Talk:Political correctness/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

There is no mention of other Political Correctnesses

There is no mention of other Political Correctnesses such as: Soviet Political Correctness, Nazis' Political Correctness, Russian Political Correctness, Chinesse Political Correctness, Fascists Political Correctness, Feudal Political Correctness, Political Correctness of Roman Empire, Political Correctness of India, Political Correctness of Islamic Countries, Political Correctness of Medieval Catholic Europe and many other Political Correctnesses.

The question is WHY? Why term refer mainly to English Language Main Stream Media usage, Without any respect for telling about many different Political Correctnesses of Past, Present and from different geographic regions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness in general

Political correctness in general is not offending of actual believes/ideology/paradigms etc. of authority/rulers/rules/people/state religion. Therefore in western democracies it is in form of not offending other people as the people are the final authority/rulers/power in western democracies.

It can be viewed as hindrance to exchange of ideologies, and can be in business of current political parties in parliaments etc. in order to maintain and fully controlling status quo by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "In reality, however, 'political correctness' is almost always used pejoratively...." The reason the phrase is usually used pejoratively is that those who speak PC phrases don't often use the phrase "political correctness" themselves. Their purpose would be ill-served by calling attention to the fact that they are promoting a PC world-view, which might be nothing more than the latest fad in social or political ideology, with no particular merit other than that it is currently fashionable. They hope to persuade their audience that they are promoting morality in the purest, most natural, and most objective form. The gullible part of the audience is deceived. The more alert part of the audience is not.

However, just because a statement is politically correct does not mean that it can't also be true or wise. It only means that the statement is held to be immune from normal (let alone rigorous) analysis and criticism, which condition might make some people suspect that the statement may be untrue or unwise. Otherwise, why not debate it? Why employ censorship to quell dissent? Why try to disguise propaganda as honest discussion? Why threaten those who disagree with the statement with disfavor or penalty? Jenab6 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness and the death of reason

I would like to add some thoughts about the political correctness trend which seems to become the cornerstone tool in the modern western dymagogy. Political correctness started on the healthy basis that words, expressions, and behaviours that may be insulting for particular social, ethnical, religious etc. groups must be contained and a new frame of ethics must be impossed so that everyone should enjoy an equal and fair treatment by the entiry social spectrum . The idea was great. Everybody started to built policies based on this idea, new words have been introduced in our vocabulary, and political correctness has eventually become the flag idea of modern politics as the tool to attract support from the entire scope of this multinational, multiracial society. But as all ideas, political correctness was perfect in theory, was easily and successfully applicable in the very early stages of its existence, and now has started to reveal its limitations and its weaknesses in the moment where it relatively reaches its own maturity like all political system do. Today the news have reported that in Belgium a 19 years old will be trialed for the murder of a woman and her infant child, and should he is found guilty and should his motives where sourced by racial hatry he will condemned to a further 5 years inprisonment on top of the regular penalty for murder!!! Outrageous!!! Since when there is a higher motive than first degree murder? Is this law means that should this man have committed this crime for any other reason than racial hatry then it is a less severe motive and will bear 5 years less? Why racial hatry shouldn t be simply one more of the motives that are trialed as first degree murder? And why those extra five years are not extended to include all first degree motives but are particularly attributed to this motive? What it seems to be is that the murder of this poor woman and her child, a crime that in many countries is punishable by the death sentence, is one of the first signs of the inevitable limitations of the political correctness concept. It seems that governments are nowdays mostly concerned for their PR relations with the new social groups and being eager to demonstrate how politically correct they are they have completely forgotten the concept of Human and human freedom. The most basic human right is that all people are equal irrespectively of colour, origin or religion and yet the Belgium Government created a discrimination in the way that criminals should be treated. All first degree murderers are simply first degree murderers. And in all cases of first degree murder, like the one of this poor woman and her child, the most severe sentence must be imposed with those 5 years to be included for all short of first degree motives not only for racial hatry. But modern politics seems only to care to demonstrate how devoted they are to the political correctness concept and the rest of the aspects are simply trivial. Are we living in the Age of Reason praising as the highest value the human freedom, or sould we simply place a gravestone on this ultimum idea and create space for the brand new political correct dymagogy? Italiotis 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, political correctness has gone too far, from its beginings in the 80s (I am refering to the British Isles) it has come from being a movement that began in good faith with good intentions to being one of the most ridiculous, outragous and iritating load of nonsense in the world today. It was a case of something starting in good faith before spiralling out of control. Its decline into mania began with the banning of golly wog dolls and is currently at a stage where a teacher can no longer apply a plaster onto a young child's knee. It has lead to the likes of OJ Simpson. It has also lead to a situation where foreign nationals can escape justice by pulling the race card. In time this ever increasing mania is going to be its own destruction as people shall eventually get tired of the PC Brigade and political correctness shall eighther have to moderate or face with being dropped completely. In the meantime however the PC Brigade are still carrying on as ever. I recall that on one occasion the founder of childline hugged (or kissed) a child at some funtion or other (I cant remember) and the PC Brigaade accused her of being some kind of paedophile. Eventually this nonsense is going to wear itself out, and the sooner it does the better! SJHQC (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the purpose of the discussion page is to discuss improvements in the article, not a forum for general discussion of the topic.JQ 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Need better cite

I cut this:

• "Many of these stories originated in The Sun newspaper in the 1980s, and became widely believed. In fact, teachers are allowed to use the nursrey ryhme and to refer to the chalk board as a black board. [1]"

The cite does not support the text. Anyone have a better one?--Cberlet 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I tracked this down [2], suggesting that the text you cut was wrong in every detail (the Express not the Sun, 2006 not the 1980s, and the stuff about the chalk board is, I think, rhetorical hyperbole added in as the story circulated on the Internuts) but not that far off in spirit. Perhaps someone with a little more spare time could locate the actual Express story.JQ 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now tracked down a properly sourced account of the story which turns out to be a fairly typical urban myth, showing more about the gullibility of those making complaints about PC than anything else. See my recent edit JQ 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this source (scroll down to comment by Olly) does trace the story back to the Sun in the mid-80s [3].JQ 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been good research and good writing. Good addition.--Cberlet 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First sentence ungrammatical

"Political correctness (PC or politically correct) is a term" is not standard English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.28.118 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but my repeated attempts to provide a correct alternative were to no avail. Look near the top of this page and you will see that another (anonymous)editor wrote: "This article is in grave error and very badly written. Formally, political correctness is the presence, enforcement or promotion of that which is in accordance with what has been declared acceptable by a political group, in particular in relation to Marxism." I agreed, and changed the opening sentence using those words but it was reverted, with certain editors insisting that the opening sentence must not be changed without prior consensus. If you simply register and log in you can perhaps be more effective in helping to change the consensus. --Memestream (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the removal of the external link to the Philip Atkinson essay?

Would those habitually removing the external link to this essay please explain why they are doing so? http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm The Origin and Nature of Political Correctness by Philip Atkinson

I explained in my edit summary - the essay appears to be the opinion of some random guy with a web site. There are a million and one random guys with websites, and we obviously can't include links to all of them, so why should we include this one? Maybe there's something special about this page that makes it worth including; if so, please explain why you want to include the link here, and we can debate whether it ought to go in or not (see links normally to be avoided, particularly point 12). VoluntarySlave 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Precursors of political correctness?

A letter in The Times Friday, Sep 24, 1937; pg. 13 complains about an example of "refainement" (sic) veering towards the lunatic asylum. Given the negative connotations that have become associated with "political correctness" (as the neutral/accepted components are ignored/considered part of common courtesy), would this be an earlier reference to the concept? Jackiespeel 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us more of the context, and quote the relevant text here please. What did he mean? Refrainment? --Memestream (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Times article is copyright The person was referring to a "request for a supply of human milk rather than the conventional wet-nurse or foster-nurse". Refainement - classist/reverse snobbist/received pronounciation reference to "refinement" - reference is also made to "naiceness". The reply, on 27 September, p 13, points out that the milk could be sent in bottles. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a published cite calling this an example of political correctness, it does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion in this entry.--Cberlet (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we say that it is sometimes useful to note "passing resemblances" for others to pursue (which would be OR).

Can someone do an archive please? Jackiespeel (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to put our suppositions or original research into this entry.--Cberlet (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on merging a Japanese term linking from the top of the article page. The viewpoint which uses the term "political correctness" in a perjorative sense (in the sense of "affected use of language which the writer finds absurd") existed before pc was "invented" - I was noting such an example on the talk page for others to make use of - and also that further activity would be beyond the remit of Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is VERY Opinionated and Subjective

I'm not sure what the guidelines are, but this article is a mess and filled with a lot of opinions. Right-Wing PC? You got to be kidding me right? And I quote: "Firebrands like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly called it treason." This is a seriously screwed up article and it needs heavy editing, then some protection. This subject is too controversial to have left and right leaning zealots (primarily left-wing) bring in Fringe Theories. Cobrapete (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Cobrapete (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realise the passage you are quoting is itself a quote, don't you? The fact that allegations of political correctness have been directed against the political right is relevant and appropriate to include, though the article makes it clear that such allegations mostly go in the opposite direction.JQ (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Political correctness" is something very general you DOLTS. It means different things to different people, it's very infected schizophrenic already, and your'e not helping. Also wikipedia as you may know is not just about you americans right? Doesen't look like it from this article. KEEP IT GENERAL AND OPEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.80.22 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is primarily a US term, and it's appropriate that most (not all) of the examples come from the US.JQ (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it that the above user is American as to state hat it is a primarily US term is simply untrue. Not only has political correctness gone too far in the US it has also gone too far on the British Isles. This is largely due to the ideals of the Blair Government (as it is certainly not a creation of Thatcher's). SJHQC (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article would be greatly helped by including information on why people believe racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc., language shapes thoughts and attitudes, reinforces negative stereotypes, leads to discrimination, etc. (i.e., why being "politically correct" is desirable). This is a very widely-held view among academics, and it seems to me that it should form the bulk of the article. Fireplace (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your cites for this claim?--Cberlet (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Running a google scholar search for "racist language" or "sexist language" are a good starting point. I'm not advocating we insert any specific sentences -- my point is that someone (hopefully with more expertise in this area than I) should spend a few hours adding a lot of substantive content to this article. Fireplace (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source on hand for it, but the reports of the Dixie Chicks incident that I had heard of had the audience boo because they were stopping the concert to complain about something unrelated - though the audience had paid to listen to music. The aftershock on the news is probably "PC"-ish, but the audience itself seems to have booed because, come on, if KISS suddenly stopped playing to talk about how someone sucks, you'd want them to get back to the music too, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article, while actually admitting in places that "PC" was recognized as a phenomenon of the left, often by the left itself, still reads like it's a "baseless rightwing smear" used fallaciously to discredit the left. It somehow manages to acknowledge these sources and quotes, and then immediately forget them in the next section. This really needs to be dealt with.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Heart of the Problem

It looks to me like this article is yet another sad case where experts have been driven off by laymen who think they know what they are talking about. Of course, since it's the academic left that's the target of the smear here, anyone who is an expert is also going to be subject to claims of POV. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

The problem is that "PC" is one of those concepts, like meme, that originated in academic parlance but was later picked up and improperly used by people who didn't understand the connotations. This leads us to point where now the majority of the people using the phrase have no idea what it means and no idea that with each repetition they are supporting a movement which seeks to dismantle gains made by feminism and the civil rights movement in recent decades. In the world of political philosophy it's not really even considered controversial that the phrase is a smear directed at a caricature of Marcuse-inspired 1970s radicalism by the Straussian right. It's hard to find cites for this because it's so non-controversial that nobody really feels the need to write about it. It ties into issues that are taken for granted inside academe but are virtually unknown on the outside. It's part of the same conflict that led to the Straussians abandoning the universities and forming think tanks.

