-wing pundits. There is too much fringe POV from the political right, and not enough scholarship.

Finally, If you are in the U.S., enjoy the holiday weekend.--Cberlet 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, although we need a firmer source than your personal experience, I'm sure one can be found. However, the last time I read this article in detail it seemed to say that the New Left were a bunch of Stalinist infiltrators who invented Political Correctness as part of their nefarious culture-war against America, baseball and apple pie. It sounds like the truth is, the New Left picked up the term "political correctness" as a sarcastic mockery of sectarian Trotskyite attitudes, and then it migrated into a conservative slam against the Left generally. We need to make that clearer, although I think the article looks better than last I saw it. Eleland 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"anti-religious viewpoints"

Other than one author, is there another cite that claims PC is generally "anti-religious?" --Cberlet 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...and apart from two feminists (I still have to see one quotation anyway), is there another cite that claims that PC "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense"? Because the current wording suggests that this is an undisputed, objective fact, supported by unbiased references. As discussed, this is in sharp contrast with what other more authoritative and more politically neutral sources assert. 83.67.217.254 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the following section should be removed (feeling more strongly about the first part, as already abundantly discussed, but I agree that the second part needs stronger support or downsizing)

The term "political correctness" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.[1][2] Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern that public discourse, academia, and the sciences have been dominated by liberal, anti-religious viewpoints.[3]

We already state (with appropriate references) that

Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender."

which I think illustrates the issue clearly, concisely and most importantly objectively. If necessary, we can move the references for the first block in this second block (one is already). 83.67.217.254 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources for pejorative nature of term

Here's another source [14], and a few more [15], [16],[17] Not all meet Wikipedia guidelines, but the references already given do so. And of course, we have innumerable examples of the actual pejorative use, balanced by a single recent positive use (a Ukrainain teacher of English as a second language, IIRC).JQ 11:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for politically neutral (and yes, authoritative) sources. I have offered a number of such references supporting that common usage is not pejorative or disapproving. The problem here is that both political extremes, for different reasons, are keen to push the view that PC is used in a pejorative sense, whereas the evidence I offered points to a non-pejorative usage outside of those circles. 83.67.217.254 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources meet Wiki guidelines. The consensus here is that your demands have been met. I have removed the tag. Please stop this tendentiousness. The matter has been discussed thoroughly. --Cberlet 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the dates of the cites I can find, and it is clear to me that the term was first used within the New Left in a non-sarcastic way, given the influence of the Old Left CP on Left ideological matters up intil the 1960s. With the rise of New Left Leninist and Maoist cadre organzations, the term began to be used in a sarcastic way to refer to any similar orthodoxy of belief. I have added a cite for the latter, and we already have a cite for the former.--Cberlet 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalin

It is clear that Stalin was a totalitarian, and I do not dispute the content of the original text:

• In Soviet Union, political correctness was adherence to the official policy of the Communist Party. All publications were subjected to pervasive censorship. People found to utter politically incorrect ideas were persecuted, and under some leaders, most notably Joseph Stalin, it was commonplace to disappear them.

But I did ask the poster to provide a cite. To move the uncited text up higher into the article, and insert POV comments, also uncited, is not useful. Even if the original text is cited, however, what ties it to this entry? It still needs a cite to someone making the link to "political correctness." That should not be too hard to find, but it needs to be found.--Cberlet 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My idea in making the change was to link to the subsequent quote, in which Krushchev deemed Stalin not to have been politically correct. But I was in two minds about whether it worked.JQ 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted above:

Сolleagues!

The quotation with reference 8 is not correct.

Source: Вместо доказательств своей политической правоты...

Translation: Instead of proving his political correctness...

Правота – is rightfulness, rectitude but isn't correctness.

Доказать свою правоту - to prove one's case.--VolodymyrF 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss if the translation issue changes the meaning enough to warrant a revision.--Cberlet 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said above, in an earlier exchange. The quotation in question has no relevance to political correctness beyond an old mistranslation; what it says instead is that, paraphrased, Stalin jailed and killed people who disagreed with him instead of arguing his case to them. --Aquillion 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else with a knowledge of Russian would jump into the discussion, but you have every right to make the change, my Russian was too rusty to be of help, Gospodin Aquillion.--Cberlet 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct line

This term was much more common than "politically correct" on the left, and shows a mixture of approving uses [18] "Divorced from the determination to fight for a correct line in the Fourth International, Germain's theoretical defense of the necessity of Trotskyism meant very little" and critical/satirical uses [19] I remember that the local branch of ISO had a punk band of that name in the 1970s. I'm not sure how to work all this into the article,though.JQ 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PCU (film)?

Possibly, under "Satirical use", a reference to the movie PCU would be appropriate? 207.31.229.4 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)