Talk:Political correctness/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Recent revert-war issues!

Since the recent revert war was over a bunch of small changes, I thought I'd make a section for each of them so we can discuss them. I'm not sure what the objection to some of the changes is; others I can guess, but there wasn't really any real reason given for them.

• In the history section, Mr. Magoo changed "The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon..." to 'liberal' with no explanation, and has repeatedly reverted any edit that changed it back; this isn't what the source there says, so it has to be changed back.
• Mr. Magoo added "Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed view that PC is best described as", which is both grammatically-incorrect and awkwardly-worded. I changed this to "Roger Kimball, for instance, in Tenured Radicals, described...", but it was reverted with no explanation. This one, I think, is straightforward; it's an obvious improvement, so I'm confused that it's been reverted repeatedly.
• Mr. Magoo inserted a new paragraph to the 1990's section, which mostly duplicates the information on Bernstein from the 1980's section and bumped the summary of the 1990's section down a paragraph. This one is perhaps more tricky, because while most of Bernstein's articles were in the 1980's, one was from the 1990's. I propose merging the 1990's and 1980's section and putting the summary at the top of the merged section, since there isn't really any major distinction between the two decades in the sources.
• This edit, in particular (which sparked the most recent revert war) made most of these reverts listed above with the edit summary "Changing timeline to be more accurate"; as far as I can tell, it was a copy-paste revert of the entire section, with no real explanation beyond the timeline. Please be more careful with those reverts; you removed all the improvements above!

There are probably some more minor aspects that I forgot, but those are the changes that seem to be contested which stick out to me right now. Anyway, let's discuss which parts of that revert were intentional, which were incidental, what the reasons behind them are, and which version is preferable! And again, please be careful with the blanket reverts -- I get that that you want the word 'liberal' used more frequently in the article, you've said that many times (even if I think your particular addition there is unsupportable), and I'm not surprised that you prefer to keep the paragraph you added at the top of the section, but the improvement to the wording on the Kimball quote was as far as I can tell entirely uncontroversial, and you've reverted it multiple times while blanket-reverting the entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Aquillion's, comments. I would, and have recommended this as a good point from which to start discussions. I agree that I cannot see the point of many of the added quotes, though am prepared to look again. On a more general note, it is quite pointless us attempting to proceed while PAs, bad faith accusations etc. and the right to re-write according to whim appear to be the norm from Mr Magoo. Personal note, I was involved in a very serious car accident on Saturday. My car is a complete right-off due to hitting a rock-face, I am unhurt (thankyou air-bags + seat belts), but may excuse myself from discussions for a while. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, I have constantly asked for any sort of full sentences from the mysterious source which states that it was previously obscure. You keep avoiding this question and me entirely whenever I ask for it. Pincrete says he doesn't have access to the source. It seems like you don't have either.
• Secondly, I've pointed out numerous times that in the sources it's stated that Kimball "endorses" the view, again: "endorses." You can't misquote a source just because it doesn't look pretty enough to you. But still you keep changing it.
• The Bernstein bit doesn't duplicate but his name and the year 1990. He wrote two different articles which popularized it in both 1988 and 1990 of which the latter did the most of the job. And the mention of the 1990 to the 1980s bit was not added by me but you two. Judging from the sources, he most likely came up with the modern use of the word so he should have his own whole section in this article. The paragraph was also added before the 1980s section existed.
• Like pointed below, iń your 1990s edit you changed the section's structure and the section subtitles entirely, only to have it focus on conservatives more. You wrote above in another section that you felt my 35% addition to the 1990s seemed like doubling the section to you. That obviously means you feel like something other needs to be spotlighted more. Since you edited conservatives to the beginning of your wished section: 688345283, it seems like that is what you want 95% of the 1990s section to be about. The 1990s section already repeats the almost exact same sentence of conservatives picking the term up multiple times. It has no voices from conservative editors, which is apparent. It has scare quotes from right-wingers, cherry-picked by left-wing editors. That isn't WP:NPOV. What do you think a neutral editor would think of this? Support this? Oh no — oppose it. If you asked D'Souza himself to edit the section, he wouldn't feature any of those bits. He'd word it very neutrally and mostly focus on victim playing like he did in his book. I've mentioned earlier multiple times how D'Souza mostly focuses on "victim's revolution" in his book. You don't want that to be his focus even though it is. You're painting a straw man of him. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Firstly, simple question, does the source support that the term was previously 'liberal'? Because multiple sources (including your own claims about the NYT), clearly and explicitly state that the term was 'obscure' (ie not widespread) prior to that debate. The NYT articles clearly state that the term was being used in the late '80s by conservatives + traditionalists within academia to criticise 'radical' policies from at least the late 80's. If you cannot say that the source supports 'liberal', you have knowingly inserted content purely of your own creation, for reasons best known to yourself.

'Endorsed view' is what you keep inserting, which is completely ungrammatical and fairly uninformative unless it is said WHOSE view was being endorsed (endorsed means 'back up' or 'second').

Half of the 'Bernstein' para above is pure OR, (and nonsense). Bernstein was REPORTING use of the term, he didn't 'come up with it', define it or anything of the sort (if he did he's an inventor of news).

Re: If you asked D'Souza himself to edit the section, he wouldn't feature any of those bits. He'd word it very neutrally and mostly focus on victim playing like he did in his book. I've mentioned earlier multiple times how D'Souza mostly focuses on "victim's revolution" in his book. You don't want that to be his focus even though it is.. If you really wanted to prove your complete inability to even attempt to be impartial, you could hardly have done better. DO THE SOURCES FOCUS ON 'VICTIMIZATION', with regard to 'PC'? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Endorse. View. Endorsed view. I don't understand what's ungrammatical about this. You could add "the" inbetween. And there was a person whose view it was, so he can be added. And I didn't claim Bern came up with the term but likely the modern use for it. He is sourced to have used it in 1988 as well, way before the 1990 article. And the prime Dinesh source, the 1991 bestseller, didn't even use the term PC, so I don't understand where you're going with that. You're just undermining yourself. Oh and I just noticed your first bit which is to the left slightly: We don't know but the other sources do state that it used to be a liberal term. The entire first half of the history section is about that. I thought the change was of more interest and even a benefit to your view but I guess you can't see the wood from the trees. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again, the history section states that it was briefly an obscure (mainly ironic) 'new left' term (inc. some radical feminists). Unless you think that liberal is synonomous with new left, (which even in US usage is a pretty far out claim), you are simply factually wrong. Many sources do comment on the irony that a historically 'far left' (Communist + Maoist) term became briefly a 'new left' term before being appropriated by conservative critics, which would be a supportable claim, and is already in the article, (I think). Your claim ('liberal') isn't supportable. As far as one can tell, you knew that perfectly well when you inserted it and are 'clutching at straws' with this retrospective justification

If Bernstein didn't come up with the term, but simply 'reported on its use', then he 'popularised it', 'spread its use' or 'made it more widely understood', or any of the other variants that you have hitherto rejected.

