Talk:Political correctness/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Duology of books?

Re the text; 'conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education duology of books (1991, 1992)' and this edit, My understanding is that there were two versions under this title, the first was a small distribution version, based upon a talk D'Souza had given, whereas the second was the expanded 'best seller'. Hughes book throughout refers to the 1992 book as the bestseller, which is why I chose that date. I'm not denying two versions, merely whether two versions of similar material, under the same title can be called a 'duology' and whether the 1992 (bestseller?) is the one deserving to be described as giving PC 'further currency'. My interest here is clarity, if I am correct about the 1991 being relatively 'small print', and if its impact was not great, is mention necessary? Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the two are entirely different. The second is a 32-page speech-to-text. The first one's the one with the hundreds of pages. The first one was the seller, second one didn't rate anywhere. And I believe Hughes may have just had a typo like so many of our sources. All of the rest of the sources only mention 1991. Oh and I accidentally wrote on the edit reason Wartella even though I meant Hughes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If they are all referring to 'book', why are we referring to 'books'? Especially if one of the two didn't have any public impact nor sales. I take your word for it that 1991 was the 'big hit'. The sources I've looked at all say 'book', but many don't name the year.

btw, as part of the same 'undo', you moved back 'victimisation'. How do you 'advance victimisation through etc.', isn't victimisation a means rather than an end ? Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC) … … ps yes apologies, 1991 was both the big book + big hit. Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always complained that the 1992 one doesn't really have anything to do with anything but when I tried changing it to the 1991 one I was reverted and the only thing that seemed to work was mentioning both. Like I've written before, the 1991 hit heavily focuses on the term "victim's revolution" and was probably one of the ones which popularized the criticism of minority self-victimization. It barely mentions multiculturalism and mostly uses it as a synonym for pluralism and doesn't really focus on it at all. In the 1992 speech he focuses on multiculturalism more, and he might have changed his stance to criticizing multiculturalism more which is why none of his future books gained bestsellerdom as his 1991 victim's revolution one had. And yes, he uses the term victimization as well but less as he must have struggled with it like you put it that it's a means rather than an end. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the revert of date may have been accidental, it really doesn't matter HERE how many books he wrote (nor even which ones the sources are using), the one that applies to the sentence (gained further currency?), is the 1991 'big book'. … … our description of course has to be a summary of how RS describe the book, rather than 'what is in the book'. … … I changed to self-vict. as in UK usage 'victimisation' is what the victimiser does (ie bully), thus it was implying that liberals were trying to 'advance' ie promote bullying, which was not the intended meaning, which I think is 'seeing/defining' oneself as a victim for strategic reasons. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I change it to just the 1991 book then? Mind you the 1992 citation needs to be changed as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, I also moved 'victim' to a means rather than an end, since you appear to agree? Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You were supposed to change the 1992 citation to the 1991 one and not cut it out entirely. And it says self-victimization so I don't know the reason for moving. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a source that the book was published, though the other sources (in theory) are supporting that publication date, as well as supporting a summary of his criticisms. that's why I didn't bother to replace.

My own feeling about the description of the book (in the body rather than the lead), is that the phrasing is very dense and does not articulate (briefly) what to and why he objected, I think that is also true of Bloom.

The reason for moving 'victim', was that otherwise it implies he objected to advancing 'self-victimisation' THROUGH, 'language, … …and changes to the curriculum'. How do you advance 'self-victimisation', by this means?. Personally, I would not be opposed to a 'list', unless it is clear sources are saying THROUGH (ie by means of). That is the list of liberal efforts he objected to, rather than through (late at night, not very clear?). … … ps there is of course no objection to there being a source for publication date Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The norm is to cite the book itself so people can read it - and in the case of URLs, instantly. And I don't think the through language bit is read to include anything beyond the preceding comma seeing as it's part of a list and a comma follows right after as well. With the same logic multiculturalism would be "through" anything succeeding language as in multiculturalism through language, and through so and so on. In fact in that case it would be more confusing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

'Advance UVW and XYZ, through ABC, DEF and GHI' implies that 'advancing UVW & XYZ' are the objectives and ABC etc are only the means to achieve those objectives. I think the meaning is denser than necessary, and open to mis-reading. That all these measures were objected to is not substantially in dispute. Multi-culturalism also has a particular meaning, I believe, in relation to US higher education debate, (ie changes to curricula etc. intended to make them more reflective of minorities' experience). I don't think this meaning is necessarily apparent to non-US persons, not already familiar with that debate. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Advance UVW through ABC, DEF, GHI and JKL implies that UVW is advanced through all of them. It's more confusing if you put through first. And again, the victim's revolution was the primary focus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the format is in 'Advance UVW, XYZ through ABC, DEF and GHI' and not in what you wrote. I have no idea why you had to again distort that as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I also notice what you'd like to be at start you named aptly ABC. And biggest the focus of his book is named either UVW or XYZ from the end of the alphabet. As in the most important part is from the end of the alphabet. Strange word games. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, seeing anything sinister in my choice of alphabetical 'cyphers', takes WP:ABF to new depths of paranoia! Actually what I want is clarity (and brevity in the lead, supported by the majority of RS). The addition of 'victimization' was yours, your edit reason at the time (as I recall) was that is what D'S mainly talks about, you repeat that assertion again above. SAYS WHO?? Because if RS don't say that this was the primary focus of the book, it's simply OR. I personally don't have objection to its inclusion in a list of D'S's objections, though not necessarily in the lead, but present wording is over dense, ambiguous and bordering on being logical nonsense (how do you advance self-victimization through changes to the curriculum? The other way round at least would seem possible). Apart from being not actually what the sources say! Where then are the sources that say criticism of liberal attempts to advance self-victimisation was the primary focus of the book, (or that say that this was done THROUGH, language etc.)?