Shouldn't Alan Bloom be mentioned in here somewhere? I forget if he actually uses the term or not, but a lot of the right wing frothing about PC is regurgitation of him. He'd be a better cite than the talking heads being bandied about as experts on the subject. There might be some worthwhile sources in the Lingua Franca archive.

69.17.124.2 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your first sentence. Even the opening sentence of the article is a pop-culture misconception of what political correctness is -- it isn't about "minimiz[ing] offence" to minority groups as and end in itself, it's about "achieving social and political change through changing culture and changing language." [4]. The rest of the article (except bits of the "linguistic concept" section) proceeds under that same pop-culture mistake. The article reads as if it were written by talk radio listeners. Fireplace (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your link there seems to be via a proxy at Harvard - a direct link (although it still might require a subscription to read the article) is at [5]. VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

material deleted from the intro

Rather than deleting sourced material why not move it to a better place? futurebird (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will move it and also give a more accurate idea of the content, which is an attack on PC, not advocacy as was implied in the edit.JQ (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. futurebird (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Take a deep breath. Pause. To every editor who comes here and exclaims that the intro is stupid and the text biased. Please note that many of use, on the left and right, have seen this before. The current text is based on actual cites to reputable published sources. It is a compromise that seeks to achieve NPOV. Please do not assume that every editor that came before you is ignorant or a moron. Please assume good faith. A whole lot of editors from aross the political spectrun have tried to create a page that explains a number of competing ideas about what PC is and what is stands for. There is very little agreement. Please do not try to unilaterally rewrite the lead without discussing it here first. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet: I hear what you're saying (and don't have the time to attempt a re-write of the lede). HOWEVER :), the first line is unsourced-- and as you say, there is little agreement amid COMPETING ideas. Whatever the amount of good-faith effort (=road to hell) put into the lede, to present only some of these competing ideas as the the G-d's truth, is the essence of violating NPOV. It would be better to start out by defining PC as a "contested term" and go from there, 'defining via list' of the different definitions and the camps they represent. KenThomas (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards "what PC is", it's important to remember that no-one has used this term in a positive sense for at least thirty years. Conversely, all sorts of people have projected their own views of what they think PC is. No one interpretation can be regarded as 'right' or even 'supported by usage'. JQ (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alas, there are a small handful of self-described progressive people who use the term "PC" in a positive sense to defend inclusive language, etc. I think they are clueless, but they exist.--Cberlet (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion (which I've been doing without any kind of edit warring), but it's appropriate to say that an article is poorly written and explain why, and it's appropriate to make constructive edits that might lead to the article's improvement. JQ's point is correct -- there certainly is/was a movement toward things like gender-neutral language, eliminating institutionalized racism, etc., in the U.S., but that movement doesn't label itself the "political correctness" movement. So in a sense, it's perfectly appropriate for this article to be dominated by critical perspectives -- because only (mostly) critics use the term. On the other hand, such an article gives a very distorted impression to the reader who is starting from a blank slate -- the "PC crowd" comes across as being god-hating "womyn" who are censoring global-warming skeptics. So if the article is going to focus on the criticism of political correctness (which it currently does), there needs to be a bright red arrow pointing the reader to the original sources of the views that are being criticized (a "See Also" link hardly accomplishes that). Fireplace (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro is awkward but not too bad. The rest of the article is a trainwreck. There is a lot of content here that has sources miles away from reputable. The fact that Buchanan and Hitchens are media personalities with some name recognition doesn't make their opinions on this matter particularly noteworthy. If Britteny Spears said something on TV about about her pet gerbil it wouldn't justify including her opinion in the article on gerbils. WP:RELY states that peer reviewed accedemic sources should be used and extremist sources should not be. Fox News and Newsmax are much closer to the later category than the former. As the contemporary usage of PC arose from critiques of university culture, there should be no shortage of peer reviewed accedemic sources. Shouldn't the content with non-authoritative sourcing be weeded out? Using non-authoritative sources to ensure a particular misconception is represented in the article is not NPOV. It's wikiality.--69.17.124.2 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome an attempt to weed out the non-authoritative sources, but be prepared to defend your editing changes. There are partisans who insist that Buchanan and Lind are reputable sources. A better solution might be to add more authoritative sources, but go ahead and give it a try. The whole page could use a rewrite. --Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm the above IP user. I broke down and registered with the intention of getting my bold on over Christmas because parts of this article really bug me. I'm now thinking I should wait until the issues with sourcing in WP:NOR settle down a bit since that's going to be critical to weeding out the POV pushing that appears to have slipped in over time. In the meantime I'm going to audit the presently cited sources for context and minimal standards of reliability. I'll put the results on my talk page but not make any changes until policy is a bit more clear and people back here have had a chance to weigh in. I also might snap, flash a supermarket Santa, and never be heard from again. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead must reflect all the contested views

The lead that I just replaced only reflected one of several contested views of what "political correctness" actually was and is.

Over a year ago, editors were challenged to find evidence that sometime in the 1970s or 1980s there was an actual "political correctness" movement that "sought to counter the ways that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes were assumed to be embedded in language, ideas, policies, or social behavior." There was a diversity movement, a multicultural movement, several radical identity movements, etc., but there never was an original "political correctness" movement that "sought to counter the ways that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes were assumed to be embedded in language, ideas, policies, or social behavior."

Therefore the lead needs to be elastic enough to make it clear that based on a majority of scholarly texts, the idea that there was a "political correctness" movement is a rhetorical frame invented by conservative ideologues to challenge left-wing oppositon to "racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes."

Simply because a POV idea has gained currency in the public does not mean an encyclopedia should discard complex analysis, but instead we should seek to represent a variety of views in an NPOV way.

There was no "political correctness" movement in the 1970s or 1980s. It is a POV fiction.--Cberlet 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything you say seems correct, but the current lead doesn't reflect that at all. If a majority of scholarly texts say that the PC movement was a rhetorical frame invented by conservative ideologues, the lead should say as much right off -- not merely characterize it as a few held by "some commentators" down in the third paragraph. The current opening sentences suggest the opposite -- that there is a movement whose primary concern is to minimize "offense" to minority groups. Fireplace 04:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite for NPOV and serious cites

My brain is spinning. Could we please consolidate the current discussion in one place? So, Vlvtelvis and Fireplace, you have both noticed serious flaws in the current article. Bon Voyage! The page needs a rewrite. But keep in mind that there are numerous right-wing, libertarian, or idiosyncratic left-wing editors who have very strong views about what constitutes NPOV on this page. The term "political correctness" has entered the popular lexicon. There are scholars who take totally different perspectives. Tread cautiously, please. Get solid cites. Try to work together. :-) --Cberlet (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Following up the As a Linguistic Concept discussion: I've added citations to two seminal articles regarding the demonstrable influence of lexical choices on perceptions, memories, and preferences of speakers and hearers. I also cleaned up the unsupported assertion that it is in fact the strong form of the S-W hypothesis that underwrites the worry that sexist language promotes sexist thought.Leftwinglock (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Having done more reading of the cited sources for this section, I've substantially rewritten the claims about Edna Andrews's article. In fact Andrews did not say that the use of PC terms depends on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and her article was not critical of the fundamental idea. To be honest I don't see why that article is being used as a reference in this context, since the connection between language and thought is only a sidebar in the article (and not a terribly well developed one at that). The main focus of the paper is on the social category of taboos, as seen through C.S. Pierce's theory of semiotics and signification. But at least it's a fairly relevant academic reference, so rather than delete all reference to it, I've made the claims correct and augmented them with more references to linguistic effects on cognition and decisions. Leftwinglock (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to Psychodynamics of Political Correctness[6]. This is the text of a paper published in a respected journal by a professor which I believe largely supports the view of other authors that PC undermines society, and in particular that it does so by 'feminising' men and destroying the natural balance of male and female modes of relating. Before I add material citing this article, can we agree that this is a reputable, reliable source? Professor Shwartz is a specialist in the Psychodynamics of Organisations, with a degree in philosophy and a PhD in organsisational behaviour.[7] --Memestream (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with citing this source as an example of criticism of PC. But I've moved it to "Further reading:against". JQ (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with splitting everything into 'for' and 'against'. Before you can be against something you have to know what it is. This page should be fair in describing what PC is, or how it manifests, and the paper I quoted is an analysis of how PC operates in Universities. Many topics, like politeness, or sycophancy, have people for and against them, but we concentrate on describing the nature of the thing above all. --Memestream (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, one of the best article son controversial issues I have seen in wikipedia Johncmullen1960 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dalrymple (Daniels) quotation

The following has been removed from the article twice:

On the other hand, [[Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist)|Theodore Dalrymple]] claimed that "political correctness" is simply a form of rhetoric, just as with [[communist propaganda]], used by liberals to shame opponents into submission to leftist ideals. He states:

:"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D2C70DCE-BF86-4761-9788-03AB7FAB2608} "Our Culture, What’s Left Of It"], ''Front Page Magazine'', August 31, 2005 -- Accessed January 22, 2008.</ref>

The first time, it was justifiably removed--it was improperly sourced from a secondary source (which was a blog). However, the second time, it was removed for what appears to be a dubious reason--that the online publication interviewing Dr. Daniels (pseudonym Dalrymple) is not WP noteworthy. I fail to see why the source of publication needs to meet WP guidelines of noteworthiness when Dr. Daniels, the source of the information, does. Daniels has been published in several noteworthy publications (e.g., The Spectator), and has published several book-length works (mostly through independent independent publishing houses; some of them noteworthy, such as Overlook); in fact, the interview quoted above is in regard to one of his book-length works, Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses. To disallow the quotation from the article on the basis that the source is not WP noteworthy is tantamount to rejecting a quote from some other WP noteworthy person simply because it appears in a less than noteworthy source (say an interview with Al Franken in some little-known zine). As I understand the policy, the source need not be noteworthy in such a case, merely the person being interviewed.