If Kimball is simply endorsing someone else's view, we need to know whose, even briefly, otherwise the word 'endorse' simply 'floats in mid-air'. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It was an only-left term nearly as long as it's been the modern shared term. And if you read further than the first sentence it talks of others than just the New Left. Specifically feminists of the 1980s. And Bernstein seemingly didn't simply report on the term in 1988 like he did in 1990. And the person is Frederick Crews.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned 'radical feminists' already. So in your opinion 'liberal' is a fair synonym of 'new left' and 'radical feminists & progressives' is it? Actually there is a 1986 NYT use of 'PC', not by either man, that's why I favour focusing on the series. Anyway, from the late 70s to mid 80s is as long as 1990-ish to 2015 is it? Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the feminists it also adds progressives. The definition of modern American liberalism is progressive stances. And was the 1986 article not by Bernstein as well? And I don't think it was said to have featured the term, but only being about the matter. And two decades is the almost same as two decades plus five years. Where did you get late 70s when it gives the year as exactly 1970? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So the simple answer to the simple question does the source support that the term was previously 'liberal'?, is NO. Neither do other sources on the page. Neither are you interested in knowing that a higher level of proof would be required for such a claim in 'our voice', than the innocuous 'obscure' (ie not widely known or used).Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But we just went through that they do. Progressives, feminists and the (new?) left. If you don't think that categorizes liberals then you're just acting WP:POINTY like you mentioned earlier. And neither of you has access to the source so it's an unusable source like the one the admin mentioned earlier. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the text has been there for a longish time, the onus is on you persuade that the source is invalid. Not on any editor to prove to you that it IS valid, (I don't have access to it, others may, but they are not obliged to supply it to you because you so order it). The reasons for this have been explained to you at length, but WP:IDHT applies. You don't understand WP:Pointy, but yes I was making the point, that you made (one of many) edits, without even considering whether the source(s) actually supported the claim, whether the change made sense in the text, or whether there was any support for the changes, just as you appear to have added tags, making claims which you have no idea whether they were true or not. You could of course, just 'own up' and apologise, then we could all get on with discussing the subject. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no clear source/citation for the statement before. The inaccessible source, the Media one was only recently moved there. The statement seems completely made up now that we can't find these words in any of the sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Re no clear source The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[4][43].

43 refers to 5 books (and has been there for months, but doesn't give page no.s), so that's 6 sources. How can that not be sourced? But what in that statement do you dispute the truth of? I can't verify those PARTICULAR sources, but find the statement unremarkable. The 'big debate' around 'PC' in the US wasn't about 'progressive methods' and curriculum? The people making the challenges weren't (educational/social) conservatives? What is being disputed?

Re New left, suffice it to say that 'new left' are about as typical of 'liberals' as the John Birch Society or the KKK are of all conservatives, and it's fairly clumsy to claim they are the same thing. Even within the new left, use of the term was marginal and mainly ironic criticism (Hughes documents about 10 written, literal uses of the term in the late '70s' early 80's, mainly radical feminists) But you want things both ways, the term was in common use among liberals (you claim), but no one had heard about it outside academia until NYT. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But the ones we're familiar with don't have anything specific and absolute like the sentence. And it names sources very vaguely, for some were quite profilic and published multiple per year. This is a very, very vague citation. And on what page does Hughes document that? I can't find anything like that. Does he give ten as examples? That's not the same thing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What is not specific about the claims? Yes Hughes is citing these just as examples (mainly to make the point about who/how the term was being used, notably radical feminists). I will have very little time today, but will try to find 'Hughes' when poss. Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What is 'absolute' about the sentence? The previously obscure term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[4][43]. Does it say these were the only people using the term? Which part of the sentence is 'absolute', overstated or false in your judgement? Was this not a noteble use of the term, to criticise changes in higher education during the 90's?Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Haven't you had more time since then? The absolute bit was talking about the lead as well. And it happens when you leave out the other definition and uses. The term isn't stated to be against changes like the sentence posits, but the opposite: a definition for the philosophy of education change. The movement against would be "anti-PC" or something of that sort. Subsequently it has been applied to changes in other parts of the larger society as well, defining political correctness as the philosophy of protection from offense. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide sources on that. I know you feel that the history of the term is different from what eg. Wilson, Jeffrey, Schultz and so on say it is, or that there's an additional "side" we're not covering, but you haven't produced any academics or historians discussing it. Without that, we have to go with what they say; and what they say is that modern usage is the result of a determined push by several conservative think-tanks, talking heads, and authors through the 1980's and 1990's, which took a previously-obscure term and turned it into a talking point in the culture wars. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you go with the straw man. I don't majorly "disagree" because they do not state it's primarily pejorative, and they aren't writing in current times. Schultz states that what didn't use to be in any way related to conservatism has been "recently" (writing in 1993) picked up by conservatives. Similarly the other two state it used to be different but was picked up by the conservatives. These are history books — even a modern dictionary is a more viable source than these when it comes to current times. If you want to summarize the 1990s, it would be that previously obscure and liberal term was picked up by conservatives. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

All of those sources state that the primary modern usage of the term is as an attack against liberals by conservatives, which makes it pejorative; some of them use the word 'pejorative' and some use other terms, but all of them are reasonably paraphrased to 'pejorative'. All of them agree that the term was "obscure", but I don't agree that they referring to as 'liberal'; since we're in agreement on the first part but not the second, we can at least go back to "...previously obscure term..." as part of the status quo. And some of them are more recent, but again, you keep talking about another, non-pejorative definition; and you haven't really been able to dig up any histories or academic discussions of that usage. There's talk of ironic usage, of self-depreciating usage, and there is a lot of discussion about the culture war as its primary usage, but there's little support for your reading. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

None of them state primary. Again, Schultz says the term's being used in a different way by conservatives, in 1993. In that time it was more news than definition. And if you don't think the term wasn't originally used by leftists like claimed by all of our sources, you need to provide sources stating so. There are also numerous sources defining the term non-pejoratively, if you bothered not to remove them when I add them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

see also links

Why is red-baiting there? And logocracy, which links to this article as well, is about government by words, not sure that's appropriate here either. Doug Weller (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I went through the 'see also's in the summer, pruning some. I felt that 'red-baiting' was justified to the extent that the term 'PC' is used to denigrate certain policies and attitudes seen by critics as part of a 'left' orthodoxy. I felt 'logocracy' (a word I had not heard previously), was justified to the extent that 'PC' language is often characterised as a 'newspeak-ish', attempt to alter society by limiting what can be said. To the extent that 'see also's are meant to be related, but not synonomous, I still feel both are justified, though wouldn't get upset if the general opinion was otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point. Have to think about it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Other related articles

