Talk:Political correctness/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Posited protection (removed section)

Following on my comment regarding WP:DUE in the preceding section, User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker (herinafter Magoo) contacted me on my talk page and called my attention to the removal of this section by User:Pincrete in this edit. After looking at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification, I don't consider this contact by Magoo to have been WP:Canvassing (Pincrete may disagree).

The edit summary of the edit removing the section says, "These are simply examples of use based on primary sources + there is opposition to this section expressed on talk." The article talk page section referred to there seems to be the one headed #Civitas think tank pamphlet. I don't think that discussion established a consensus for removal, and I see that the article contains a cite of this BBC article headed, "PC thinking 'is harming society'", and subheaded, "Britain's institutions are infected with political correctness which is damaging society, according to a book published by a right-wing think-tank." That article discusses the viewpoint presented in the book and also discusses an opposing viewpoint put forth by Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain. This seems to me as if it goes a long ways towards meeting the requirements of WP:DUE. See also this article in The Guardian.

Regarding topical significance of the removed material, I think that it tried to throw a light on something deserving of mention—described by Magoo in the discussion as "the view of how political correctness has become to be used as a shield by those commonly viewed as discriminated against." In the discussion, Pincrete said, "I strongly object to its inclusion in its present form." I don't like the removed content as it was presented either, though probably not for the same reasons. I would suggest a rewwrite to widen the scope, perhaps including material growing out of this townhall.com article headed, "Neighbor Didn't Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist" and including material saying, "This is the same politically correct culture that lead to the Ft. Hood shooting when Nidal Hassan, who had been spouting violent Islamic propaganda to neighbors on post and reaching out to Al Qaeda, was ignored for fear of 'Islamaphobia' accusations." and/or this cnsnews.com article headed, "Cruz: AG’s ‘Ban on What She Calls Anti-Muslim Rhetoric’ Producing ‘Chilling Effect’ in War on Terror" and including content saying, "[a neighbor] noticed the couple 'doing a lot of work in the garage,' but didn’t want to profile them. It turns out the couple left behind a stockpile of ammunition and explosives." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, first let me correct you about something, to the best of my knowledge neither the 'Civitas' material nor the Dawkins quote have ever been part of a stable version (not in the last 9-ish months at least), therefore the onus is on you or 'Mr. Magoo' to establish consensus for inclusion/re-instatement. I and at least one other longish-term editor (Aquillion) objected to the inclusion.

My reasons were primarily that the term 'PC' has been used many tens of thousands of times on TV, in newspapers, books and pamphlets etc. In the article we do not include primary sources USING the term except where they are especially notable (eg Bush Snr. using the term indicates its general acceptance in early '90s). We cite only a handful of instances of persons USING the term and largely rely on secondary studies commenting on use of the term. Civitas's use is NOT such a milestone use IMO.

Some of what you are suggesting would also IMO be OR, going into the issues behind the term rather than the term itself.

Aquillion (if I remember correctly), further objected that 'Civitas' is not an especially notable organisation, nor is this publication very notable, given the innumerable times the term has been used.

You appear to have read the discussion, so you know that I also objected to the particular Civitas quote (which to my mind says nothing about political correctness, the quote basically says that UK ethnic minority communities themselves are sometimes racist, sexist and homophobic, very possibly true, but so what?).

Contacting an editor who has not been involved for many months in order to support my position, is not something I would do without very good reason, though technically, since you DID insert the material previously, it is NOT canvassing. Besides, you are here now so that issue is academic. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I would suggest a rewrite of the removed section rather than a simple unrevert to restore the section in the form it had prior to its removal. The rewrite need not necessarily feature the Civitas think tank source to which you objected as a primary source. Instead, it might assert that it has been posited that a culture of "political correctness" is responsible for damaging society by protecting some groups from having their stated views or, in some cases, their actions challenged (I don't state that well; I'm not much of a wordsmith). I described and linked four secondary sources above ([1][2][3][4], two which had been cited in the removed section and two others which I dug up) which seem to me to support such an assertion. It seems to me that such a subsection would fit well as a subsection into the Modern usage section as the current As a conspiracy theory and False accusations subsections. My purpose here was not to champion the inclusion of such a subsection, however. It just seemed to me after the removal of the section had been called to my attention that the removal had been premature, and I chimed in to say so and to invite more discussion about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Civitas was added in 2012, removed this August by your tag team buddy. Compare the state of the article from May 20 2015 to September 23 2015. The two made over a hundred edits to the article in the meantime and never edited or undid each other's edits. I believe there were possibly two times where the other's grammar was fixed? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I see the season of goodwill has not affected your gift for making absurd claims about the other editors on this article (in the hope of influencing newcomers to the page?). this is what the closing admin had to say at your last attempt to blacken the name of 3 long-term editors on this page 'This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.' Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I retorted in this way only because you outright and knowingly lied above about Civitas not having been part of the stable version for 2-3 years. And like I wrote above, he hadn't even bothered to read the filing. He thought the ANI was started by me, even though two people had written the opposite. And even then they mostly deal with SP investigations and not MP. I didn't see a single other MP investigation there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I really don't give a shit about your pathetic defence of repeatedly made but wholly discredited accusations. Learning to apologise might be more constructive than trying to defend the indefensible. However, you compound matters by repeatedly accusing me/anyone/everyone of lying. My post said: to the best of my knowledge neither the 'Civitas' material nor the Dawkins quote have ever been part of a stable version (not in the last 9-ish months at least). Where is the untruth in my statement? Where the lie? If it is significantly inaccurate, I will happily apologise to the editor it was addressed to. Learn to read please.