I'd like to know what the other editors think about this. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is me, sorry, wasn't logged in. » MonkeeSage « 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote certainly didn't belong where it was, and doesn't seem to add anything to what was already in the section under criticism. I guess it might be useful to have a link to a list of people who've criticised PC (very long - in fact you could find dozens in TownHall alone) along with a list of people who've explicitly advocated PC (very short to non-existent), but I don't see why Dalrymple (a British writer) deserves a place in the body of an article about a rhetorical ploy that originated in the US. JQ (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The POV represented (properly, by cited sources) in the current section is that PC is an idea invented by the right to smear the left; Daniels presents a counter-point: PC is a leftist rhetorical ploy. This seems perfectly relevant to the section to me. » MonkeeSage « 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ps. Mr. Berlet, given your previous criticism of FrontPage, it occurs to me; perhaps I've read your edit comments incorrectly, perhaps you have some other reason than WP notability in mind (WP credibility?). I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the properly-sourced citation of Dr. Daniels should be excluded from the article. Thank you. » MonkeeSage « 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are thousands of right-wing propaganda essays condemning political correctness, and this one is from Front Page, a notorioulsy fanatic and shrill website. See WP:RS Try a cite from any of the dozens of conservatve or right-wing writers who have published criticisms of their view of PC in numerous reputable scholarly journals, books, magazines, and newspapers. I agree with JQ that "it might be useful to have a link to a list of people who've criticised PC." But to counter scholarly sources with FrontPage is like comparing fresh filet mignon to rancid hamburger.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern about Front Page according the reliability policy, since it may be considered an "extremist source"--however, since I'm not aware of Dr. Daniels being classified that way, this seems like the same basic issue I mentioned above regarding WP:N. Since the citation is from Dr. Daniels (the source of the quote is incidental), I think it meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:RS. Again, just as with a quote from some other WP noteworthy / credible person appearing in a less than noteworthy / credible source; I think it is the person, not the source, which must be held up to scrutiny. Am I mistaken? » MonkeeSage « 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The general point here is that there is no need to cite Daniels in FrontPage when we have a string of more noteworthy people saying the same thing in more reputable journals. There's already too much UK content, given that no-one in the UK left ever used the term "politically correct" either positively or sarcastically before the term was imported from US by rightwing critics.JQ (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it seems the point comes down to undue weight (WP:DUE)? If that's the case, I see no problem with noting that Daniels is a lesser-known source than the sources given for the opposing view; but I fail to see why total elimination of Daniels is called for. Granted that other sources presenting the same view as Daniels are noted elsewhere; but they are presented in such a way as to lose the logical connection with the section in question, imo. Relegating the opposing view to endnotes and external references, is, I believe, to implicitly denigrate those views as unimportant to the context of the discussion. Kind of like, "here's what you should believe, but if you'd like, you can also check out these loonies over here." The Daniels quote is relevant to the section and meets WP policy and guidelines, as far as I can tell, and so I see no reason to exclude or displace it. » MonkeeSage « 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that last comment. There has been huge condemnation of PC as an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world, and yet whenever well cited material from this point of view has been added to the article it has been moved out of prominence, denied a place in the intro, and denigrated as coming from 'loony extremists' or 'right-wing propogandists'. By a circular process, the authors who identify PC as Marxist/communist, however respectable and notable, are labelled 'extremist' or 'propagandist' simply because they write such 'un-PC' stuff (how else do you define 'extremist' or 'propagandist' except by comparison with what is considered PC?). I'd like to see more weight given to the Marxist explanation here, and more respect to the many writers who propose it with well-argued evidence. --Memestream (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The criticism section begins with a statement of the "PC as Marxist instrument" viewpoint. However, most use of the term does not rely on an analysis of this kind. To point to the most obvious reason for this, by the time the term came into widespead use in the 1990s, world communism was, no longer seen as likely to bring down the Westerm world or capable of controlling large sections of the media and so on. (Of course, there are people who still believe in a global Marxist/communist conspiracy that controls everything, but they can't expect to have their views given much prominence in Wikipedia). JQ (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of Daniels as a conspiracy theorist betrays your bias. Daniels is not arguing that PC is part of a Marxist/communist conspiracy to take-over or convert the world, as for example, Lind may be interpreted as doing. That section has nothing to do with Daniels' POV. Daniels is talking about PC as an engineered tool to push a certain political/idealogical agenda (just as propaganda is an engineered tool); which is saying the same thing as the other sources in the section on PC as an engineered term--he merely thinks it was the left who engineered it rather than the right. Daniels' view can be summarized in a statement from Peter Suber:

The more thoughtful conservative critics do not object to the domination of leftist thinking per se; they object to rigging this domination through the stigmatization and abuse, if not formal punishment, of students and faculty who take the unpopular side of any of these controversies, vitiating the freedom of discussion.[8]

Suber and Daniels aren't necessarily of the same opinion on PC, but that characterization of conservative reservations with (perceived) leftist PC, is representative of Daniels concerns and the citation I provided from him above. » MonkeeSage « 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was a reply to the immediately preceding comment by Memestream referring to "PC as an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world", and not an attack on Daniels. Perhaps you should read more carefully and consider WP:AGF before jumping in with accusations of bias.JQ (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, honest mistake. I had read Memestream as arguing by analogy from the treatment of those proposing the Marxist view of PC to the case I was discussing. On closer reading it appears that they were actually conflating Daniels with those other POVs, and your comment was perfectly justified. I apologize for accusing you of bias. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories regarding the origin and nature of PC

JQ: I think your dismissal of a possible Marxist link on the grounds that PC arose after communism had collapsed is too glib and just your POV based on your OR. The USSR collapsed, but World communism has not, and the claims of Buchanan and others are based on their own research into the writings of members of the Frankfurt school, several of whom actually wrote that it was their intention to try to replace conventional war with a war against the culture of the West as a means of bringing about world communism. Writing long before the collapse of the USSR they spoke of the failure of the Russian revolution to bring about quite what was intended, and the difficulty of inciting Western countries to revolution in view of the strong cultural values of the West that derived from centuries of Christianity. Whether this theory regarding the origin of PC is correct or not, it's sources hold up, and I think it is for the reader to make up his own mind about the matter. --Memestream (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the theory that "PC is an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world" is mentioned in the article, and given an appropriate degree of prominence under WP:WEIGHT. JQ (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate in your judgement (and that of a small controlling group of editors), but not mine. I have said before, and will say again, since nothing has changed, that I do not consider a section heading 'criticism of PC' appropriate, and it is especially innapropriate to the Marxism explanation, simply because it is an explanation of the phenomenon, and not a 'criticism'. There are critics of the various theories, but I suggest that there can be no such thing as a criticism of PC, since PC does not have one accepted definition. I would like to create a section headed 'theories regarding the origin and nature of PC', placed after the intro, and include in it, among others, the Marxist explanations of Buchanan and others and the Psychodynamic explanation of Schwartz. --Memestream (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created an "explanation" section, with the Sapir-Whorf linguistic idea (the most common one, I think) going first and the Marxist conspiracy explanation second, which I think is in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Too vague. Explanation of what, the term, the origin, the mode of expression, how it impacts on people? I think 'theories regarding the origin and nature of PC' is much more explicit. The section you added is also buried too far down. In Britain Political correctness is almost universally seen as a way of thought imposed on the population though the media, universities, schools, local councils, soap operas and NGO's. The media are full of complaints about such unwanted imposition and about people being fired because they failed to behave in a PC way. Nothing in this article would give the reader a clue about any of that. Our local councils tell us, among other things, not to put up Christmas trees and to use the term Winterval instead of Christmas - a source of much complaint in the media. Our London Mayor was suspended from his post on PC grounds (by the mysterious 'Board of standards in public life'. How on earth does the Sapir-Whorf idea explain that? Where is the origin? Are you suggesting that PC is a spontaneous phenomenon arising in the minds of the people? I doubt that many people in the UK have ever heard of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis. I certainly don't think they would accept that PC arose in the population as a linguistic concept when they see it imposed so forcefully by the bodies I mentioned. --Memestream (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Party Line Attacks and Poor Research Support