There are some more closely related articles that probably should be added and maybe put on watch lists. Campaign Against Political Correctness and possibly Indoctrinate U which reads more like a review than an NPOV sourced article. Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war removal of Camille Paglia and James Atlas sources for no apparent reason

Two removals happened on sources which have been there for 25 days now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690664003&oldid=690578000

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690683079&oldid=690680409

They do not state it began the debate about the term Atlas doesn't state it began the debate about the term because the term wasn't used at the time of these reviews the review. But they state it began the academic debate about liberal education. Then this sentence is followed up by later quotes and sources which clarify that it began the debate about political correctness. The two critics Paglia and Atlas are very notable, and their view that it began the debate is hefty. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion, specifically the last post: - I've removed the 'relevant' tag, I don't who did the fixing, but the text now addresses PC. HOWEVER, I'm not so sure that text and refs align, specifically the refs attached to Paglia + Atlas, I don't know what they are supporting, other than that they wrote criticisms. I'm also not sure what the refs attached to the book title support, it's publication? I can't access all of the refs, but I hope that 16 + 29 support that Paglia and Atlas SPECIFICALLY, have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[16][28][29] as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.[16][29]. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.

1)Where the refs were located, implied that they were supporting their names only … more importantly the Paglia source says the book started the 'culture war', Atlas says many things about Bloom + the book, but none of them approximate to pointing to 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.' Paglia's article is 2005-ish, Atlas's might be good source for describing the content of Bloom's book, but neither of them use the term 'PC', or a synonym ANYWHERE. The text is left unaltered for now, though it would appear that neither critic said what the sentence claims in these cites.

Your claim above is strange, do sources [16] [29] SPECIFICALLY state that Paglia and Atlas BOTH pointed to the book as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.[16][29]. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.

Even if the sources DO support that specific claim, there is neither need or reason to give refs on their names that only support that they said loosely connected things about the book, otherwise we might as well cite every critic who ever said anything, even unconnected to PC.Pincrete (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought at the time you were having issues with your computer because the hyperlinks are plainly there and have been so for long. Why can't you click on them? And they both define him as the beginning of the debate. And where did you get 2005 from? It's from 1997. And I now notice Paglia specifically points out PC. It's easy to miss, but it's there. Atlas also goes for many pages and I think you only got stuck on the first. And you do need to give sources for their views. I don't understand the motive of not having sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning hyperlinks? Do you mean the linked wiki-page? The purpose of 'cited sources' is to support the text that precedes them, in this instance it is only their names. If these sources WERE supporting the whole sentence, they should be at the end. I can find no mention of anything which needs citing in the two refs. They are about the book, but not about 'PC'. 'Beginning of debate/culture war' is a tenuous connection to 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education'. Drastic rewriting is needed if they did not say an accurate paraphrase of that sentence. We cannot claim they said things which they did not. Regardless of that issue, the refs are currently supporting nothing where they were placed.Pincrete (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the hyperlinks to the URLs. Wikipedia hyperlinks don't lead to just articles. And if you want them moved at the end then go ahead, but they looked better next to the names. And I again have to mention that the label Political Correctness was applied to the debate only a few years later soon after, but the debate was about it from the get-go. The debate was about what we now call Political Correctness in higher education. The other sources directly draw the connection to Political Correctness.

Also notice that you removed a main part of the sentence. The sentence is absolutely broken now because of your forced edit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll add "what we now call." That should take care of all of your issues. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought about adding other kinds of specifications like "what was soon called" to specify it didn't take long to get the moniker. But this doesn't look as good. I'll think about other alternatives to specify the name was picked up right after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed from "what we now call" to "what was soon named" to specify that it was named right after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit, doesn't address my concerns at all, it advertises what I previously suspected, that Paglia and Atlas didn't say what the sentence claims. Both of them are fairly literate, culturally aware people, writing when the term was already known, if they had wanted to say the book was the beginning of 'PC' etc., they would have said it. This is pure wp:synth. Does ANYONE actually say the book was 'the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.'? Or do they simply say the book sparked a controversy, (which we know), but of what kind exactly and how connected to the use of the term. ?

But they do now say what the sentence now claims. And Atlas wasn't writing when the term was known. Paglia uses the term. And the sentence does not say this was the beginning of PC but that this was the beginning of the modern debate about what was soon after named "political correctness." And if you read further than the first few words like I've pointed out, you'll find sources and quotes stating that it was exactly, precisely the beginning of the political correctness debate. The ones that don't have those in a single sentence state he began the debate and then add that he attacked political correctness in another sentence, essentially coalescing into beginning the debate about political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, response to above

This is pure synth, we cannot say 'they didn't actually say it, but this is what they meant really, and would have said if they had known the term'. Let us be clear, no one doubts that Bloom's book featured prominently in both the education debate and was one of the books at the centre of the use of the term PC in the'90s. I doubt that anyone has said it was the beginning, merely being the first printed proves nothing, though I acknowledge it may be 'the preliminary skirmish' in the related matter of the public education debate and has been described by Paglia, (20 years later) as 'the opening shot' in the 'culture war'. We cannot morph all these things together to make it say what we want it to say. I am not talking about removal (except perhaps, Paglia), but that the text accurately records what the used sources say was Bloom's role in relation to 'PC', and, even more fundamentally, that the text does not imply that Atlas said something, which he patently did not say. Splattering the text with refs which may be vaguely related, which are placed where it is unclear what they are supporting, but which do not actually support the main claims of the sentence is simply 'muddying the waters', such that it becomes impossible to work out WHAT is being supported. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But again, Paglia does use the term of the two... And, so instead of stating "the modern debate about what was soon named "political correctness"" we should state "the debate which morphed into the debate about political correctness"? The paraphrasal is the best it can be without turning into unreadable jargon. And Paglia, 20 years later? Did you not see me clarify it was 1997 and not 2005? Where do you keep getting the 2005 from? Literally all of our sources which talk about the debate mention Bloom as the first. Claiming otherwise would be WP:FRINGE to the extreme. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Even both Kimball and D'Souza write that they owe heavily to the book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also through my searches seen bits of the Media Coverage source and it clearly has sections about both Allan Bloom and Roger Kimball in addition to Dinesh. I've requested full quotes from the source or even access, since picking only Dinesh from it is very dubious. The full "captured the press's imagination" sentence might even be about the three and not just Dinesh. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

re: 'The full "captured the press's imagination" sentence might even be about the three and not just Dinesh.' , yes, and it might be about the moon being made of cream cheese. If the claim applies to all three, the text is easily amended to fit that fact (was amongst those described?). Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to contain the words "moon", "made of" and "cream cheese". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I discovered a new technique where I specify the year date in Google searches, which lets me find little-viewed but powerful articles: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/dec/06/the-storm-over-the-university/