An additional factor, is that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Where in the article is it stated that 'self-victimization' was even an element of his book? Let alone the primary focus of it as it relates to 'PC'? Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, on the contrary: seeing anything sinister in my pointing of your choice of alphabetical cyphers takes WP:ABF to new depths of paranoia. The addition of self-victimization was yours. My suggestion was victim's revolution. And John K. Wilson says so and so does Dinesh's own book whose focus is victim's revolution and not the posited multiculturalism which was added on May 20 2015 by none else but... On May 17 2015 Dinesh was mentioned but once and shortly in the 1990s as a footnote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also add others which state it was about victim's revolution which isn't hard to do: What was political correctness? Race, the right, and managerial democracy in the humanities (Cited by 40). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I added 'self-' to 'victimisation', since the second is clearly not the intended meaning, as it is a synonym of 'bullying'. The book itself is not a source for what is its own primary subject matter, since that involves subjective assessment from editors. 'Victim's revolution' is almost guaranteed to be understood by no one who hasn't read the book and would therefore require extensive clarification. I cannot access the 'ucsb' (off-line) at the moment, also I couldn't find anything in Wilson that said this is the main criticism made by d'S.

So, the content isn't in the body of the article, (as required by policy), we have one source that (you claim) says 'victimisation' is the primary subject of the book. That is one out of dozens of studies that refer to the book, probably hundreds of reviews/articles about the book, and the clarity of the whole sentence is immaterial as long as Mr Magoo's favourite theory is in 'pole position' in the lead (though Mr. Magoo also thinks d'Souza shouldn't BE in the lead at all).

As I said, my primary interest is clarity, but at the same time, NONE of the books I've read on the subject, put 'victim-whatever' as the primary subject of the book, though I think some of them put it on the list of d'S's criticisms. But what the hell, that's only what the majority of RS say, what would they know?. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what J K Wilson says While sarcastically attacking the ‘victim’s revolution’ of minorities on campus, D’S and other critics have created their own victim’s revolution with a new victim: the oppressed conservative white male . That's a source for 'victim’s revolution' being an element, hardly for it being the primary subject. Hughes does not mention it anywhere I could find. Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As in you added it. And victim's revolution is by far the most repeated term over any of the others mentioned, which is a quantifiable measure stick of primariness. It's also mentioned firstmost and in all chapters.

The content not being in the main body means nothing. None of the other stuff is in the main body either yet you have no problem with that. Instead of pointing out just one you should point out the entire sentence is missing from the body. Obviously the entire sentence doesn't belong in the lead, only the mention of the 1991 book and not what it contains. Removal of anything but the mention of the book from the lead is what you're arguing for, right? I'm all up for this.

My primary interest is clarity as well, and at the same time most of the books I've read mention it like showcased. You wrote you found nothing in Wilson but then you add after that you did, which means at first you didn't even bother checking it thoroughly before claiming you found nothing and then you went to actually check and found it does say so. And I checked Hughes and he does pinpoint D'Souza using victim's revolution.

Wilson uses the specific term victim's revolution on pages 14, 15, 16, 17 and 152 when summarizing D'Souza's argument with it and this is from the freely available preview so he may mention it on even more pages.

And lastly, please refer to the paper cited by 40 I provided. Here are some more: 1992 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW; II. SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY: ILLIBERAL EDUCATION: THE POLITICS OF RACE AND SEX ON CAMPUS. By Dinesh D'Souza.

Everyone today wants to be considered a victim. By holding themselves out as victims, individuals and groups make a more compelling claim on society to redress their particular grievances. In Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza decries what he sees as a conspiracy by leftleaning university administrators and students to appropriate for themselves victim status: "With the encouragement of the university administration and activist faculty, many minority students begin to think of themselves as victims. Indeed, they aspire to victim status. . . . [T]hey seek the moral capital of victimhood" (p. 242). But in his book, D'Souza attempts to stake out his own claim to victimhood. He argues that university policies aimed at creating a multicultural community victimize all those involved in American education, including those people such policies intend to help.

Under a flag of victimhood, argues D'Souza, professors, administrators, and students have wrought a revolution on the American campus. This revolution's ideology is diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, and its objective is to implement policies such as affirmative action, speech codes, and new curricula to ensure full and equal participation in academic life by all ethnic groups. These policies, D'Souza laments, have changed the very nature of the university from the provider of equal opportunity to the guarantor of equal results. American universities, he argues, now choose students, teachers, books, and courses not on the basis of academic merit but on the basis of gender and skin color.