Just a few things about the article. I've been doing a lot of research lately and have been trying to find what it's supposed to mean today. I don't feel that the article here represents a neutral point of view. For example: "...the term 'political correctness' is a straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s..." Though I don't dispute that this has been stated, I do ask why it is the only information at the beginning of the articles concerning party lines? Going back to 1955 from a book called "Eros and Civilization," by Herbert Marcuse, introduces some of the beliefs that are integrated into modern political correct philosophy. Marcuse can be traced back to the Institute for Social Research where the first generation of post-Marxist philosophers gathered together, in what is known today as the Frankfurt School. After the group moved to New York they developed Critical Theory, which later became part of today's educational theory. All these ideas have close links to today's idea of early century progressivism. Which in turn links to today's left. Also in the section "In conservative rhetoric" I find right-wing attacks are present. That the "...obscure term became part of conservative social and political challenges to curriculum expansion..." No support or explanation for "curriculum expansion" is even given. This term leaves up to the imagination, where more concrete information is needed. I have the biggest problem with the section "As a Marxist conspiracy" where it's said, "Some critics, primarily on the Right, claim that political correctness is a Marxist conspiracy aimed at undermining Western values." Marcuse states in the introduction of his book "... the national Enemy [Mass democracy] who has to be fought and hated..." (please read the whole introduction for proper context) How is it a conspiracy when a famous Marxist theorist states it in his own writing? For a brief overview see this video. Don't think I'm going to use this as a source for my argument, but it does give another perspective on the subject. Until a more comprehensive overview can be done I move this article is in dispute of NPOV. As I type up my research in WP format, I'll post it. Infonation101 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of strawmen--you posit with no evidence whatsoever that Marcuse is somehow responsible for political correctness, and then on the basis of that entirely unproven assumption, claim the right-wing conspiratorial claims about Marcuse are true based on a random quote from Marcuse. You might want to go back and check your calculations :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, what is needed here is some indication that the phrase "political correctness" was used by Marcuse or someone else in the Frankfurt School to sum up their program. Otherwise all we have is a theoretical link between the two drawn, well after Marcuse's death in 1979, by Buchanan and others. This is a theory that needs to be covered in the article, but obviously its not the dominant view.JQ (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I support what you say Infonation101, but the others are right in pointing out that you give no evidence of a link to PC. Such evidence is indeed hard to find, but I believe I can provide it. Firstly, it is significant that another Marxist, and member of the Frankfurt school Antonio Gramsci is said to have famously 'counselled his side to begin a "long march through the institutions," by which he meant the capture of the cinema, theater, schools, universities, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and courts, adding "It is past time to begin a long march in a new and better direction".' [9]. Note that the citation I give here is to an article by a university professor of history. See also The Long March[10], and Understanding the Culture war[11] by Steven Yates, who has a PhD in Philosophy and specifically mentions PC. I too am researching this matter, and would point out that the "long march through the institutions" is also a phrase attributed to Rudi Dutschke, a prominent 1960's activist, but I suspect he was repeating Gramsci. I think there is enough evidence for the article to be completely re-written in a form that allows proper weight to be given to the Marxist origins of PC without the nonsense of 'Right wing commentators' and 'straw men'. It's important that everything be properly supported by references and citations, but Buchanan is not the only source for this theory by any means. --Memestream (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also evidence of the link from the Frankfurt school to the PC movement to be found in the writings of Kurt Lewin who took the message from the Frankfurt school and spread it far and wide in the form of Sensitivity training, setting up the NTL National Training Labs specifically to combat racist attitudes. Kurt Lewin also took his message to the Tavistock clinic in London. Since then, both the NTL and the Tavistock can be shown to have formed links with hundreds of institutions worldwide with a role in influencing public thought. Finally, Carl Rogers was a very influential figure, a psychologist with political motives and Marxist ideas. He is linked to Humanist Psychology and Fritz Perls and the establishement of a centre at Essalon that played a big part in the 1960's cultural revolution. --Memestream (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:OR. If you want to draw a link between "the long march through the institutions" and "political correctness", you need to find a WP:RS for this (blog posts, even by people with PhDs are not of much help here). And if you want to change the statement that this link is mainly drawn by right wing commentators, quoting the Virginia Institute or the site of Lew Rockwell is unlikely to help. JQ (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My first reference was to an article on "Virginia Viewpoint" at the site of the Virginia Institute, where I read that "The Virginia Institute for Public Policy is an independent, nonpartisan, education and research organization committed to the goals of individual opportunity and economic growth." In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and given that the writer is a PhD in history, this would seem to me to qualify as a 'scholarly source'. Furthermore I do not rely on the opinion of the writer, but only the fact that he provides a secondary source for me, referring to Gramsci, thus avoiding OR on my part. I see no claim that the Virginia Institute is 'right wing', a phrase which I reject as vague and meaningless, rather it claims to be 'non-partisan'. If you want to describe the institute as 'conservative' then are we to reject all sources that are conservative? I see no policy that requires this. Perhaps you consider it to be 'widely acknowledged as extremist'? If so, can you demonstrate that to be true? --Memestream (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reference in the Wikipedia article on Lew Rockwell to him being 'right wing'. The article which happens to be on his site is by an author who has been published, not self-published. I refer to the online article here for the convenience of access by other editors, but would refer to the published book in a citation. Can you provide valid grounds for objection? --Memestream (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to point to another Wikipedia entry as a source for proving or disproving a claim. It is easy to establish that Lew Rockwell is a very right-wing libertarian. "Non-partisan" generally mean not linked to a political party. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary" is the classic opening line for a common fallacy of logic. Central to this page is the notion that there is a dispute between conservatives and progressives over the very concept of PC, with liberals split over the matter. The Rockwell material, along with similar right-wing conspiraciy theories about PC by Lind and Buchanan, need to be mentioned here, but in context.--Cberlet (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to refer to other Wikipedia entries in the course of discussion, though not as authoritative sources. I would suggest that Memestream might want to read the article on Paleolibertarianism to get a better handle on Rockwell's thinking. In political terms, Rockwell is a marginal figure compared to Buchanan and Lind, and an obscure academic or ex-academic publishing on his site is not really a useful source. We have the PC as Marxist conspiracy theory, and sources for it, but pretty clearly the dominant views are, on the one side, the mainstream conservative view of PC as a silly attempt to impose liberal reform through speech codes and on the other side, the liberal-left view that the whole controversy was engineered. These are mentioned first, because they are held far more widely. Other views including the Marxist theory and the very small group of liberals who actually support PC get mentioned, but in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments from both sides. I was able to dig this up.

More important, however, was the political objective of bringing socialism according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Participation in labor was therefore considered an effective means of developing in the students a proletarian outlook and a proper respect for labor, at the same time preventing them from becoming isolated from the masses. The concern with political correctness necessitated, among other things, a firm control over education by the communist party, whose educational cadres emphasized Redness at the expense of Expertness.

I definitely don't want to read too much into this so please tell me your thoughts. What I understand is political correctness, as we know it today, began with Communism. It was necessary to agree with government above all else (in another discussion I would argue that this also substantiates a fascist ideology). The article was written in 1963, using the term before what some believe originated by the right in 1990's. Really I see this a greater deterrent of "social change" than what is sourced at the beginning of the article. Going along with Chinese education

Since ideological training is emphasized above all else, substantive content in an educational program and scarce resources are sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

The Marxist theory of soci-economical cultural rule requires "political correctness" be in place to control what is learned, strongly affecting any general ideology. Also, if there is a better way to cite sources on the discussion page, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added in these useful references, which are consistent with the general account in the article. "Political correctness" was used in the general sense of adherence to the party line in China, then made its way into US radical rhetoric in the 60s before being satirically appropriated as described by Perry and others. In fact, the critical use of the term is already evident in the sources you cite, both of which imply that an excessive focus on political correctness is damaging. I'm also unsure about citing sources on the discussion page. Anyone have any info on this? JQ (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

JQ, thanks for taking care of that. Now I want to throw out a question for anyone reading this because I'm getting at a loss what's happening, which I'll explain. Because of what JQ says at the top of this post I've been hunting through all of Marcuse, Adorno, Habermas, etc. complete works and I cannot find them ever using the term PC in all their writings. I'm going to keep looking, but I'm getting skeptical. Taken from numerous dictionaries, here are some current definitions of PC:

Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation

Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology

Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

Politically speaking, doesn't this sound like more left-wing beliefs? I could source half a dozen articles about how Marxist contemporaries began the work that is now today's PC, but I can never find them using the word. To me there is a major gap, in that PC is a term created as a "straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s" and now how left-wing beliefs ask if something is or isn't politically correct. Where is the missing information? Infonation101 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you read the article closely, you'll get the story. To sum up:

(a) In Marxist terminology, there was considerable emphasis on having a "correct line" or "sound position" on various issues. The terms "politically correct" and "ideologically sound" were sometimes used to describe this. At this point, there was no concern with issues like gender, race and so on - you might be politically correct or otherwise on questions like the relationship between unions and the Party. The quotes you've found describe this.

(b) Within left circles from the 1970s, these terms came to be used ironically, to describe someone who was more concerned with getting the precise phrasing of statements correct than with actually achieving anything worthwhile. If you watch the film "Life of Brian" you'll get the general idea, although the phrase "politically correct" doesn't actually occur there. A minority on the left continued to use the term "politically correct" in a favorable way, but even within this group the meaning came to be focused on using the "correct" terms in relation to gender, race and so on. These concerns are actually more typical of liberals (moderate and radical) than of Marxists, whose primary focus is on class.

(c) Critics on the right picked the term up, and used it to criticise the left, with specific focus on things like campus speech codes, largely the product of liberals rather than Marxists.JQ (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

JQ, thanks for the recap. I do understand that concept of the evolution of political correctness, but I believe that there is more to it. Though I'm not going to try and pass off my own beliefs or rely on right-wing "reports" that make the same statement. Sticking with Wikipedia policy, I will find the published sources I will need to complete the article in a way I feel is more correctly inline with WP NPOV policy, but for the moment I must redact my NPOV stance. But if anyone is able to direct me to the correct sources for this, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Above is a politically correct explanation of PC

I think that the above is the politically correct explanation of political correctness, which hides its true origin. That origin, with the Frankfurt school, is easy to see, since followers of that school actually explained their intention ('the long march through the institutions') in a way that perfectly explains the imposition of PC that is seen today in the media and in universities. A Google search shows that to be the most publicised explanation, but yes, that carries little weight on Wikipedia, and it is true to say that many articles feed off each other on the Web. We are not allowed original research and so cannot trace the roots of PC here by pointing out the obvious similarity, because the term PC was adopted later to refer to that phenomenon started by the Frankfurt school, and so does not appear in their writings - we need secondary sources that claim the link. Those secondary sources exist, and they are well argued in my opinion, but they are all being labelled 'right-wing' or 'extremist' here as grounds for minimising the veracity of their claims. This use of 'tag' words is itself a technique of PC; by attaching a tag word like 'racist' or 'fascist' or 'extremist' to a speaker he is discredited and debate is stifled. I think that Buchanan, Hitchins, and others deserve better treatment here, and if they were not so crudely discredited their argument would stand above the others as making more sense in terms of the evidence and the fact that it provides a cause that predates other explanations. I anticipate continuing objections to what I say from JQ and others, but this article is in dispute and has been in dispute repeatedly, so something needs to change, does it not? I suggest that the 'tagging' as right-wing, etc has no place here, and we should show good faith to all authors, especially on this page. When I pointed out that Lew Rockwell is not described as 'right wing' in the Wikipedia article I needed no tiresome reminder that Wikipedia articles are not good sources. I sought only to point out, here on the talk page, that if editors really think a person justifies a 'tag' they might in fairness try putting that tag on the persons article. The fact that it does not appear there suggests to me that they would not get away with it in the presence of other editors defending the person, and therefore should not be allowed to 'get away with it' here. --Memestream (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand you believe in the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory (which claims there is a conspiracy of leftists to take over the world through the machinations of Jews and Commmunists hiding in the Frankfurt school as part of a sinister plan see here, and here). You have a First Amendment right to believe this ridiculous conspiracy theory. Here on Wiki we have an obligation to mention this silly right-wing conspiracy theory. But we are not going to elevate a marginal, fringe, and frankly crackpot right-wing theory based on a tiny handful of POV editors claiming they and only they know the "truth" about PC. Get over it.--Cberlet (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! You know nothing of the sort. "Machinations of Jews and communists", "hiding", "conspiracy theory", "sinister plan", these are all your rantings, not mine. Perhaps you need to "get over" some obsession? I note that you are, according you your page, "on a mission", and "a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks[12]". I just try to find truth by applying reason. Lets stick to polite, reasoned responses about the topic here please. --Memestream (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<-----Whoa! Above you posted that there has been a conspiracy here on this page about PC that

• "hides its true origin. That origin, with the Frankfurt school, is easy to see, since followers of that school actually explained their intention ('the long march through the institutions') in a way that perfectly explains the imposition of PC that is seen today in the media".