A few years ago the literature of educational crises was changed by a previously little-known professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago in a book implausibly entitled The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. To me, the amazing thing about Allan Bloom’s book was not just its prodigious commercial success—more than half a year at the top of The New York Times’s best-seller list—but the depth of the hostility and even hatred that it inspired among a large number of professors.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a page about Bloom, a page about the book, all that is needed on this page is a brief account of how the book impacted on use of the term 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The beginning of the modern debate about a phenomenon which was named political correctness by Bernstein soon after. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Paglia=1997, 10 years after the book. That doesn't alter the fact that neither she nor Atlas said what your text claims they said, you cannot add 'morph' to remedy that, they simply didn't say these things. This is all so unnecessary, since the importance of the book is widely sourced, but its importance is not as represented in your text. Bernstein didn't 'name' 'PC', he reported its use as 'a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance', and thus took the term out to a wider public. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how do they not say what the sentence claims? Since you only talked about the sentence before the current version, can you pinpoint what's wrong with the current one? For currently it says they specify Bloom as the beginning of the debate. Atlas states that 10 months later the debate Bloom began has continued ever as furious. This is the same Bloom debate Bernstein names as about PC very near the time Atlas writes this article, in 1988, beginning its modern use. Paglia writes Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors. This is the debate about political correctness. Both Kimball and D'Souza pinpoint Bloom. All of sources do. And I didn't write Bernstein named PC but the debate as about PC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except Paglia doesn't say 'Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors', the second half of the sentence is written by Mr Magoo. No amount of inventive going-round-in-circles, pointless argumentation will alter the fact that Atlas did not say what your text claims he said. Perhaps Atlas said things which are relevant and usable, but he DID NOT say THIS, Mr Magoo did, and edit warred it back into the article, (even returning the refs to the wrong place to support their names and the name of the book?). I suggest you go to WP:RSN if you feel that the sources support your text, I've done with discussing it, to me this is unadulterated, self-evident synth. Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

She does:

On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions.

And again, what didn't Atlas specifically say? I've kept asking you this but you won't give me an answer.

This is how it goes:

Atlas states that 10 months later the debate Bloom began has continued ever as furious. This is the same Bloom debate Bernstein names as about PC very near the time Atlas writes this article, in 1988, beginning its modern use. Paglia writes Bloom began the culture wars, against PC professors. This is the debate about political correctness. Both Kimball and D'Souza pinpoint Bloom. All of the sources do. (blockquotes removed by Pincrete)

There's a clear timeline. The term was used of the debate around the time of the Atlas article. And I have to again point out that you edited the sentence to an absolutely broken state, where it read "Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, as the likely beginning..." You accidentally cut out the entire midpart. Pushing a bad edit like that back is severely breaking the rules. You call it edit warring to undo that? And even then I satisfied your request with the addition of the clarification. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A vast area of text seperates 'first shot of culture war' (no 'against PC professors' anywhere) from the Paglia quote above, your text is pure synth of what Paglia ACTUALLY says, which does not credit Bloom for the changes she notes above, ('Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States' is what precedes that quote). Take it to RSN and find out, you have zero case for this text.

Your second italic quote is Mr. Magoo, (I assume), which I take it is an admission that Atlas DOESN'T say what your text claims he said, but you are determined to insert it anyway, even though it is completely unnecessary to establishing Bloom's role and is both OR and synth in equal measure. There is an immense difference between neutral paraphrase, and OR. Pincrete (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Vast being two short sentences, first of which that Clinton sentence. And she doesn't credit the change itself to Bloom but I never claimed this, she credits the beginning of the debate which then lead to Clinton acting against PC theorists. And this must be the fourth time I'm asking you to state what exactly doesn't Atlas say? You keep avoiding any specifics. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

i.e. if we are happy to make about six logical jumps, we get to the answer that he & she may THINK it, even though they didn't come anywhere near actually saying it. Exactly what I said about twenty posts ago (and 3 weeks ago). Why anyway is it so important? There's plenty of sources for what people DID write about Bloom. … … ps Atlas doesn't say ANYTHING about PC in the source given, so he can hardly say the book started the debate about PC, another 6 logical jumps gets us to, he would have said it, if he'd known the term, and if he'd been a NYT reader and if, if, if. Why not simply use what he does say, briefly, about the book, as you can't connect it to a term Atlas didn't use. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There's only one logical jump and two short sentences apart. And finally you reveal what exactly you disagree with and it is about Atlas not writing the words political correctness. But we already established that the term came to be used of the debate only the same year by Bernstein, probably even only months later. That is why I added "what was soon named." The clarification is there for that. It solved the problem. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote but I'll add here: I separated the political correctness mention from the rest of the sentence with em dashes, signifying a parenthetical statement. Are you happy now? Mind you the rest of the sources used the term and I'm only doing this because Atlas didn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One logical jump (even if it were true, which it isn't), is one logical jump too many. They did not say what your text claims they said, simple as that. It is also so unnecessary since the things they REALLY DID SAY, are probably usable, except possibly Paglia. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what thing about logicals jumps is? That they are logical and follow. If they weren't logical they would be illogical. You yourself have written it's thus a logical jump that the sentence that follows in the same paragraph talks about the same thing. Why in the worlds would it not? Are you saying it starts talking about some completely other issue? Completely unrelated? I don't even know why I'm trying to prove something so utterly obvious and simple to you. And again I added the em dashes to make it a parenthesis. That means I'm not claiming Atlas said that. Do you understand? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll paste it here so anyone can read it directly from here:

I would like to thank you and all the other, superbly well-informed Salon readers for your very interesting questions, most of which I have not had time or space to answer. An ad hoc policy of quick replies may be in order.

Future historians will certainly consider Allan Bloom's surprise mega-bestseller as the first shot in the culture wars that still rage, with oscillating intensity and visibility. Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions. (For more on this, see my article on gender studies in the July 25 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

When my first book, "Sexual Personae," was released and reviewed in Europe and Britain, my dissertation advisor and mentor, Harold Bloom, was frequently confused with Allan Bloom, and I must admit I was aggravated to be falsely called a disciple of the latter. Nevertheless, I respect Allan Bloom for taking a courageous stand against the entrenched forces of his day, and I am confident that in the long run he will be vindicated and his critics swallowed in obscurity. I agree with both Blooms about the need to defend the canon of great artists and writers, but I differ with them most profoundly on the issue of popular culture, which as a child of television and rock music, I immediately embraced and continue to glorify. Pop is my pagan religion, and I do not agree that it destroys cultivated response to high art.

You keep claiming that she does not state Bloom began it. She clearly states it was the first shot. She follows by describing in what and what followed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither Paglia nor Atlas said what you say they say FULL STOP (not even a reasonable paraphrase). We are not here for a demonstration of Mr Magoo's (or my) powers of logical deduction, even so they are flawed. Paglia says Bloom started the culture war, Bloom's book was the first popular work to criticise trends in US higher education, the term 'PC' acquired general currency a few years later in the US principally/initially to characterise the thinking behind those educational trends. Bloom's book was one of the books at the centre of the ensuing educational debate, during which 'PC' was extensively used as a critical term.