D'souza's critics: PC fights back

One of the most fertile sources of recent conflict has been the publication of Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. The book is the most comprehensive indictment to date of the so-called "victim's revolution" on campus.

There They Go Again

D'Souza's signal contribution to the war of words might be his characterization of recent campus upheavals as a “victims' revolution.”

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't use D'S as a source, I appreciate that may seem irrational, but there is inevitable subjectivity in assessing what is primary in any book. Also I think the above quote '(flag of victimhood') implies that victimhood is a means or ploy TO an end. HOWEVER, to cut to the chase I WOULD theoretically endorse removing D'S's criticisms from the lead, replacing it with a summary description of the 'trio' of books' criticisms in the lead.

I would also endorse expanding D'S's and Bloom's criticisms within the article, at the moment we say how important Bloom was, but not what he was arguing, ditto to a lesser extent D'S and NYT. I also think there are omissions and weight issues within the body (other periodicals were using the term at the same time as the 1990 NYT articles, in a similar critical manner, inc Newsweek and several conservative magazines and in UK the term had entered use, though more self-mockingly than critically in the late '80s).

Please DO NOT interpret the above as a justification for making edits, a) it is a starting point for discussion … … b) others are entitled to wade in … … c) the article MUST BE fixed before, or simultaneously with the lead, the fact that the two have got out of line is NOT a justification for perpetuating or worsening that 'disjoint'. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You can. Secondary are preferred, but primary are accepted as well when it's a simple matter like in this case. Even then we have the numerous secondary sources. And yes, the quote is talking about victim playing / self-victimization. And Newsweek followed 2 months after NYT, but I've mentioned before I could expand the mention of journals. I'll start something else before the expansion matter. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

'You can' is I assume a response to not using the book as a RS. 'You can't', I'm afraid the second you are engaged in a subjective assessment of content, or what is important about content, it becomes OR. I don't dispute 'victim-playing' anyhow, only that it doesn't fit into the phrasing used at present. Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, there are quantifiable measure sticks of the contents of the book which makes the measuring objective - and the book obviously is extremely RS on the matter of the book itself. And I'm afraid we have numerous secondary sources so that isn't even needed. And the format you tried to push was completely broken and didn't fit even close to how it is now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BOLLOCKS! No quantifiable measur(ing) sticks turn a subjective assessment into anything other than a errrrrr subjective assessment, the assessment might be un/interesting, non/partisan, non/balanced, un/perceptive, it might be many things, but it never becomes 'objective'. Persuade yourself otherwise, if you must, but it isn't going to persuade anyone else. The present wording is both logical nonsense AND not supported by the body of the article, which is an ABSOLUTE requirement, nor is present wording supported by the above sources. 'Victim-playing', IS one of the list of criticisms d'S made, that IS supported by sources without needing to hear 'Mr Magoo's quantifiable-measuring-sticked assessment of what the book was saying'. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask for you to refrain from using such words. And I did present methods of objective measuring. We list the terminology he uses the most and so simply finding that victim's revolution is used more than four times as much and in all chapters we can objectively see that victim's revolution is by far the most discussed terminology in his book. And you seem to have a problem with victim playing being mentioned at all, as you've written above. It's taken us long to even to get to the point where you're willing to include it but you're still adamant on not featuring it as the firstmost for some WP:OR reason even though most of our sources pinpoint it firstmost. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mein Kampf does not ever mention anti-semitism, so it is clearly NOT a theme of the book then? These count-use arguments or count-cite arguments are not going to impress anyone on WP and are OR. I have repeatedly said I have NO problem with 'self-victimisation' as one of the list of D'S's criticisms, but present wording suggests primary aim, rather than one of a number of means. If you have to go back to the book and count uses, it shows how little that interpretation is supported by secondary studies.Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For what must be the 15th time you offer a straw man as an argument. If I were to throw a similar back: If you have a book about fish titled Fish which uses the term "anthropod" four times and the term fish a whopping 40 times, it's subjective to assert that the book is about fish and not about arthropods? And it is his primary aim, as proven by sources and objective measurement of his book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times 'fish', or 'anthropod' are used in this hypothetical book, it's OR to extrapolate the content, however done. If the book is sufficiently notable to have received attention, we assume that someone competent has actually read it and recorded that it is mainly about fish, probably arriving at this conclusion without counting. There would be no reason to record that it ISN"T about anthropods, cats, policemen or martians, therefore no need to count! If someone competent hasn't so recorded, tough!

'Jesus' is probably NOT the most frquently mentioned person in the New Testament, so obviously the book isn't about his life and teachings!. 'Objective measurement' is often as subjective as it is possible to be, but even if it weren't it's still OR. What is difficult to understand? No one is the slightest bit interested in what Mr Magoo's 'objective assessment' of the book is. There are fan-sites where you can argue about that sort of thing. You are simply wasting your own, and other editor's time at present.

This discussion is so pointless, because I acknowledge that d'S's criticisms of the 'liberal policies', included criticism of 'people/groups projecting themselves as victims'. I see evidence of this being a significant criticism of his, I don't see any evidence of this being picked up by most RS as his main criticism, and certainly not of 'self-victimisation' being the aim, for which the other changes were simply means to achieve that aim, which current wording implies. Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not when the matter is exactly the terminology used. And we have such instances of people recording victim's revolution. No instances of records of something else.