So you clearly endorse the right-wing conspiracy theory about PC. So let's stick to facts. The facts are that this page represents a reasonable NPOV attempt at sorting out a contentious topic.--Cberlet (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards Rockwell, you might want to read this piece from Cato, itself not exactly leftwing [13]. Note the Rothwell-Rockbard report advocating "rightwing populism" in alliance with (you guessed it) Buchanan. It seems far more sensible to quote Buchanan, who is a significant political figure than his fringe supporters (now somewhat estranged, but the stuff you cite is a bit old, I think). 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The Buchanan material is in a published book, and clearly qualifies as a reputable source. I was under the inmpression, however, that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory started with the LaRouchites. Is that not correct?--Cberlet (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not refer to any 'conspiracy theory' and I object to the use of that term. If I refer to something that someone said then that is what I am referring to and nothing else. If I say that this page is NPOV (as others are saying) then that does not mean I 'support the conspiracy theory'. Trying to lump together a number of ideas held by a number of writers under the umbrella of 'conspiracy theory' is a cheap attempt to discredit them without discussion. I personally think that PC arose out of the Frankfurt school because my own research into primary sources strongly indicates that to be so, with a number of lines traceable from then to the present day, not because I am a follower of Buchannan or anyone else. Good historians trying to get to the truth use primary sources. Wikipedia does not allow OR and discourages primary sources, but that does not mean that a good editor should not strive to get truth into Wikipedia. I do not expect to be mocked and insulted for trying to find ways of doing so, especially when the page is tagged as in dispute. The way to end dispute is surely to allow more weight to those disputing the current version. That is not happening in any significant way. --Memestream (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I know that you have a thing about LaRouche, Chip, but believe me, here in England (where incidentally you might note that I do not have recourse to the first ammendment or any other ammendment) names like Buchannan and LaRouch are barely known and of no interest whatsoever to most people. In fact politics is increasingly dismissed as irrelevant! You say that you were 'under the impression' that the 'Frankfurt school conspiracy' (your word) started with LaRouchites. Do you have evidence of that. Can you point to a date and an author? If so it might help to sort out whether there were prior claims. --Memestream (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My research shows that the political right around 1979 took the idea of cultural hegemony proposed by Gramsci and adopted it as an organizing strategy (especially Paul Weyrich), and then in 1990 through a form of politico-psychological projection, accused the "left" of a conspiracy to enforce PC as a way to dominate society. The link to the Frankfurt School came later, when some rightists utilized the old trope of Communists and Jews as the root of subversion (a paradigm of apocalyptic countersubversion that traces back to the 1790s and the fist Illuminati hysteria).--Cberlet (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Memestream, if you check your comment on 6 Aug, you wrote "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." There are quite a few other comments noting your view that Buchanan and LaRouche are advancing a conspiracy theory, and that this conspiracy theory should be mentioned. I've done exactly as you asked, putting forward the Marxist conspiracy theory as one explanation of PC, without any "crackpot" label. So what is your problem? It should be clear to you by now, that this is a minority viewpoint. After all Buchanan and LaRouche are minority figures in US politics. Of the two main parties, Republicans mostly endorse the standard conservative view (nonsense pushed by liberals) and Democrats the alternative view that the whole thing is a beatup. These views come first, by WP:WEIGHT which you haven't soguht to challenge.JQ (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the "Serve the Will of the Illuminati" stuff is a joke, a parody aimed at conspiracist attacks on Wikipedia. Some of us Wiki editors have been denounced by LaRouchites and other conspiracy theorists. Many of the most fanatic conspiracists have been banned, but new ones appear constantly.--Cberlet (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JQ: It is almost impossible to answer Cberlet without using his own term of 'conspiracy theory', so please do not use those replies against me out of context. I myself regard the term as a 'tag' of derision, which certain groups use in the sense that all conspiracy theories are clearly 'crackpot' (another favourite tag) to stifle debate. I therefore prefer not to use the word 'conspiracy' which in any case, as strictly defined, means combining forces to do evil, and in secret, and not just working together. Many people come together to bring about a commonly desired aim, but we do not necessarily call them conspirators. The Frankfurt school wanted to change the world, but they did not actually make a secret of it. Nor, I feel, did they regard what they were doing as wrong or evil. My interest is therefore in what they said, and in particular the call by Antonio Gramsci for Marxists to take over the culture of the West from the inside. I then note that Rudi Dutschke, a disciple of Gramsci, carried that call into the sixties cultural revolution when he urged rioting German students to take up 'the long march through the institutions'. What he did, incidentally seems far more benign than what some of his friends did, through the extreme violence of the Bader Meinhof gang, showing that Marxism was a major force in the West in 1968. Dutchke did not live long, but he had a following of people who can be traced to positions in many organisations today, giving credance to the idea that Dutchke's call led to what we know as PC. The whole story is not given by Buchannan, or by any other writer, and their standing as politicians in the USA is not of the slightest interest to me. I judge a secondary source by the extent to which it makes sense and is backed up by primary sources, and I would wish to use multiple sources inasmuch as they fill in the whole picture.

My point then is that this theory explains a great deal that other theories do not seem to. It explains why so many Western institutions, like Christmas, are under attack. The idea that PC was invented by the right to attack the left does not make any sense of such things to me, and in England, especially rural England, there are many such things upsetting the people, perhaps in a way that does not occur to inhabitants of the USA where a more multicultural society has always been the norm. It also explains why PC is most virulant in Universities (especially in the USA), in terms of the many students from 1968 who went on to become professors and heads in the universities. I am not happy therefore with the undue weight which in my opinion is given to the other theories. No, I do not recognise the link to the Frankfurt school as a 'minority view', I regard it as the only one that makes sense. I base my judgement on the facts as put forward my many writers, and the primary sources that support those facts, regardless of whether those writers are 'minor political figures' which I do not think has any relevance whatsoever. I am particularly unhappy that no reference to the Marxist roots has been allowed into the introduction. I am unhappy that the 1793 reference and the China reference (both of which are totally irrelevant to the current major meaning of the term) come immediately after the intro. I am also unhappy with the section on Cultural Marxism starting with the phrase 'some critics'. Critics of what? With so many definitions already given it's impossible to deduce a meaning from this. It's a theory. A valid, well argued theory, about the origin of a phenomenon we call PC. Many people have supported this theory, and they are theorisers, not 'critics', because until you are sure what PC is you cannot refer to it's critics. I don't see Buchanan 'criticising' anything. I see him telling it how he thinks it is. To me, it is as peculiar to talk about a critic of PC as to talk of a critic of Malaria or a critic of Chromosomes. You criticise something for being badly done, not for existing as a phenomenon. Finally, given that the path posited from Cultural Marxism to PC is a historical one in several stages, I think it should be spelled out in detail here. The other theories, I suggest, are much weaker regarding historical facts, and warrant less space therefore. --Memestream (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make the long march from the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxists and Maoists to today's notion of PC (i.e., a linguistic notion that opposes phraseology that is felt to be oppressive to certain groups), then you'll have to do the same genealogy of the positions of Lind and Buchanan--as you say, "a historical one in several stages"--and trace them back to segregationist, overtly white supremacist trends in American thought. Should we go there? Or can we simply accept the actual documented fact that the notion of political correctness, as it is used today, is nothing more than the attempt to ameliorate offensive aspects of every day speech, and which has been seized upon by certain people on the right to attack those in the liberal world. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, because this article is not about the positions of Lind and Buchanan, it's about political correctness. In an article about 'Darwinian evolution' it is relevant to mention the history of evolutionary thought leading to Darwin, from the Greeks through Spencer and Wallace etc, but unnecessary to mention that in his youth Darwin got the greatest pleasure from shooting animals. We judge theories by their credibility and by the cogency of the evidence presented, not by the character of the men who write them. The 'actual documented fact' that PC is nothing more than ...etc is purely your POV. There are many documented facts about PC, by many writers, who have differing theories. Maoism doesn't enter into it by the way, except for the common use of the term 'long march' to describe a (different) cultural revolution. --Memestream (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here on Wiki we do not as editors decide what theory among many about this or that subject is "correct" or the "truth." We use a variety of tools to help make a page NPOV. We use reputable published sources that represent the main school of thought. We also, at times, include significant minority views if they appear in reputable published sources. On this entry, there is a difficulty, because there are hotly contested views about what "PC" is, how the term was used at different moments in history, and how it is used in public discourse as opposed to the anlyses of various scholars. Editors across the political spectrum have, over time, crafted an imperfect, but reasonable entry text for this page. It can always be improved. It will not be improved by an editor coming here and insisting that there is only one way to explain PC and we are dullards for not agreeing and changing the text.--Cberlet (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to reflect abundant references to 60's counterculture

I have no problem with the nature of Wikipedia editing. I do object to your constantly putting words into my mouth. I have not said that there is only one way to explain PC and I have not referred to anyone as a 'dullard'. I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject of PC, and do not wish to be seen as supporting only Buchanan, Lind and others who you might label as political figures. Rather I would point out that what they say in simple terms is backed up in other references already given in the article. For example, reference 22 refers to Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay 'Repressive tolerance', analysing it at some length in the context of 'speech codes' as applied to university campuses etc. Marcuse was a Marxist member of the Frankfurt School. What I feel is missing in the article at present is a proper explanation of what PC is all about in that it is an all-encompassing term for limitations set on speech and behaviour by a radical movement that came out of the sixties cultural revolution, also known as the counterculture of the 1960s, gaining impetus on the universities campuses of America in particular under leadership from many intellectuals in the humanities, social sciences, political science and philosophy departments whose roots were in the sixties movement. While Marxism lies at the root of this movement, it clearly moved on to encompass gender and race as well as class, and key words like 'affirmative action', 'civil rights movement', 'deconstructionism', 'radical feminism', 'new left', 'multiculturalism', 'sensitivity training', 'antischolarship', 'social engineering', all largely missing in this article, abound in the references, as do names like Derrida, Rousseau, Foucault. It is impossible to make sense of PC without understanding that it clearly arose out of this movement against the validity of truth and experience, towards the idea of relative truths in social science. It's a movement that is widely acknowledged and that can be quite properly debated and yet it is as if the article seeks to expunge all reference to such a movement as the origin of PC. I will try to improve the article along these lines now that I have better references. --Memestream (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you think that "It is impossible to make sense of PC without understanding that it clearly arose out of this movement against the validity of truth and experience, towards the idea of relative truths in social science." Please understand that while I recognize that a number of right-wing commentators make this claim, I think it is a steaming pile of horse manure. In my view, (and the view of several liberal and left scholars) there is no such thing as a "PC" movement, and there never was. It is a right-wing myth. We certainly can include more references to the right-wing POV if they are properly cited. However once again you are claiming that there is a single "true" historical analysis about where "PC" comes from. This is not appropriate, it violates basic Wiki policies, and is tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't violate basic Wiki policies and it isn't disruptive. If editors didn't have different views there would be no need for the talk page, and I have as much right to say here how I see things as you have. Once again you are putting words into my mouth. I do not claim a single true historical analysis, but I do find that there are a lot of writers in agreement on a largely consistent analysis, and that they are not represented here properly. Calling those writers 'right wing' does not alter the fact that their theories are supported by the writings of many famous 'left wing' intellectuals. Do you deny that Dutschke called for a 'long march through the institutions', or would you claim that he had no effect in bringing such a thing about? If he did play a part in bringing about such a thing, would it not seem very likely to be the source of what we now call PC. Do you deny that Marcuse recommended 'working against the institutions while working in them'? Do you not recognise that what we call PC, and the backlash against it, errupted on University campuses, where many incidents were reported. Do you deny that attempts were made to enforce 'speech codes' on campuses to quell objection to the new ideas forcibly. I do not claim a 'PC movement'. I agree that the term was coined by those writing about, and largely objecting to the phenomenon. That phenomenon is broadly described as the 'sixties cultural revolution'. Are you saying that there was no such revolution, that this too is a myth? That there were no student uprisings in France and Germany? That many of those students did not go on to teach in the Universities? Yes this is OR, but it is OR into the blindingly obvious, into established historical fact, as stated in the secondary sources of Buchanan and many others. You can think what you like of their theories, but you are not entitled to trash them unless you can point to authoritative sources that argue cogently against their theories. I don't see any, just left wing abuse and the constant cry of 'right wing'. --Memestream (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau politically correct?? Yikes. But not for nothing, if the idea is to trace the origins of PC back to assorted "people who tried to get other people to think and act a certain way" then you're gonna have to go back a lot further than the 18th century. Even by the time Jesus came along, the concept was already old. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Rousseau is mentioned repeatedly in regard to the French revolution, a violent revolution against the established order in a Western country. Others saw the folly of violent revolution and invented the idea of 'cultural revolution'. I mentioned him only because many others do when writing the history of the sixties revolution, which they regard as ushering in the new ideas that came to be called PC. --Memestream (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The blame game for why many of our urban areas, suburban communities and even small towns in much of the U.S. is "decrepit, collapsed, ghettoized and depleted" isn't from the "P.C. left's efforts" during the Civil Rights era to open residential tracts to minorities, formerly prohibited from purchasing and owning homes in formerly "upscale, stable and NICE" white middle-class areas. Sounds like the white supremacists are attempting to get working/middle-class white home owners about the possible consequences of allowing a potential home buyer who's Black or African-American, to use racial stereotyping of they are welfare poor, involved in crime or drugs, trash the property, lower home values and are culturally low-class. There are plenty of strictly white-European and upper-middle class neighborhoods in America, despite the rising number of inner-city and older suburban communities have very low ratio of whites that became more black, Latino, Asian, etc. in the late 20th century because most of the old time white residents "heard about" a single Black man moved in next door or across form them: "Oh no, there goes the whole neighborhood" and soon, "1 black moves in, 8 whites move out" the saying may actually have a grain of truth, that the P.C. left is threatening to put more black people in a mostly white home tract to balance a racial gap or ratio of blacks living in white communities. + 71.102.36.5 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Half-truths, Black and white logic, limited hangouts.