All this is true. HOWEVER, historian X said that 'Mussolini started the Fascist Party', the rise of Fascism led to the invasion of Poland, the outbreak of WWII and Pearl Harbour ...... therefore 'historian X said that Mussolini invaded Poland, started WWII and attacked Pearl Harbour'! Paglia is a fairly articulate person, if she had wanted to say 'started PC', she would have said it. Atlas's claim is even more tenuous, since you are 'putting words into his mouth', which (according to you), he only did not use because he did not yet know them.

The 'culture war' is not a synonym for 'PC', the 'educational debate', extensively used the term 'PC', but is not a synonym for 'PC'. NOBODY SAID THESE THINGS except Mr Magoo. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote you again:

Paglia says Bloom started the culture war, Bloom's book was the first popular work to criticise trends in US higher education, the term 'PC' acquired general currency a few years later in the US principally/initially to characterise the thinking behind those educational trends. Bloom's book was one of the books at the centre of the ensuing educational debate, during which 'PC' was extensively used as a critical term.

That doesn't translate to the sentence "Bloom likely to have begun the debate about higher education" in your opinion? It seems to translate to something stronger than that. And you've complained about not directly quoting the source but you do exactly what you complain about here? Paglia wrote in 1997, remember? She uses the term and by her time it was common? And why do you again go for some weird straw men, in this case with Mussolini and invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbour. Calm down. Oh, and note again: The article does not infer them stating political correctness. Political correctness is in a parenthesis. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Paglia does not use the term in relation to Bloom FULL STOP. I think 'Bloom began (or at least broadened to involve the public) the debate about higher education', is probably sourceable, (though whether Atlas says that - before the debate caught fire - I'm not sure). How do you get from there to 'James Atlas,... pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind ... as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education. How can he point to something that hasn't yet happened? And what right do you have to 'put words into his mouth'.?

It is all SO unnecessary, because the importance of Bloom is easily establishable, the content of his book is establishable, the citing of his book by those later using the term is establishable. I can only assume that you (for some reason), are determined to put Bloom 'in pole position' and are happy to distort quotes to achieve this. Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Before the debate caught fire? But he states Bloom started it? And again, you don't include the parenthesis with the polical correctness. It's a parenthesis. And from my point of view it's a very simple case and I have no idea why you are so determined about it. I've asked if we should just directly quote Atlas, but that doesn't seem to be okay. You want Atlas completely out as a source. Removal of sources I obviously can't accept. And what in the worlds has Atlas got to do with any position? Paglia also does use the term in relation to Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Magoo's post on ANI

1) you shouldn't post long quotes (like the Paglia above), even on talk, it's copyvio. … … 2) as you have posted it, it is clear that Paglia says that Bloom's book was 'the first shot in the culture wars', nowhere does she mention Bloom in relation to PC AT ALL, point to me to the sentence where she does … … 3) Atlas DOES say Bloom's book (10 months after publication), has been a highly controversial, surprise best seller, he does say Bloom blames liberalism for the parlous state of US education (among other causes from Nietzsche to Mick Jagger via cultural relativism the notion that all societies, all cultures, all values are equal. They're not … Equality is a democratic prejudice, and 60's student protests which Bloom, again and again, likens to the Nazis' invasion of German universities in the 1930's.. HOWEVER, nowhere does Atlas say Bloom's book is the start of ANYTHING hardly surprising, no one in 1914 said 'this must be the beginning of the 1914-18 war then'. Therefore, the claim that Paglia and Atlas pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education, is pure fabrication, neither of them have pointed to any such thing.

Was the book influential? Certainly, and sources support that. Was it the first of the 'educational best sellers'? Certainly, ditto, did the book feature prominently in later debates about PC-ness? Ditto, ditto. Tons of sources say these things, a few might even tell us about some of the ideas in the book, but none of them support the existing text. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote: It's short enough for anyone to read through in an instant. And she goes on to the describe the culture wars and the relation to PC. It follows with: "...educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions." She only thanks Clinton partly. She says it was the first and then educational reform was moved to center and PC forces lost their prestige. Clear line. And Atlas stated the book provoked the debate. It's that simple. There's no continuation of any other debate. It's not more of some debate. And I have found a book by Atlas where he describes more clearly that it was Bloom who began it.

Here is the book of Atlas: Book Wars : What It Takes to Be Educated in America

Here is what a review LA Times 1990 where it's said what is contained within:

Don't believe James Atlas when he professes neutrality: These wars are chronicled from the unmistakable perspective of Allan Bloom, the man who started them with "The Closing of the American Mind," an assault on '60s liberals who stormed the Ivory Tower in the '70s and '80s, concocting "socially relevant" courses that are said to distract students from the classics and other traditionally "civilizing" humanities curricula. Atlas mentions Bloom again and again. His 87-page hardcover pamphlet is little more than Bloom simplified.

This absolutely destroys any opposition. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and note: I think I'll go find some other statement from Paglia where she defines it clearly again as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is NO connection made by Paglia between Bloom and PC in that quote … … … There is NOTHING that supports the statement attributed to Atlas in the new source. Atlas is a big fan of Bloom, Yes, Bloom criticised '60's liberals', Yes, Bloom criticised 'socially relevant' courses, Yes, Bloom felt these courses distracted students from the 'traditional curricula', Yes. Bloom felt that any deviation from 'traditional curricula', was tantamount to barbarism (No, but could be found elsewhere, perhaps). Where is the bit where Atlas says Bloom started ANYTHING AT ALL. … … ps the idea is to write-up what the majority of reliable sources say, not write what you want and then look for enough sources to justify the text. Pincrete (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote: Only it says he began the book wars and assault on whom by the way? Both of the critics state Bloom began the wars. Would you mind stating which wars the two are talking about? Really, what are these wars? And I've been able to look at glimpses of the book and I believe like written it starts off with Bloom being the one to start the wars, the Book Wars that is which is the title of the book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I might be really busy today so I might not be able to participate as much. I'll try to check here but I won't be able to talk as much. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The wars referred to in the new source are the 'book wars', the title of the book. The source does not say Atlas claimed anything at all, it says These wars are chronicled from the unmistakable perspective of Allan Bloom, the man who started them with "The Closing of the American Mind, . The wars referred to are 'the book wars' and the opinion about Bloom starting them is the reviewer's not Atlas's. I could try to guess what Atlas means by 'the book wars', very possibly it was the series of books, mainly criticising, but sometimes defending changes in higher education (though in 1990?). What the new source confirms is something no one doubts, the impact of Bloom's book, that it was one of the first of a series of books which fuelled an angry debate within US around which the term 'PC' achieved widespread currency (better sources already exist to confirm this). It does not say ANYTHING about Atlas saying that the book started anything. That is extrapolation. If I asked Atlas if he thinks that the book started etc. … would he say 'yes'? Very possibly, but he didn't say it, nor anything that is a paraphrase of it and as a clear fan of Bloom, would he be the most reliable witness?