Again with a straw man... I threw mine to illustrate the pointlessness, not to warrant it as a normal way of arguing. And Jesus appears 983 times in the New Testament, Christ 555 times. God appears only 1354 times.

And I've provided you with multiple secondary RS which pick it up as his main criticism. You haven't provided any which pick up something else as main. They all mention victim's revolution. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Appalling state of some sections of this article

As a newbie to this article and its colorful history, I checked some sections, e.g. this one:

A word search of six "regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers", found only 153 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared between January 1, 1987 and October 27, 1990.[12][41]

It is indicative of the poor stage of this article. Why?

1. Ref [41] claims to be

"Richer, edited by Stephen; Weir, Lorna (1942). Milton and the puritan dilemma, 1641-1660. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 3. ISBN 0802050255." 

(check for yourself). Hm, what does a work published in 1942 about Milton has to do with statistical analysis of the Canadian press in the 1990s?

Let's click thru and see:

2. The URL leads to another publication:

"Lies of Our Times, Tom 1" from 1990

which in itself does not look RS at all, leaving its content aside.

3. Weirder still, an OpenLib search for this ISBN renders two books, of which the latter, that is:

Beyond political correctness: toward the inclusive university by Unknown author 

seems to be the one that may have been meant here. But maybe not.

So, which one of the three sources is really meant? Are all the refs here of such poor quality?

Has anybody checked where's the beef in the article itself?

4. Much more to the point, why should one care if e.g. a term search in 8 representative Nigerian newspapers from 1981 to 1997 found 1235 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared? Who cares?

There are many more WP:Undue throughout this article, while the term's origins section is ruefully undeveloped - see my modest proposal above on how to expand it.

Zezen (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with your general observation, recent edit-warring and 'random' changes means that text and sources are sometimes not aligned. Some text ends up being there more by accident than anyone's design or agreement. I still cannot support your 'origins' proposals for reasons given, but a systematic/forensic clean-up would be beneficial. I also have proposals for expansion of history sections.

I also think that SOME reference to number of times used is apt (indicating an explosion in use in the early '90s), however I concur that at present wording is unclear and unhelpful. There also exist RS figures comparing number of uses circa 1993/2000-ish, these show an enormous drop in use by the turn of the century. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind showing any of these "figures" I have never seen even though I've gone through what 150 papers on the matter now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hughes refers to 199?-ish 2000-ish usage (big drop off), the other figures are 'yours' in the article. As said, some figures (like Canadian), I don't undersatand why they are there, but some chart a huge increase in use in early 90's. Though current phrasing could be OR in ascribing that increase to one article.Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does Hughes say anything like that? I don't see such. And I haven't provided any? And if it was used, say an arbitrary number, 10 000 times in the year 1993 and 5000 times in the year 2015, it just means it was more popular when it was new but that it's still a popular term. And recently it seems to have spiked with the number of news about the student protests and with the South Park character. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of the bad refs I'd like to point out "Media Coverage of the "Political Correctness"" which is quoted to say about Dinesh that his book "captured the press's imagination." Now, through academic source search engine previews I've been able to see that the paper talks plenty of Bloom and Kimball as well. There's a strong possibility that the they are talked about similarly or maybe that sentence refers to all three. No one is able to access the source. It's wholly untrustworthy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And "Uncommon Differences: On Political Correctness, Core Curriculum and Democracy in Education" was published in a journal about poetry for children called The Lion and the Unicorn and is cited by 4 and 2 of those four seem to be the same Russian talking about the matter in some cyrillic paper. This paper is almost as noteworthy as some student paper. The author is also a proponent of progressive alternative education and has been cited to have been present at a gathering where Bloom's book was strongly disparaged way back in the day, so the author is clearly very much biased in the matter as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of those seem like perfectly usable refs to me. For the first one, a reference doesn't become unusable just because you're unwilling to pay for it; for the second one, The Lion and the Unicorn isn't a journal for poetry, it's an international theme- and genre-centered journal, is committed to a serious, ongoing discussion of literature for children; academic discussion of trends in literature obviously overlaps with this article's subject. It was also published in Kohl's book I Won't Learn from You: And Other Thoughts on Creative Maladjustment, and therefore easily passes WP:RS. But I do agree that the word search needs to go; it's poorly-sourced and poses WP:OR problems if it's used without secondary sources discussing the meaning behind those numbers. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked multiple times for full sentences from it — especially of the imagination quote — but haven't received any. Why are you avoiding providing anything from it? What is being hidden? You haven't even provided anything to link it with the lead sentence. And Kohl is still cited by only three people, compared with say Morris cited 504 times, and the journal is still of children's literature — only incredibly vaguely linked with the term. Was a review of the newest Goosebumps: Stay Out of the Basement next to him? Even then it reads mostly as an opinion piece. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF; you can pay for it yourself if you want, but either way, "I don't want to pay for this source" is not a valid reason to remove it. Kohl's paper was printed in a reputable journal that describes itself as follows: "...an international theme- and genre-centered journal ... committed to a serious, ongoing discussion of literature for children. The journal's coverage includes the state of the publishing industry, regional authors, comparative studies of significant books and genres, new developments in theory, the art of illustration, the mass media, and popular culture. It is especially noted for its interviews with authors, editors, and other important contributors to the field, as well as its outstanding book review section." A noteworthy author in a journal whose coverage includes "mass media, and popular culture" is a perfect source for an article like this. Beyond that... is your objection to his inclusion that you feel that he is the only source for "pejorative?" He isn't; as I said, my reading is that the majority of sources that you presented supported that description. We're supposed to paraphrase the sources (indeed, we often have to in the lead, since they're not all going to use the same terminology); in this case I think it's a reasonable reading that the vast majority of historians and academics who have gone into depth on the term agree that its modern usage is largely pejorative in nature. I know you disagree, but we can't keep rehashing the same argument forever. Given that you've now gone through two RFCs and several months of discussion on the subject, and have constantly failed to turn up a consensus for your point of view, I think it's reasonable to ask you to drop the issue so we can move on to other aspects of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How was the question of what is not being provided not AGF? I'd have to throw it back because you don't seem to be assuming good faith yourself. And it's not a matter of paying but providing a short statement from the source since you claim you have access to it. And you quoted their description of themselves, great. It still stated that they're about children's literature and review any new Goosebumps when it comes out. And no, the sources I provided don't support pejorative whatsoever but describe the term as an ideology. Even then my best sources were removed by you back then when you removed all of them from the lead and kept all yours, with me being able to add only a few back. Nigh all of our sources do not mention pejorative. Only fringe cases from obviously biased authors describe it as absolutely pejorative and nothing else and we all disagree with that and you have no sources for primarily. Like written and not by me, the RfC doesn't matter if it's found to be original research. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this section and its bogus source: it looks less WP:Undue by now.