While this is original research, I am suggesting this as a means of improving the listing.

Political correctness, gets it power, by the simple reality that there is an element of truth to the statement.

The statements are often, half-truth (there are some 8 new types, and black and white logic a generalized logic.

For example:

"The Jews killed Christ."

Well some Jews may have killed Christ, not All Jews. (Generalized black and white logic.(Well of course, if someone is executed in America, its going to be by another American ) In the case of Jesus Christ, some of "the Romans' were involved as well. Blaming all the people becase of some, is black and white generalized logic.

Jesus Christ was a Jew. ( a simple truth we ignore)

"Limited hangout" a form of half-truth, very useful in painting a certain picture of something. You only tell what you want to.

Stop violence against women. (A half-truth in many forms, the real issue is abuse, and why not stop it against men and children. The statement seems to imply its okay because of their omission.)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, this is WP:OR and therefore can't be included in the article, or discussed at any length here. However, I'd note that, on most views "The Jews killed Christ." is a paradigm example of a "politically incorrect" statement for precisely the reason you set out. This suggests that at least some critics of political correctness want to be able to put forward half-truths that unfairly denigrate particular groups without themselves being criticised. JQ (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"The header of this section is disgraceful as it makes reference to black and white" would be the response of a PC lunatic. SJHQC (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More on PC

Hey everyone. Interesting stuff I've been digging up. Finding out that the transition in definition of PC here in the United States happened more around 1984 during the Lesbian movement. That one really took me by surprise. Here are some of my sources:

• Freedman, Estelle B., and Thorn, Barrie. "Introduction to "The Feminist Sexuality Debates"." Signs 10.1 (1984): 102-105.
• Ellen Shapiro. "Review: The Politic and the Erotic." The Women's Review of Books 1.9 (1984): 13-14.
• Thomas, Diane. "Second of Five Articles Submitted under the Title: Bridging for Peace: Theory and Action for the 1980's." Political Psychology 5.3 (1984): 471-479.
• Hunter, Carol, and Rose, Wendy. "A MELUS Interview: Wendy Rose." MELUS 10.3 (1983): 67-87.
• Stephanson, Anders. "On Soviet Foreign Policy." Social Text 8 (1983): 25-39.
• Aya, Rod. "The Theory behind "Theory and Society"." Theory and Society 11.6 (1982): 907-913.

Please disregard my earlier posts. Seems I've opened something of a Pandora's box, and it didn't contain what I thought it would. Let me know what you all think. Infonation101 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to see any quotes from those books that actually use the phrase 'political correctness' if you would copy them here. --Memestream (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I'm compiling the information together in a report that a professor of mine wants me to send to a PRJ. I'd be more then happy to get the information on here for you (can't at the moment, I'm on a public computer). When I started to research this I decided that I wouldn't use a single source that doesn't actually have the term politically correct or political correctness in context. I'll be done with the report by the end of the week, and I'll just put a link online so you can read it yourself. From what I'm gathering, both sides have fabricated today's meaning into what they wanted it to be, but for over 100 years it was never used in that context. Cheers. Infonation101 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious why we are relying so strongly on the essay by Ruth Perry to make the opinion of the political left. In the book Beyond PC, where her essay has been published, there are at least half a dozen other nicely written articles that would contribute substantially to this page. Also, I wonder, Memestream, why you question these articles? They are similar articles for the argument Ruth makes in her essay (p. 75, Beyond PC). Infonation101 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More references would be great. I think other editors have not had the time to chase additional sources, so your efforts will be most welcome. JQ (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It's actually been a research project for me, so I've been able to compile some 50+ usable sources (all of which actually contain the phrase PC). Instead of just throwing all this on everyone I'm going to compile the research using the Wiki style. After that I'll let everyone see and critique. Infonation101 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this topic really belong under the category "Discrimination"?

Bracketing for a moment the problem that this article is already highly skewed towards a conservative orientation, it seems utterly ridiculous to be classifying the concept "political correctness" under "Discrimination." To do so implies an acceptance of a conservative framing and interpretation of the term and does not constitute a fair or balanced approach to the issues involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitman31 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Political Correctness" is listed in the section titled "related topics". For someone looking into social aspects around the area of 'discrimination', especially someone looking at the social context of the US in the past 20 years, PC certainly seems to be a "related topic", if only because of the "conservative framing and interpretation of the term" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that "someone looking at the social context of the US in the past 20 years" under the topic of "discrimination" might find PC to be a "related term" is a conservative interpretation of the term's definition and its social context. I don't see why your reading of this topic is so extreme. It seems to me that a more neutral interpretation of this contested term is more desirable.

To merge political correctness with discrimation is a ridiculous suggestion. A political correctness article is neccasary as political correctness has so many faults. SJHQC (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a related topic, which is exactly where it lists it. I don't really see what the problem is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not a related topic. How do you see it as "related"? Whitman31 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The term itself has a long

history of being connected with discrimination issues, especially those related to race. Jesse Jackson encouraged people to adopt "African American" over "black". By its very nature, it is designed to curb the effects of discrimination by using less perjorative terms. Without discrimination, there would be no political correctness. Political correctness is both dependent on discrimination for it's existence and inextricably linked to it in a dynamic way as society's mores and connotations of words change. To say there's no connection there is simply inane. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious! You've done nothing but prove my original point that the terms are not "related" unless one employs a conservative interpretation of the term "political correctness," a move which wikipedia has no business making if it wants to be neutral or objective. The first of the sources you just quoted, the "liberal" one, DOES NOT use the word "discrimination" anywhere is the article. In a telltale moment, the word does appear in the comments box as an epithet supplied by someone coming from a conservative perspective who refers to PC as as "discriminatory" and "Stalinist PC garbage." The other source you quote is so far right politically as to be a completely irrelevant viewpoint for someone compiling a public encyclopedia. The fact that Jesse Jackson encouraged people to adopt "African American" over "black" is unrelated to the topic of "political correctness" unless one interprets the term from a conservative perspective, and wikipedia has no business imposing that view on its readers.

Really, I urge you to remove "political correctness" from the category of "discrimination" for the moment. It's the reasonable thing to do, since the connection between the two cannot be made clear on account of the fact that the term PC is politically frontloaded, an epithet which contains an inherent derisiveness in its usage. Only once these aspects of the term's status are more foregrounded in the wikipedia definition itself, and the definition made more politically balanced, can the relationship between PC and "discrimination" (if there is one) possibly be addressed in a relevant way.

PC is a term used primarily by conservatives as a critique of various kinds of anti-discrimination efforts. I think the article makes this clear, starting with the observation that the use of the term ia almost entirely pejorative. As regards your view that the article is highly skewed towards a conservative orientation, if you read the discussion thread above, you'll find that the conservative contributors here don't think so. There has been a sustained effort to present all views of the question in line with WP:NPOV. However, I'd encourage you to contribute more, being careful to cite sources rather than just adding in your own interpretation. In particular, I think it might be useful to find examples of anti-discrimination actions, rather than just language, being criticised as PC JQ (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"P.C. ness" blamed for current-day problems/social woes

I often hear the saying by many cosnervative and other critics on talk radio, TV news programs and the internet: "if it weren't for PC-ness, we wouldn't have massive poverty in the developed world, welfare dependency paid by high tax rates, deindustrialization of entire factory zones, price inflation and weakened buying power, AIDS and SARS pandemics, high divorce rates when the parents have children, out-of-wedlock births/parenting, poor-quality state public education systems, urban crime waves and increase of child kidnapping, illegal drug use to increased, Rap music encourage gang violence, Spanish language TV or radio stations, the Japanese's economic power to hurt the U.S. economy, our refusal to land army troops to fight the Soviets, inability to ward off the 9-11 terror attack, etc." The blame on all our current-day problems and social woes is as if the Political correctness movement was responsible for the hypothetical decline of the United States and Europe, as in "the Death of the west" quoted by Pat Buchanan in the 1990's was also the title of his politically charged book. + 71.102.36.5 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What the true intent of this discussion page is

The true intent is to assist editors to arrive at text to be placed in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor are its discussion pages.--Cberlet (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is very poor. Grasping firmly (perhaps intentionally so) the wrong end of the stick. The present contents might be edited down and used under a sub-heading. Surely there must be better than this out there. Somebody, please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.101.230 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats the great thing about a wiki. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss substantial changes to the lead paragrapghs

As is requested at the top of this page. Please also avoid linking to propaganda pages of the left or right. Please stress reputable published scholarly sources. It is customary to avoid dictionary definitions in Wiki leads. Thank you.--Cberlet (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to Coloneldoctor. As stated at the top of the page, all new discussion postings are to be placed at the bottom of the discussion page. Please do not enagge in extended polemics on this discussion page. Please cite reputable published scholarly sources, especially in the lead. Thank you.--Cberlet (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What about conservative PC?