Paglia simply doesn't say anything about Bloom and 'PC', (without extensive extrapolation). Besides, why is it important? Paglia's remarks are already on the book's own page. Were we to include her and Atlas's praise, why would we not balance it with someone else's very negative portrayal of the book? Answer, because this page is not about the book, and why not use that space saying what was in the book that connects it to the term 'PC' (according to the balance of RS).

Neither Paglia nor Atlas have said what we claim they say. But why is this particular phrasing so important? We all accept Bloom's importance, but we are little closer to establishing in what way, based on what the best RS actually say. I would edit in something myself, but your last response was to revert back in invalid refs.

It is synth, as soon as we extrapolate anything, regardless of how logical the extrapolation might seem (synth is not just using synonyms, no one is going to argue about start/begin/initiate etc.). In this instance, the extrapolations are fairly sizable, culture war = education debate = 'PC', therefore Paglia meant 'PC'. The reviewer of Atlas's book says Bloom is the beginning of the 'book war', therefore Atlas has said something about the book.

I have a lot of pages on my watchlist which I have little involvement with, but which I am happy to offer an opinion when there is dispute. One of those pages is an historical figure. Recently an editor came there and queried our coverage of this figure's 'war record', out text said (approx.) 'XXX spent nearly half of the war well away from the front line'. The editor wanted to know why we expressed it negatively, why not say 'spent over half the war close to the front line'. I could see no rational objection, but the source said it our way. I asked the editor to wait until others (who knew all the sources better than I), weighed in. He didn't, but instead went himself to all the other sources, what he found was that the figure spent nearly half the war 'well away' (ie 100's of Kms), almost as much time 'away' (ie 25-50 Kms) and only a small period 'at the front'. He was happy, our text was not unfair. Had the editor and I gone ahead and extrapolated an 'obvious logical conclusion' from what the source said, the impression left by our text would have been completely false. I am giving this as a two-fold example, firstly of why ANY EXTRAPOLATION is not allowed, secondly of why 'the balance of reliable sources', is the governing criterion. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated that they are the reviewer's, as he is describing the contents of the book. And like I wrote, it seems like that how it's in the book as well from the academic search engine preview glimpses I've seen. Some words are cut off but it appears apparent that is what he states.

Paglia again says Bloom began the culture wars leading to education forms and PC forces losing their prestige. It's not extrapolation. It's a clear line. And there used to be both Atlas and Paglia quotes and also negative portrayls of the book but they were all shortened to this short sentence. And we're not including their praise because their statements are used to point to it being the beginning. Getting into why the book lead to the debate would mean delving into its contents which would require a lot of time and access to it.

Both they describe that it began the debate in higher education and Paglia even mentions PC. And if you have suggestion for some other sort of phrasing, then offer it. This is the most neutral and apt description I could form.

It's a summary of various different sources. How else would you summarize? Again, offer your alternative summary. And Paglia goes to explain what the culture war was. You do know if in a source there are multiple sentences, we can summarize those multiple sentences. That means we have to take them all into consideration and not just one and few words from it and then ignore the rest. And the reviewer is describing what is written in the book.

And I don't understand the relevance of the end. Is it some sort of a straw man again? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

re: Nowhere is it stated that they are the reviewer's (opinions), as he is describing the contents of the book. Yes, but, nowhere is it stated that they are Atlas's opinions, nor what 'Book Wars' means. In a review/article/book, anything which ISN'T explicitly stating someone else's PoV, is assumed to be that of the writer. You are happy to extrapolate meaning from a book title, and have expected me to prove your extrapolation is incorrect? This discussion has gone round and round in circles, the simple obvious truth is that Atlas didn't say what the text claims. Paglia said something similar, but not the same, and as the quote is so small, why not say what she ACTUALLY said, (if used at all).

I will try over the next few days to come up with some text for the Bloom bits and post it here, rather than fix one sentence.

The reason for my anecdote was to give an example of how the smallest - seemingly logical - extrapolation can be wrong. But it is not a small extrapolation to claim someone said something, which they didn't (even if we think they might have - if they could have done so). Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now gained access to the real, physical book, although its 1993 reprint. This is the foreword: "When does an issue become an issue become an issue? Five years ago no one except professional educators paid much attention to what was happening in our universities and schools. Now it often seems as if no one can talk about anything else. The New York Times Magazine runs a cover story on California's textbook debate. Time runs a cover story on multiculturalism. Newsweek runs a cover story on the campus phenomenon of "p.c." —political correctness." It starts off detailing exactly the PC issue. After that it even lists D'Souza and Bush: "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, by Dinesh D'Souza, hits the best-seller list" and "Even George Bush has weighed in, decrying p.c. as a threat to academic freedom in a commencement address at the University of Michigan." He goes on and on about PC and relates it to the book wars and the debate.

The actual book begins and I apologize for the long uncutness but this is the very beginning and I believe in this use very much fair use:

In the fall of 1987 I joined the staff of the New York Times Magazine. Within a week of my arrival, a senior editor showed up from the third-floor newsroom to suggest that we do a story on Allan Bloom, a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago whose book The Closing of the American Mind had been at the top of the bestseller list for months. By the end of that year, it had sold close to a half-million copies. Bloom was America's latest intellectual celebrity: He was interviewed in Time magazine and seen on television talk shows. He was also a millionaire, no doubt a rarity among the high-minded members of the Committee on Social Thought.

No one can predict the public's taste. But The Closing of the American Mind has turned out to be more than one of those curious American phenomena, a book that captures a moment and acquires fleeting intellectual cachet, like Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism or Charles Reich's The Greening of America. Written, its author claimed, to please a few friends, Bloom's book was, and still is, a major even in American life. Five years after its publication, both the book and its author remain objects of intense debate. Bloom was the primary subject at a symposium entitled "The Humanities and the Question of Values in Education" held at Yale in the spring of 1989. A year later, at a symposium in Boston sponsored by Partisan Review, "The Changing Culture of the University," he still managed to draw the most fire. His intellectual presence hovers over Paul Berman's anthology, Debating P.C.: his entry in the index to The Politics of Liberal Education, edited by Darryl J. Gless and Barbara Herrnstein Smith, is large. By now, he's a venerable icon in the curriculum debate, a focus of inordinate attention and often venomous animosity. "To me," marvelled the philosopher John Searle in the New York Review of Books, "the amazing thing about Allan Bloom's book was not just its prodigious commercial success, but the depth of the hostility and even hatred that it inspired among a large number of professors."