I also encourage the colleagues to fact-check and challenge the other sources, as per the above random find. Zezen (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

History section boldly edited, using WP newspaper archive account

The historical usage of the term section was wrong. In fact, the term has a long political pedigree. Please see my edits and comment or improve if you find them POV. Zezen (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: an IP reverted me right now, quotingWP:PRIMARY. This is what this policy says in fact:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." 

What is the point in Wikipedia giving us access to accounts in such archives if we cannot use them?

As I do not talk to numbers (see the blocks against IPs done by admins (on my Talk page) why I don't), if challenged by a named account, I can reword it to "the first use of the term in British/US/Australian press was in XXXX year".

Please opine.

Zezen (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Thank you. 66.87.80.158 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP has not read the quote from the very same policy that I pasted above when asking me to read it. This note

"Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." 

does not apply here either. Anyhow, before I RR the IPs removal of RS, I invite named accounts to discussion here or there. Zezen (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." isn't clear to you? Adding material about related terms and when the expression entered political discourse -- sourced only to primary sources -- is the very definition of original research. 66.87.83.72 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to named-account Wikipedians: it is not alleged original research, it is a judicious use of primary sources, using a WP-provided account thereto, hopefully adhering to the above policy on their use, as quoted.

For your ease of reference, this is how I had updated this section:

A related term "politically just" was used in 1756 in British political parlance by an "Impartial Briton" in a discussion about the then immigration policy. In 1793, the term "politically correct" appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political-lawsuit.

By 1804 the term "politically correct" was used in in today's meaning in Britain:

In your Paper on Monday [...] you offered some observations to your readers which were evidently well-meant though they were not politically correct.

and by 1811 it was frequently employed in the British Parliament.

The term "politically correct" was used in the U.S. in print from 1832 in Indianapolis Indiana Journal.

By the 1860s it has entered Australian political debates:

For to call it " a new colony " is only politically correct - the stress should be laid on the word "colony".

However, William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the modern sense is by Toni Cade in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.