I don't see PC as something necessarily leftist. There are plenty of examples of PC language use and censorship on the right - see Diane Ravitch's book The Language Police. Much comes from ways of phrasing ideas of evolution, homosexuality, abortion, and so forth. Terms like "pro-life", "freedom fries", "homicide bombers", "change over time" (in lieu of "evolution") and even the avoidance of the word "gay" are good candidates for right-wing PC. Bubbha (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a book and/or other sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, then feel free to add referenced content to the article. Or if you are feeling less bold, post what you think should be added here gain a consensus prior to adding to the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does have a section on rightwing political correctness that includes a couple of these examples, but as said above, feel free to add more. JQ (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Bubbha's examples are good ones of conservative PCness, but the principal one in the article -- the Dixie Chicks -- is really more a case of censorship by the media than of political correctness, as I understand the term. CsikosLo (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both forms

The article currently says: "Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC)". I think there is no need to keep the words "both forms" in that sentence, and I am thinking about removing them. Is there anyone who considers this clarification useful? NerdyNSK (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the words are essential since they are contained within brackets. Without them, the phrase 'commonly abreviated to PC' only refers to what goes before within the brackets. --Memestream (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Perry-1992a" :
  • Ruth Perry, (1992), "A short history of the term 'politically correct' " in ''Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding '' by Aufderheide, Patricia 1992
  • <ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3027/a_politically_correct_lexicon/ |title=A Politically Correct Lexicon |journal=In These Times |author=Joel Bleifuss |date=February 2007}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The REAL Name For Political Correctness

"Political Correctness was once known as 'Spastic Gay Talk'" - Not my words, Frankie Boyle's. Is that true? If so, it should defenitley be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.46.103 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's interesting... and funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.46.103 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is not true, it is a joke. The clue is that he makes his living as a comedian. --86.179.186.239 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

new comments

Hello, my comments are: Everyone is an original source because we all have heard the word used many times and have our own impression of its meaning. I don't think people who use the word in day-to-day conversation know its origins and so when spoken thus the intended meaning would contain none of that. I do think people on the right are referring to a real movement on the left, or at least think or pretend to refer to such movement. Since the use of the word PC was not extensive in the seventies or eighties in either the media or day to day conversation, and I should know, since I was alive during this time period and watching t.v. and hearing ordinary people talk day-to-day conversation, then if there is a movement on the left that this refers to, its one coming to full force in the early nineteen nineties and bears no direct connection to an earlier movement of the 1960's. In fact, we have all experienced such a movement, haven't we? So it is in fact true, the political right's concept that a movement to make everything pc in fact exists. That being said, I am convinced that people on the left also use the word and use it to speak positively that such and such a behavior is not pc or not pov or whatever and by which they mean that such way of speaking or topic should be modified or left unsaid because it is not correct, perhaps even illegal speech, or not polite. I once heard a young "left-leaning" woman use this word in this sense, although not with any harshness in her voice, so there is an example. I also suspect left-leaning people use the word all the time in this sense. I unfortunately am surrounded by people who are either right-wing or only moderately left-wing. Can some people provide some personal examples from day-to-day conversation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommcnabb (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A long search has found no examples of "politically correct" being used positively in the sense for which you ask. The closest have been examples along the lines of "call me politically correct if you want, but I say racism is bad" for example [14]. These uses take the rightwing use of "politically correct" as a counter to criticism of racism as their starting point. As the article shows, positive use of the term was prevalent on the left in the early 70s, but disappeared decades ago (no doubt there are still a handful of diehards from that era left over but you are unlikely to meet them).JQ (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-truths

Half-truths.

One of the best ways of manipulating political correctness, are half-truths truths can easily manipulated as the world does not recongize this dimension of truth, and most reliable sources do not want to expose this.

Yes this is original research 1994 but you might check on the internet if you can find another reliable source to show this.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the talk page guidelines and limit your comments on the page to direct applications of how you believe THE ARTICLE should be improved and not your commentary on the topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to communicate to you the idea that many 'politically correct' ideas or concepts of the past have involved deceptive half-truths as well as creating a paradigm that to question the polarized truth is wrong in one fashion or another.

I had simply placed a link to the concept of half-truths and someone removed it. I suggest we include it.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this a few times. This suggestion doesn't relate well to the topic, since PC mostly refers to the choice of language rather than the associated ideas, . The half-truths topic is more closely related to propaganda and maybe advertising. Your suggestion to link it here has had no support from other editors, and should be dropped.JQ (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspeak

I see there's only one mention of Newspeak on the page:

Other critics say that politically correct terms are awkward euphemisms for truer, original, stark language, comparing them to George Orwell's Newspeak.[32]

Yet Newspeak by definition is the substitution of politically-chosen words for the express purpose of changing thought/ideas/perceptions and to obliterate "anti-social" and "unacceptable" behaviorus and lines of thought; there would seem to be a passage in Orwell somewhere that would state this outright, and I submit that there's very little difference not only from the effect or politically-correct language but also the intent of same; often stated directly - to prevent people from thinking "incorrect thoughts", and to wipe away what is denounced by "those in charge" any truth about the post or about genuine culture. A good example is the Baa Baa Black Sheep thing in the article; whiel the original rhyme did have to do with "being different", the p.c. version completely wipes out teh reality that black sheep existed as sheep, and the mythical "blue, yellow, green" sheep are substituteed, as if the rhyme were about diversity; changing the past to suit the prejudices/agendas of the present; tryin to engineer a psycholinguistic future in which people are not free to coin and use and innovate words themselves.....what I'm getting at is, short of creating syntehsis in teh article, this comparison is fairly direct and there must be other sourc es that discuss it. This applies not only to words, of course, but also to "politically corrected" versions of history as practiced in mdoern academic departments - proudly "rewriting history" as they see fit....or rather insist on how others must see it; to the point of censoring or ignoring un-rewritten histories that do not conform to the p.c. viewpoint (right or left).Skookum1 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All this said not to propagandize - rather counter-propagandize - but towards improvements in the article related to newspeak and criticism; "not a rant".Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that make the analysis, we can work on how to include the material. Otherwise, you are venturing into the world of original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said I'm pretty sure there's a relevant passage in Orwell but tying it to the stated concept of political correctness without a citable analysis/essay might be tricky; on the other hand it's partly Orwell's influence that introduced the idea of poliltical correctness, so maybe there's a cite to that effect somewhere - maybe papers/books with the stated subgject matter "Newspeak" published more recently in times when the term "poiltical correctness" became in use; because it certainly is what Orwell was satirizing (sans doute).....BTW, again not meaning to discuss the topic but to address a point that shoudl be in teh article, or which Wikipedians should be aware of concerning same and concerning their own edits elsewhere: politically correct language is inherently POV.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Issues

I'm having a lot of trouble finding any justification for a couple of statements.

First off, the intro claims that "Ruth Perry traces the term back to Mao's Little Red Book" yet I can't find a single instance of the term in that book. Sure there's plenty of tedious rambling about "correctness" but nothing of relevance to this article. In fact, the "little red book" is actually just a compilation of quotations. Therefore, if Ruth Perry had found the term there, she should have been able to trace it back to some earlier work!

Then there's the section on "Marxism-Leninism" or, more correctly(!) just plain Leninism. The entire section is just a tirade about the Bolsheviks suppressing dissent. What's more, Marxism and Form, the source for the claims, says nothing at all about the term "politically correct" and its supposed relationship to "party line" and "correct line". In fact, it seems to be about something else entirely. Go on, read it. Read the "In Marxism-Leninism" section then read Marxism and Form and see for yourself.

I think you could reasonably delete the sentence about the Bolsheviks: the Collini reference includes the observation "one cannot help noticing how the whiff of sectarianism, of laying down the "correct" line, now hangs about some of these articles like stale cigarette smoke. " which reasonably captures the way in which the term "correct line" was used on the Left, initially positively and then sarcastically or pejoratively.JQ (talk)

Sorry about the late reply, I haven't had much time over the past few weeks and I hope you're still reading the talk page.

I notice you made an improvement to the Marxism section. I believe the problems are deeper than that, though. My real objection is that the section in question contradicts the article's definition of PC which is "...language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups..."

There's also the fact that the source is actually referring to the far more recent works by Perry Anderson - and he's actually commenting on what you might call Anderson's harsh and forceful literary style (which isn't all that surprising given that Collini's a professor of intellectual history and English literature). There would have to be better sources for "party line" and "correct line" if such things were in any way relevant to this article.

The stuff about Ruth Perry is similarly irrelevant with the added feature of being quite nonsensical. How can someone trace a term back to a book of quotes? It's like tracing Vladimir Putin's links to the KGB back to a story in Reader's Digest.

I've done a little research myself and have discovered that, while peer reviewed journal articles often make use of the term "political correctness", there's pretty much nothing on its history. Given the very odd claims in this article, I assume the contributors here have made the same discovery. Therefore, the best thing to do is get rid of the history section for the time being and move any useful content to other more relevant sections (I'm thinking here of the "Use world wide" subsection). - Hydrostatic (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

These are just two (very big) problems I see with the article - and I found them near the start. The article may well be littered with such errors. And, yes, I know I could "be bold" and just get rid of those bits, but, given the nature of the topic, I'm sure my changes would be short-lived so I'm discussing it here first to gauge the reaction. Hydrostatic (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Purporting" in lede sentance

The addition of "purporting" to the first sentance does not add anything to the accuracy of the definition and makes a convoluted sentance disagreeably MORE convoluted and difficult to interpret. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I appreciate the editor's point that political correctness is not always appreciated by the groups it's correcting on the behalf of, this is already covered by the "seen as seeking" part of the sentence. Adding "purporting to" does nothing to express the argument that political correctness is sometimes misguided; it would be much more useful to explicitly write about this in the main body of the article, than to hope that readers can somehow extract the full angle from these two words. --McGeddon (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to write such a piece but could only do it from my own opinion and common sense with the knowledge of the hundreds I have discussed this with, but I have not read up on the subject. I added an idea below, it's the best I could get away with without being yelled at for citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.162.220 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

i get what you say about "seen as seeking" but it doesn't allow for the posibility that the people "seeking" are not really "seeking" to minimize offence but have another agenda, i.e. getting paid.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.162.220 (talk • contribs)

The article doesn't claim that "people who enforce political correctness are seen as seeking", it specifically refers to "language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking". Any activity could include the disclaimer that "some people might only be doing this for some other reason". --McGeddon (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That ignores the distinction that people will label a policy/etc with "political correctness" when they do not see it as seeking but because it was imparted to them with a claim that it was seeking; the receiver of the policy may well not see it as seeking to minimize offence at all but may see it a bad idea repeated by people who didn't think about it or attempting to confirm that it really avoids offence, they may well believe that paid consultants came up with the idea to earn money as a scam that has been repeated by people told to repeat it. So, a person with this view now labels a concept with political correctness without ever seeing the concept as seeking to minimize offence, but by seeing that it was claiming that as it's purpose. The distinction revolves around the purpose of the idea, that it may not be seen to be seeking just claiming to seek without any positive intentions. It would alter the tone of the introduction as the introduction leaves you with the impression political correctness concepts always have a positive goal and it is the belief of myself and others I have spoken that it does not always have a positive goal and probably did not have a positive goal with the person/people who devised it. This would make a more neutral initial impression because the word purporting indicates falsehood and instantly encourages a negative appraisal when read to balance the positive appraisal of intent encouraged by "seeking to minimize offence".