It absolutely, 100% establishes the connection to PC and everything in our article. Bloom's debate 100% lead into PC according to James Atlas.

Now that we've also gone round and round about quoting sources exactly and to the word, to the exact words used and nothing else; I've noticed that nowhere does Dinesh "condemn" any of the things mentioned in his book, and he also doesn't even use the phrase "multiculturalism through language." Likewise the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the 1990s section seem to contain a lot of sentences not stated in the sources. While you're fussing so much about Paglia and Atlas, you might want to rather look at these because these seem much bigger stretches of imagination. What do you think? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't 'to the word' that has been asked for, it's 'to the meaning' (eg dismiss=shrug off, which for some reason you reverted today, one is only the informal form of the other). IF RS say that D'S's book 'condemns Multicultalurism etc', that takes precedence over what you/I/anyone thinks the book is about. Besides it doesn't say that, it says in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance (victimization), multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums. Are you saying D'S didn't condemn liberal efforts to advance these things through these means? (Though there have been so many changes recently, I'm no longer sure what's sourced and what isn't and victimization is your addition, which I've never been sure about). If there is a fairer/more complete summary of what D'S was condemning, propose it.

I need to look closer at the latest 'Atlas', but initial reaction is to say it STILL doesn't say what we claim, it does reinforce what you and I already agree on. Even if you prove to be right, it still doesn't make any sense that you write a text, then 4 weeks later find a source to support it (which, having only read the above, I don't think it does). That shows you are coming to your conclusions, then trying to find the evidence to support them, neutral editing is trying at least to do things the other way round. Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, none of our sources say that about D'S's book. And you ask a question very much like what I've been asking. Do you not see the irony? I didn't think I'd actually prove something to you but I might have. And you haven't even looked at the Atlas and you're already condemning it... And the original Atlas article was more than enough but this is nuking the fact. We could remove the em dashes now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What you appear to be trying to prove to me is another editor's bias. A) I'm not interested (I'm old enough to form opinions of my own about people) B) How do the sources charcterise D'S's criticisms? Not of liberals? What? I'm not condemning the Atlas, I read it quickly late at night and said I need to re-read it. Very busy today, till late. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, what I were trying to prove was the level and similarity of your argument. You yourself argued: "Are you saying D'S didn't condemn liberal efforts to advance these things through these means?" because it's so plain to the view. Yet it's a highly comparable situation and those statements are way worsely sourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists, could we please stick to one subject at a time. I still haven't heard what the objection to the description of what D'Souza was condemning IS. I think I asked you to provide a better description weeks ago, (if you object to it). I have some minor quibbles about phrasing, and places where expanding would help clarity, but other than that it appears to me to be a sound summary of d'S's criticisms. … … ps Similar to what? What is plain? If there is any error or omission or unfairness in the description of d'S's criticisms, what is it? If what you are saying is that I ought to be checking other sources, I can hardly comment if I don't know what you claim the fault is with that summary. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Civitas think tank pamphlet.

Regarding this, I don't see why we're focusing on it. It's a random pamphlet by a think-tank; there's no particular indication that it's any more important than the countless other places where the phrase has been used in the past. It's important to keep the article from becoming just a dumping ground for every single editorial, press-release, or news story that uses the term; if we tried to cover them all here, the article would be unmanageable long and unreadable, while highlighting random ones like this is giving them WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like pointed out earlier, we've got segments like the Baa Baa sheep which is only sourced by magazines. This segment among those isn't undue. In addition, what you call "pamphlet" is cited by 22 academic papers. It's a book, 94 pages long. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll improve the refs. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the source for the book and changed from pamphlet to publication. For some reason it was stated to be a pamphlet before. I also added New Statesman and Guardian which talk about it years later. I could have added The Daily Mail which talked about the book's publication soon after, but I don't know if Daily Mail is unwanted as a source. I also found a good scholar review but I'm struggling to find an easily viewable version of the paper. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

New Statesman's focus was the man instead so I replaced it with a selection of press reviews. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that this is not notable and is an example of use rather than informing about the term. Our text says very little about the term anyhow, mainly saying that 'ethnic minorities are the most prejudiced of all', very possibly true, but so what? How does that connect with 'PC'? … … ps, the baa baa black sheep story is probably the most documented case of British tabloid urban myths about 'PC', if the currently used sources are not strong, that is a reason for improving them, not a justification for WP:Otherstuffexists. Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He writes about something the article has not touched before, about the view of how political correctness has become to be used as a shield by those commonly viewed as discriminated against, when they express prejudiced and intolerant views which would normally be degreed such. I think you could also add Richard Dawkins to this section, as he's infamously against religions and I believe he has at some point described a kind of protection from accusations of intolerance. I'll try to find something about that. And in that case we would best remove the entirety of Satirical use, half of False accusations (Baa Baa) and the entirety of conspiracy theory as well because all of those are more undue than this. Freedom Fries is also very vaguely connected, like pointed out by some editor some time ago. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I added Richard Dawkins talking about political correctness and minority views being protected to the section. I also changed from "change" to "protection," since change wasn't very clear. I think this should satisfy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

IF the section were from a secondary source detailing the civitas controversy, as you describe, there MIGHT BE a case for inclusion. Basically all there is at present is the claim that 'Black people are more racist, more sexist etc than us'. So what? Even if it is true. I strongly object to its inclusion in its present form. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not about race but religion mostly? The reply is from the Muslim council. And please don't manufacture once again a straw man. The real sentence is fairly neutral and "matter of fact" as they would say. And present your alternative, please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Instead of presenting an alternative description of his view, you delete the entire section along with Richard Dawkins. This is just plain edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How is a quote about 'ethnic minority communities' mainly about religion? Though whatever it were about, it would need to establish importance beyond merely another critical use. The present 'Civitas' section is opposed (my me at least till HUGELY improved). There is a long-standing agreement that the article should not include simply examples of use, such as Dawkins though anyhow, I thought that Creationism was a 'fundamentalist Christian' concoction. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what ethnicity means: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience." It's not about race, though you could read it that way. But if you read into the sources it's about religion. And again, Dawkins is commenting on the issue of protection — and especially in the matter of creationism — and not just being quoted. Likewise the Civitas book is about the issue of protection. And no, creationism isn't just an opinion of Christians. And again I have to point out the section is surrounded by very much more undue instances of use. Sometimes "other stuff exists" is a valid argument, like the page for the point says. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote is explicitly about race, as generally understood. Christians are not an ethnic group, though Dutch Reformed Church/Serbian Orthodox might almost be and Jews are. There are still no valid arguments for inclusion of either Civitas or Dawkins nor any proposed text likely to persuade anyone. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But I just went through long lengths to explain that there is no mention of race and the sources are about religion. And Christians are an ethnicity because there is such a thing as Christian ethnicity. It's the majority in Western countries which is why you don't hear about it here but say in English-speaking Asia it's more common to hear. And I have provided you numerous valid arguments for inclusion, among which is the fact that this is showcasing a specific modern use which is much more notable than sections Satirical use, As a conspiracy theory and the latter half of False accusations. The only thing that could be improved is the section name. Maybe remove the first part of the quote and keep the end? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think what has been missing from the article is that the modern usage has a section for Right-wing political correctness but no section for Left-wing political correctness. Maybe the section should be renamed as Left-wing political correctness. In fact, the article is generally missing the typical modern usage. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Civitas is a UK body, I think it reasonable to assume that they would use 'ethnic minority community' in the UK sense, not as used in a hypothetical English-speaking Asian country. The idea that within the UK, Filipino Catholics and Scottish Presbetarians would see themselves - or be seen - as being part of the same ethnic group, because they both are Christian, is transparently ridiculous. 'Ethnicity' in the UK (including in official Govt. matters), is largely defined by skin colour and or country/region of origin, religion (except in the case of Jews), is not even a factor in 'ethnicity'. If Civitas had meant to say 'religious communities', they would have known how to spell it.