References

I feel an RfC is due by now... Zezen (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the IP, deducing what is/is not a related term from primaries is OR, but I would anyway dispute that 'P equal' or 'P just' have been used as synonyms ('correct' always implying an orthodoxy, rather than justice) . Why not politically UVWXYZ? There are instances of UK usage of the actualt term, not currently recorded, and other historical uses (eg Maoists). I would oppose inclusion of this material without 2ndary sources claiming the equivalence.Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging from these sources, Zezen does have a point. The term is used in these sources like it used today. Sure, you might need secondary sources for some of the claims, but what these citations prove that the current summary of history is complete OR and that William Safire is given too much weight. If the claims are softened it's good to go. It also needs a new summary since this is right after the lead. Maybe something to clarify that the term's historic use is disagreed upon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Safire is used to record first modern use, numerous other sources also claim the 'Wade' first modern use. 'Modern' might need clarification (=feminist, or New Left orthodoxy?), but historical use from 1800's through CP members is already recorded. In the CP use 'PC'='party line'. I would suggest taking these sources and claims to WP:RSN. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These sources put Safire to doubt. He seems to be incorrect now. I don't see any other sources or any Wade. CP members are from 1940s and 1950s. I would suggest taking your accusations of OR there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is all OR, it can't stay in without a secondary RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not because there are no OR claims. Zezen also seems to be in the process of adding multiple secondary RS. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where? All I see is newspapers, which are not sufficient, especially when the content directly contradicts secondary RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So you admit that we have numerous, big-time newspapers contradicting with a Safire thus proving him an unreliable source? Again, secondary sources aren't some magical things which override primary sources. Secondary sources are recommended but there are many cases where primary sources override secondaries. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, you are now purposely edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident that my edit is policy compliant. The edit was BOLD, and was reverted, consensus must now be reached before it can be restored. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a sourced edit twice only stating that it's OR. That's just edit warring. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix's edit has my support, Zezen is happy to discuss here before any of his changes are re-instated. The 'edit-warrior' is yourself Mr. Magoo. Try WP:RSN if you don't agree. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No surprise there. I guess supporting an honest edit is edit warring where removing it multiple times isn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll write more and explain why you're wrong below, but I need to be somewhere right now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe Zezen's edit to have been made in good faith, though I also believe it to be largely wrong and partly OR (it's OR to deduce an 'equiv' term, it's both OR and wrong to 'prove' that Safire was wrong, he wasn't. He had a specific meaning which possibly could be made clearer. 'First CP use', 'first NYT use', 'first TV use' is not contradicted by it having been used completely differently a century before, even less by a 'related term' having been used).

Re-instating several times an edit which you KNOW does not yet have concensus IS conscious edit-warring, regardless of whether the original edit was 'honest' and regardless of the number of sources. Throwing dirt in every direction doesn't alter that fact. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At first there was only the IP hounder opposing. At this point there was clearly concensus as only a vandal IP was opposing. Then you logged in out of nowhere. At this point it was merely you opposing as the IP couldn't be taken seriously as the IP hounds Zezen. Then even Fyddle logged in out of nowhere. At this point it might have finally become "against concensus" but people really appeared out of nowhere... The goal wasn't to force anything. The edit had multiple sources and it was padding out a stub section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For what feels like the 10th time - please assume good faith. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I'm many things but I am not a vandal. I strongly recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". I'm fed up with Zezen and his original research, but my reverts are absolutely not vandalism. 66.87.80.172 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case you'd use an account. I were just warned for hounding and what you're doing is ten times heavier. If you want his mistakes noted then list them at ANI. They constantly have similar cases and people get blocked for constant OR edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll pass. I've been here for more than nine years without registering an account and I don't see any need now. Besides, I've rarely seen any good come from the drama boards. On the other hand, if Zezen hears from enough people on enough Talk pages that what he's doing is impermissible original research, he'll get the message. 66.87.82.73 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You want me to assume good faith but yet I'm constantly accused of all sorts of things as well. AGF doesn't apply to you? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I am happy that named accounts have finally chipped in, especially if they criticize my bold edit.

2. Mr Safire, much as I respect him, did not have Internet scanned media archives when he wrote it.

3. What do you think of this version in my Draft page, with updated sources, commentless citations and the removed claim about "first modern meaning", which indeed may be OR? As long as these hard-hunted sources be I kept, I am happy to remove any commentaries whatsoever so that Wikipedian may judge for themselves by the (hidden or explicit) citations only and can remove the "politically just" term quote as well. PS. I am repasting, as there was an edit conflict here: I hope I have not deleted smb's contribution thereby. Zezen (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, Safire (and numerous others) record the 'Cade'. The only dispute here is 'first modern use' (I believe others also describe Cade's use thus). We do not doubt that there are individual uses (the 1793 US judge is usually recorded as the first), these earlier (rare) uses are hardly using the term as a distinct term and are using the words literally. IF it is RS that Aus + UK used the words in this way WAY BACK, a simple phrase added to the reference to the US judge might be justified, but listing every historical use would not IMO. It is well documented that the term went on to be used by Maoists and US Comm party members, both literally and more often ironically to describe 'adherence to official party line'. There are a small number of uses of the term post-1970's being used (mainly by feminists and other new-left), it is in this sense that Cade's is the first modern use,(ie with modern meaning, to describe a 'feminist' or 'left-wing' orthodoxy). I personally wouldn't argue about amending this present text, if 'modern use' is ambiguous. The sources also support that at this point the term is MOST OFTEN being used ironically and self-mockingly, to comment on an excessive adherence to 'feminist/left-wing' positions. Our present wording is not wrong, but may be unclear.

I am totally opposed however to extending coverage to 'related terms', if the equivalence is established by ourselves, and IMO is tenuous. Since CP times, the term's meaning has strongly implied 'adherence to an orthodoxy', the equiv's carry no such implications. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete and other esteemed named accounts:

1. By now, I agree that the "related term" passage should go.

2. There are dozens of such usage cases in 19th century: I selected some most salient.

2. Have you seen the updated list of sources and quotes in my Draft zone, at the link above? See the "Quote sections" in the refs, hereinabove and therein.