The distinction is subtle but important, the label of political correctness does not require you see the behaviour as seeking to minimizing offence - you say any activity could include the a disclaimer about the motivation for an activity being different than that presented but perceiving a con man collecting money for charity as collecting for charity does not make him a charity worker and perceiving an idea as claiming to be minimizing offence does put it in the category of political correctness. Do you disagre the distinction exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.162.220 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

describing things as political correctness just by how they are "seen as" by others

This is an incorrect description as "seen as" discusses soley how an idea is seen by others. Paid consultants present ideas like "idea shower" to replace "brain storming" which nobody seems to think would offend epilectics, including epilectics - except those consultants who gain financial reward for coming up with ideas which are supposed to be "seen as" mimimizing offence. To many people as the article discusses already these ideas seem devicive or absurd and not as seeking to minimize offence at all, but rather that they are only proporting to. Nobody has to actually think an idea is really seeking to minimize offence the fact that it is presenting itself as being is enough to have this label applied.

You could say that this is just semantics but it's important because "seen as" implies all people coming up with "political correctness" concepts are generally viewed as trying to minimize offence when the article already discusses the criticism, that some people view it just as coercion at least some of the time in some instances and therefore it is important to make the reader consider the concept that an idea can be proporting to be minimizing offence and be known as politically correct without actually being seen to be so,

Suggest rewording to "seen as, or presenting itself as being" which draws the distinction clearer and allows for the posibility of both genuine attempts to minimize offence and devicive ones. What think others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.162.220 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewording a tiny fragment of the lede paragraph, to whatever verb, does very little to communicate the specific issue that concerns you here. It'd be much more useful to have this fully explored in the "criticism" section of the main article, and would fit fairly well, if you could provide some sourced examples of ineffective "seen to be doing something" solutions. --McGeddon (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

I had to remove the bit highlighted in bold here as nonsensical and also something of a highly POV claim. As in my edit comment, political correctness is by definition a form of orthodoxy (ortho=correct, doxy - leading/leadership as in "leading by the nose" etc). It is a new orthodoxy which seeks to constrain ways of thinking and speaking so as to conform to its own vision of "correctness". It is anything but a liberation from orthodoxy, rather the imposition and enforcement of a new and much more severe (and artificial) one. Also in hte previous addition by RedPenOfDoom the inclusion of "age(d)" I have my doubts about, I haven't seen a lot of p.c.-ism that's senior-friendly and "being old" is often one of the terms of derision used by those advancing political correctness, i.e. "being old" in cultural/social terms rather than physical age, but implicitly p.c.-ism is about throwing out the values and beliefs and language of the older generation. I've experienced a LOT of age-related discrimination and seen lots of anti-older people discrimination/attitudes in writings by the self-vaunted "progressives" who think "being politically correct" is a matter of using the right thesaurus....Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Corollary to the preceding: "political correctness is just the latest way for those who need something to be righteous about to condemn others with, without having to criticize themselves first...."Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your argument here – the sentence you quoted is defining political incorrectness, not political correctness. "Language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy" seems to me like an accurate definition of how the term political incorrectness is used. Unless you can explain how the sentence is an inaccurate definition of political incorrectness, it should be added back to the article, in my opinion. --00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted - as the edit comment shows, this editor is trying to push a POV in the lead contrary to the evidence in the article that the term is highly contentious.JQ (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I mis-read it, sorry; my eyes are bad (really).Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the term politically correct is that it is defined largely in a negative sense - changes which the speaker/writer is prepared to accept are not included.

Is it time to archive some of this talk page? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You've all got it entirely wrong, but perhaps that's the point?

Here's the true etymology of politically correct:

A 1990's female black north-eastern professor (I can see you deleting already) studied the problem of oppressed groups successfully suing discriminatory corporations and politicians. Chief among the concerns (you're fading away now, aren't you?) was the use of language. Entities using certain words ('Negroe', 'cripple', 'faggot', 'kike', etc.) were sued for discriminatory actions and behavior, but claimed in court not to know what words were discriminatory and which were not. As implausible as that sounds, the courts somehow ended up deadlocked and it all hinged on the definition of those words. Which were discriminatory? Which were not? Said female black professor devised a fiendishly simple solution: why not ask the oppressed groups what words they would NOT sue over? (Okay, now you're just wasted). She asked, and lo and behold they were more than willing to cooperate with her studies. A list of acceptable, non-lawsuity terms (African-American, differently-abled, gay, Jewish) were agreed upon by all players. The agreed-upon correct way to politically refer to these groups was termed 'politically correct'. Except those who count on bigotry to drum up votes felt unhappy; they saw their favorite terms to corral bigoted voters on the verge of officially being 'legally actionable' and not in their favor. Thus the definition of 'politically correct' was distorted into what it is today -- some amorphous, loathsome, undignified, and sadly lethal response to a socially responsible project aimed at ending unnecessary conflict. But that's just an eyewitness account, and when have those ever been of use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScFrederick (talk • contribs)

For wikipedia, one editors "eye-witness reports" have never been of any use, and probably never will be: WP:V WP:OR WP:SELFPUB.

-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar+

It might behoove the author to understand the difference between nouns and adjectives. "Orthodoxy" is a noun, that is, a thing. "Orthodox" is an adjective, that is, a description. One may talk about orthodox thought, orthodox practice, an orthodox approach, an orthodox sect in religion, etc., but not "an orthodox."

Perhaps the author would also consider reading aloud to make sure that sentences make sense.

Once I fight through the text--including the most odd opening paragraph--I might add something about the content.

Yehudit (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Yehudit

The lead is excessively long

Much of the lead content should be incorporated into the text body. There should be no need for ref's here. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEDE does not support your statement about not having references in the lead, but it does seem to go into excessive detail that should be part of the main body of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to float the idea before making some bold edits. Hope they will be accepted as made in good faith. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing Political Correctness

The section of examples of left wing political correctness begins with a description of how the US right uses the term PC. This is emblematic of how claims of use of the term in right wing rhetoric are haphazardly spread out in three different parts of the article (in both left and right wing under history and under Right Wing Political Correctness). This stuff really needs to be codified to a single section. I think putting it under the "in right wing rhetoric" under history would best because that would make it symmetric with the treatment of examples of left wing PC. Deepblue9000 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely your first sentence is exactly what should be expected - the term is generally used pejoratively, so left wing instances of supposed "political correctness" would be called such by the right wing commentators, and vice versa. --86.179.186.239 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Does wikipedia use politically correct terms etc...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.96.81 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Correctness: A tool to distort the truth

Political Correctness has no other use than distorting the truth.

A politically incorrect statement: A group of purple teenagers murdered 3 turquoise teenagers in London, using knives. A politically correct statement: A group of British teenagers murdered 3 German teenagers in London, using knives.

In my opinion the article classifies political correctness as a bad thing correctly. My small example shows that while the politically incorrect statement reveals that it was not turquoise British kids that murdered 3 exchange students from Germany, but purples, who commit these crimes usually in London.

But if I want to talk about this in a politically correct way, I will put the blame on British people, instead of identifying the real group behind the deed.

It is possible to argue that political correctness is used to stop people from committing "racist" acts (even though no such acts are documented from turquoises, while purples do many hate crimes against turquoises).

Since, if you don't know that purples murdered your children (given that you're turquoise of course), you will not feel any hatred towards purples.

However, this way of thinking is flawed. Political correctness does not stop justified hatred towards criminals. It transfers the blame from the real criminals (in the case of my example, purples) to an innocent group of people.

My 2 cents about political correctness.

I leave it to your fantasy as to which people purple and turquoise refer to.

By the way, did you notice that I used PC myself? I can't say which colours I actually meant, because that would be Politically Incorrect.* I am sure everyone can "recolour" the message, though.

• Reinforcing the fact that the aggressive enforcing of PC distorts the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.141 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually you were fairly transparent. 'Purple' is another term used to describe black people. Turquoise is code for blue, ie "blue blood", white people. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But in your example why are all "purples" real criminals but all "British" teenagers innocent? It seems like you are trying to suggest the guilt of anyone that has the same colour transfers to other people of the same colour, but that the crimes of someone of the same nationality do not transfer to other people of the same nationality, and that it is unfair to use political correctness to do this. Surely both are hasty generalisations and should be avoided? --86.179.186.239 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This Could be Very Simple

While one can search for dozens of antique definitions and usages to cloud the issue, or seek to hijack, dilute, discredit or otherwise get rid of the term due to it being a useful tool used mostly by persons of conservative political persuasion, Wikipedia should not be a venue for such efforts.

It's real meaning is defined by it's common usage!! Which is that it is a term (used by persons of a more conservative political persuasion) to disparagingly refer to a sort of "rule book" generally "written" by persons of liberal political persuasion.

Come on, you all know that it really means the above! Why not just say that with a neutral wording, including it's context/ usage? By Wikipedia guidelines, this could be so simple!! I took a try at a first sentence of such:

"The most common meaning here is a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular political sensibilities at the expense of other considerations, and carried to the extent of dis-allowing other reasonable viewpoints."

North8000 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We go by verifiability. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting a political agenda. The term "right" is used 11 times throughout this article in opinionated statements. Although nearly all of these statements are cited, they represent an obvious point of view. Also, they make the article appear to be almost entirely devoted to political correctness in American politics. These comments about the "political right" should be lumped into one category (i.e. - "Usage in American Politics") if not removed altogether. Until the point of view issue is resolved, there certainly needs to be a box letting readers know that the neutrality of this article is currently under dispute. Pharbs82 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Hi, just so it's on the records - a certain user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Quiggin, has long been censoring the Political correctness page - and unreasonably so.

His political position seems to be a strident defence of political correctness. He mainly 'achieves' this by simply deleting/blanking text that is critical of political correctness - with a bogus, throw-away 'explanation' in each edit summary.

The irony. Political correctness itself is censoring wikipedia - on the very wikipedia page defining Political correctness.

This is very disappointing. Wikipedia is not censored. John Quiggin is acting against the spirit of the wikipedia project, and the wikipedia community.

Brevito (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:CIVIL. Your additions to the page are not in keeping with the goals of this project, and your accusations towards other editors are not acceptable here. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to tout your political beliefs (or anyone else's). --FOo (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter.

Brevito (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To explain my deletion of your (and some other) material, the purpose of this article is to show how the term "political correctness" is used, based on Reliable sources, and not on your own Original research. So, if some local council (say) bans Christmas celebrations, the fact that you think this is an obvious example of PC is not relevant, and a report on the council's action does not belong in this article unless it explicitly mentions PC. You need to find someone, preferably someone of some prominence reported in a newspaper or similar, saying "This is political correctness at work" or something of the kind. Unfortunately, lots of (mostly new) editors aren't aware of this, and therefore their work gets deleted. JQ (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that Brevito has been blocked for sockpuppetry.JQ (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)