I have spent long enough explaining what MIGHT make the Civitas content acceptable, the group is fairly marginal in the UK anyhow. If some acceptable text is proposed, based on analysis by secondary sources, I might support it. If you feel the text is not being treated fairly, WP:RSN or WP:DRN are open to you. I am unreservedly opposed to anything resembling the present proposed text and ditto the Dawkins example usage. Pincrete (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What? No, I didn't mean they would be an English-speaking Asian country. Christian ethnicity isn't talked about here. And your definition for ethnicity is pure OR. Here's Oxford: ethnic which even lists an archaic version that was only about religion. And you have not explained in the slightest what would make Civitas acceptable. We have secondary sources, so go ahead. I'm completely confused as to what exactly you want the paraphrasal for their statement to be. I mean if a secondary source quotes them, then that is a quote straight from the Civitas. I don't understand what you're asking for. In fact, the sentence is from the BBC article. That quote is in there. It is from a secondary source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How ethnicity is defined is academic, I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that Civitas is not referring to 'country of origin'. I don't want the quote AT ALL, paraphrased or straight. It says nothing except 'some ethnic minorities are more sexist, racist, homophobic than us', sometimes true perhaps, but so what? How does quoting that make any connection to understanding the term 'PC'?

I'm not replying further, I don't think the proposed text adds anything except as another example of use. If you don't agree, WP:RSN or WP:DRN are open to you. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't want the quote even paraphrased? You stated you wished so before from secondary sources. And please, stop using straw men to make the sentence seem more controversial than it really is. And you do realize the entire 93 page book is about political correctness. 9 of the 10 uniquely titled chapters of the book contain sthe words political correctness in the title.

This is the full quote from the book:

Since victims are supported not because they are right but because they are vulnerable, critically questioning them is seen as attacking them, and those who do so are vilified as oppressors. In the world of PC, victims can say or ask for anything, not because they are right or deserve it, but because they are safe from public scrutiny or objection. The most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities, because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them equates to oppressing them.

It specifically mentions PC in the sentence leading to it. The PC bit was cut by BBC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WHAT I SAID WAS shouting intended IF the section were from a secondary source detailing the civitas controversy, … … there MIGHT BE a case for inclusion., not a paraphrasal of the most tendentious bits of a primary source, which is only an example of use. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. Again, it describes the protection. You can call any quoted or pointed use of the term in the article only an example of use, so it's a tired argument. Of the controversy: we already had the Muslim council reply. Do you want more statements against? Is that it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not really the issue; none of the sources provided indicate that there's anything unusually noteworthy about this particular pamphlet, at least as it relates to the term itself, so it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it in the article. It's clear that at least there's no consensus to include it here; if you feel that there's a problem, you could bring it up on WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN to get a second opinion (probably NPOVN, since the issue is mostly a disagreement over WP:DUE, which is a WP:NPOV policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, it is a book and it was noted by BBC, The Guardian, Spectator, Washington Times, Financial Times, New Statesman, Daily Mail and Sunday Times. And also, it was added to the article in 2012. You removed it in August. I support the original addition, and am reverting your removal of it. If you want it removed, you can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. But note: I won't stoop down and edit war. I'll talk it through first. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for consensus, but all I get in return is the absolute, total removal of 3000 characters. I sought for a middle ground by asking for what kind of asked secondary source detailing is wanted, or what kind of asked more controversy detailing is needed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You ARE edit-warring if you re-insert, two editors have expressed clear opposition here to its inclusion. It is YOU that need to go to another noticeboard if you are not satisfied that you, or the text are not being treaated fairly. Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But I just wrote I'm not doing that yet, before convincing you. And it was added by an editor other than me so it doesn't matter if you both do. I think I'll just contact him and make him come to this talk page and vote his mind on it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You also wrote: You removed it in August. I support the original addition, and am reverting your removal of it. If you want it removed, you can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Which of these is anyone meant to believe? Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called future tense. I claimed I will convince you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The other is called Present continuous, used with future meaning, to describe an event which is planned in the near future. I cannot read your mind to know whether the threat or the promise were intended. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to because I wrote that I won't yet. Like I wrote, I'll contact the people who've added this stuff in the past. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, that is called WP:Canvassing, contacting non-current editors, particularly if it is done to those whom you have reason to believe are likely to support your point of view. It is regarded as a serious offence (just telling you, you do what you want). Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But in there it lists where it's okay and contacting the person who edited it in would be a perfect scenario of okay canvassing: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." I don't know what the word for pointless WP accusations is but I'd use that here. Contacting unrelated people to an ANI on other hand would be truly canvassing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted the adder but he hasn't responded yet even though he has edited. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, well at least you are honest about it. This message is blatant canvassing, you have contacted selectively someone likely to support your position, who isn't a recent editor of this article, and left a non-neutral message. It is fairly unlikely to affect the outcome, however, since the study is not notable and the quote says nothing about the nature of 'PC'. 'Canvassing' is judged by intention, it is difficult to read this message as intended to do anything other than 'rally support'. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not, because he added it. The rules for canvassing specifically state that it's allowed to contact the adder. He is an editor of this article. And the message is not required not to have my very shortly worded position on the matter as a sidenote at the end. Neutrally worded, yes, but nothing about not sidenoting my position in the matter. You make up rules as you go to fit your view. I took out the "I for one am for it" sidenote from the end since that could be vaguely interpreted as not neutrally worded even though it is, only adding my position for clarification. Also, nowhere did I mention his name, which means you must know him to be the adder as well or you did something worse. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I followed your edit history after I read the above … simple. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that hounding? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called hounding, if I was targetting your edits on other articles, (which I clearly was not). Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are but I just don't know it yet. Greatly discourages me, the fact that I've now got disagreers going through my history. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)