They employ one of the modern, self-effacing and ironic meanings of the phrase already in the 19th c, e.g. :

"Yet, if "he is a good master and a good family man, and continues as politically correct in his writings as he has been of late years", we will even pardon him for "his affectation of weakness"" (Year 1810) 

[Note: I remove this quote as I have been rightly challenged about the year:] "One snap of my fingers and I can raise hemlines so high that world is your gynecologist," Patsy boasts. Political correctness, for which "Ab Fab" has only contempt..." (Year 1892)

Here is another case of usage of the term "political correctness" in US Press as early as in Year 1833 there in a similar "don't rock the (political) boat" meaning:

 "We are so well pleased with the good sense, spirit and political correctness of the following editorial in the last Dayton Whig" (1833)

Are yous convinced by now that the term and concept is almost as old as the USA itself?

Zezen (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way - a humble request to User:Gormond and User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker: although you are well meaning, please do not restore my version verbatim if duly challenged by named accounts, without meritorious hermeneutical discussion about this term aiming at consensus on the Talk page. (On the other hand, please do protect it against vandalizing IP hoppers brandishing WP's TLAs only ;) - I have done so myself).

Good night to all. Zezen (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, you really have to work on your reading comprehension. Ab Fab was a 1990s TV show whose characters included Patsy. There is no way a newspaper wrote about it in 1892. 1992, perhaps? 66.87.82.192 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right, IP - I stand corrected. I strike through this anachronistic quote and add another one from my collection, from 1833, although less "modern".

Nite to all. Zezen (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, we already refer to the 1793 judge, we record the context in which he made the remark, but do not 'characterise' his usage. I don't understand who you claim is diagnosing the character of use in some of the above, and completely fail to understand 'Ab Fab'. Fat cat has probably been written 1000s of times, that doesn't mean the modern usage Fat cats, is also from time immemorial. I am not averse to expanding (briefly) the 1793/historical use, but why would we quote more than one such usage when we quote few modern uses? I am not persuaded that ANY of the modern meanings, predates the dates we give and most studies of the use of the term, support those dates. If we happened to find the two words alongside each other in Shakespeare, that wouldn't date the use of the term back to him, or imply that he used the term in a modern way. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) … … ps mildly amusing side-note, various sources comment on what a linguistically grotesque term 'PC' is, criticising it as indicative of the lack of fluency of modern speakers and 'PC people'. Mildly amusing that the word-combination is not modern at all, though it would be OR of course to record that! Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with "hermeneutical" discussions here. I have argued with the same person over the most meaningless and well-sourced and well-related and well-proven things for weeks, only finally reaching some sort of bizarre informal armistices in which the war might just pick up again at any moment. Things seem to be sadly mainly decided by reverts on this article, as proven by events of yesterday. I talk with one but vote against three. I don't know why it's like that. There used to be an admin monitoring but even he's taken distance. But, have a go. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning to write about Newsweek but I haven't had time as I've been stuck arguing about synonyms and have the aforementioned editors strongly opposing the use of a less absolute synonym. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

nb 'Newsweek' and 'Forbes' are already in the article. Several other periodicals around the same time are not, but I believe only deserve 'passing mention'. Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, where on this talk page do you propose changing 'primarily' to 'generally' PRIOR to opening your RfC? That itself is an abuse of procedure, RfC's are meant to resolve intractably dead-logged discussions, not a means of by-passing discussion. However, it is not consistent to claim that the two are synonyms, but to insist on using one. I believe they CAN BE synonyms in ordinary speech, but the second is vague. Why would we want to use a vague term, when a widely understood specific one exists? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Above, in the old RfC which I closed after the change? Here's the diff. I then waited and asked you again and you were editing this talk page but apparently not caring about this reply. And I've already written that primarily is too absolute, where as generally is less. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As the proposer (indeed any involved ed), you don't get to close an RfC, nor do you require others to prove that your assessment of consensus on that RfC was flawed, prime litigant, chief witness, prosecution, judge, jury and appeal judge don't merge very well as roles.

So the straight forward answer is that there was no discussion about this change. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Like written above, it was withdrawn, not closed — and proposers are allowed to withdraw. And there was no dialogue but only monologue because like I wrote I suggested it and waited for days, asking again but you were ignoring me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

withdrawn=withdrawn, not used as a justification for undiscussed change or 'second-bite of the cherry'. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did try to discuss it but like I wrote, you seemed to be ignoring it. It's a synonym change so I didn't even think there'd be opposition. As of now there is no compromise, only on-going disagreement. This was to be the compromise. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IF it's a synonym, which term is clearer? Which vaguer? Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about vagueness but absoluteness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, since the discussion here has veered from its original scope, that is the pros and cons of updating the history section, and nobody commented on the proposed updated version in my draft area, I am going to insert it therefrom, slightly redacted, just quoting the sources, as per the criticisms above.

The WP:Undue or WP:OR arguments, if wielded again, can be counteracted by the following:

1. The article has been tagged as "not a worldwide view of the subject for over a year": I am working toward expanding it thereby by historical quotes from the UK and Australia.

2. The quotes have been stripped from any comments on their presumed meaning.

3. The full context is in the "Quote" fields of the references.

4. The accounts to the newspaper archives has been provided by WP itself, so many other enabled editors can check in the scans if I am not making these up.

5. The other sections discuss who said what in Canada or the USA 30 years ago in way too much detail, see my criticism of one of them below.

So if you do not have reasonable WP-worthy objective arguments, which could have been raised above in the past week, please do not remove these sources by now, using ad-hominems or your subjective take on WP's policies, only edit or add thereto for clarity's sake.

Zezen (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, the 'bogus' was a recent addition, caused by edit-warring. What is more likely to be the case elsewhere is 'non-aligned' refs. Regarding your re-instate, putting 'however' on Safire IS OR, you are implying the source (and several others which claim the same thing) are WRONG, they aren't. By 'modern use', I presume he means something like 'correct in the context of feminist/left-wing beliefs', the most common modern use. I don't doubt that the UK + Aust examples are authentic, however, who is defining 'how used', and why are a handful of uses in a century worthy of quoting? We have a long-standing consensus that using individual examples of use (and interpreting 'how used' from the primary source), is not worthwhile and is OR. Therefore we rely on 2ndary sources for which examples are notable, and for any interpretation of them. The term is used in many thousands of pieces between late 80's and circa 2005, this is the most commonly understood use of the term, yet we quote almost NO examples, rather relying on 2ndary analysis. Why would we devote so much space to earlier examples, when it isn't even clear what the meaning was at the time, or indeed that there was a consistent meaning?

The 1793 judge's use of PC, MIGHT be paraphrased to 'legally correct', or 'constitutionally correct'. It is impossible to imagine the 'Cade' being paraphrased in the same way, even less those criticising trends in education/society post-1980 saying 'this is just legal/constitutional correctness'. 'PC' had acquired by then a distinct meaning which was more than simply the sum of the two words (which is how the judge appears to be using it). That modern meaning is approx. 'adherence to feminist/left-wing orthodoxy', or 'avoidance of insensitive language', depending on how you define it.

I don't approve of anyone hounding anyone, but I have to agree with the IP, that parts of your re-insert appear to be OR, based on your interpretation of primary sources and parts give undue weight to minor, rare uses that don't really add up to a pattern. I have no objection to adding briefly to 'the judge' to say that the term was also used elsewhere, WITHOUT interpretations of how used, unless those interpretations themselves are RSed.

I agree in part about 'Canadian use', it is unclear why it is there, however I don't know WHICH U.S. use you think is excessive. US use is the most documented, therefore we would be ignoring sources if it did not give 'primary coverage'. There are elements of modern UK use which are NOT included at present, though they are well sourced, that may be true of other places, but I don't think the remedy to that is putting in minor uses from history. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete: I am replying with some delay, due to Real life. Thank you for your comments. You have not addressed my arguments about WP:Undue towards US/Canada in the current version of the article, tagged thusly since over a year by another Wikipedian, with the History section starting now with:

The term "politically correct" was used infrequently in the U.S. until the latter part of the 20th century...

I am thus going to: 1. Remove the "however" word, to get rid of vestiges of imputed WP:OR.

2. Restore my amended contribution which discusses its usage worldwide.

3. Defend it by calling for an RfC about the sources and their use here, if still challenged.

4. Ask you not to remove RS sections, and edit them instead to fix the challenged words or terms only ("However" as per your argument above).

Zezen (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Zezen respectfully, the onus is on you to get consensus on the 'early history', not on me to 'disprove it'. In this edit, you again say Safire is wrong he isn't, nor are the numerous others who claim 'Cade' as the first modern usage in print. Their meaning may be unclearly phrased at present, but they are right, they are talking about use in a feminist/left-wing context (the most common modern meaning, to describe/criticise such policies). I have no objection to altering the text attached to the 1793 case to reflect 'occasional usage in US and other 'English-speaking' countries' (with footnotes to UK Aust etc. sources, as done with the 1793 judge), but why would we quote a handful of uses in over a century, without even knowing how used? We list one or less uses in each later context to illustrate only, at a time when the term was being used 1000's of times each year.

There is material about modern UK use, it isn't in the article because I haven't got round to it ditto 'Maoist' use, ditto other uses. It is a simple matter of fact that the principal modern use arose in the US, and most studies are US, it is inevitable therefore that coverage of US use will predominate, though that of course doesn't justify omitting other countries or including irrelevancies. (I think 'Canada' is unnec, or at least unclear at present)

I was in the process of 'sandboxing' the article, in order to fix MANY things. When I have done so, you are welcome to join in the fixing. btw I am UK, so keen to make the article less US-centric. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete here, and I still object to Zezen's proposed addition. I have yet to see any version of it that is not WP:OR. To include this, you need a reliable, secondary source (and preferably a significant number of authoritative sources). Call an RFC if you want, but the content has been (repeatedly) challenged at this point, so you should not be trying to re-insert it without consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Modifying 'early history'

I'm going to modify early history, leaving some tags where work is needed, as my time is limited right now.Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC) … … I have done so, I hope tags are clear and will result in 'proper weight' to very occasional use.Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix and others, [1] ... nb this change, with tags, if we avoid 'characterising', the early UK/Aust etc. uses, I think OR is avoided. If we put a small number of quotes WITHIN the ref (as 1793 judge), I think undue weight is avoided. I think finding a RS which describes in what sense 'Cade' is first modern use, is achievable and would clarify. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)