Your SPI was rejected because there was zero evidence and there was zero evidence because there was zero 'crime'. I've no idea what the admin meant about the ANI, but do recall that you ended that ANI by promising to STOP making accusations. I have never communicated with any other editor of this page, and I have never knowingly lied (I can make mistakes, like anyone). Your repeated accusations achieve nothing, except advertise your taste for WP:Trolling. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. Like I wrote, he hadn't even bothered to read anything so hardly discredited. And it was an MP investigation which he isn't used to. MP investigations are directed to the same place as SP investigations but I didn't see any other there like I already wrote. The Civitas had been removed in August by your friend and had been stable for 2-3 years before that. Not only that but only an hour after that removal you yourself made whopping nine edits to the article. And I promised only to accuse when bad behavior is overt and not covert. When you all appeared within an hour — with the other two having been gone from the article for 14 and 19 days — to vote in the last RfC: it was overt. Again, I talk to one alone for months but vote against three within an hour of each other. Anyone would think this to be meatpuppetry. On WP:MEAT it says that only circumstantial evidence can be relied upon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave you the oppurtunity to apologise for repeating an accusation for the n00th time for which you have zero evidence. I gave you the oppurtunity to apologise for TWICE in two days calling me a liar, when you are demonstrably wrong. You chose not to do either. Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You did obviously lie about Civitas? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be more useful to inform me of my error than use words like 'lie' again and again and again. It might even be quicker!Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "lie" a whopping two times and not in the first reply where I pointed out the incorrectness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While "political correctness" is not among my major concerns, Pincrete's reasoning about the sources seems rather surprising to me. You are purposely excluding newspapers? But this article is not about the use of the term in purely academic sources.

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources about news sources: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. Many news organizations rely heavily on press releases from the organizations or journals involved. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context."

Which would suggest that the relevance of any given source primarily depends on the context of its use in the article. Not necessarily on being scholarly or not. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, quick reply, nowhere, I believe, do I say we are excluding newspapers, indeed we do use them. What I said (or meant), is that we largely exclude instances of papers, books, sites, TV etc. USING the term (as opposed to writing about the term/concept). Partly because it would be OR to extrapolate significance and also because there are far too many thousands of instances of use, that such use would need special significance in order to be justified. An article on any political term would need to take a similar approach, we would not extrapolate the meaning of 'conservative' for example from the millions of times the word has been used to describe this or that person or action. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If we are to exclude simple mentions then we would be double encouraged to remove the entire Baa Baa sheep bit which doesn't even mention the term (which you have argued for and opposed removal of). But he's right, you have a history of purposely excluding any sort of a source which you personally disagree with and including bad ones you agree with. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is already a section above about 'Baa Baa'. Where does Dimadick accuse anyone of "purposely excluding any sort of a source which you personally disagree with and including bad ones you agree with"? I couldn't see that bit! His remarks seem based on a good-faith, but nonetheless inaccurate, reading of my posts, his intention to inform, not accuse. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Which you had ignored for over a month before you finally replied now. And I didn't claim Dimadick claimed anything like that. I can now see how you could read it like that but I wrote he's right and then wrote about your reasons for it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC).

Read as biased against right-wing

I removed the below section that read extremely biased to me but it was reverted.

Scholars on the left have said that conservatives and right-wing libertarians pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.[16][19][20] They have also said that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored.

@Pincrete: can you elaborate on your revert message?

Undid revision 695604893 the text covers the bias and is well sourced in numerous accounts of use 

I do not see where it covers the bias. Also, just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it isn't biased (as I'm sure you're aware, just clarifying) and without a counter I don't see how it helps the article in a meaningful way other than to bait an argument.

nb above message left by Jay Phelps

As an encyclopedia, part of our mission is to report major strains of thought on the topic; that paragraph is well-sourced and clearly represents what a significant number of academic sources have said about the term. That is to say -- it's what those people actually say (and it's a common and wide-spread enough view in academia that it's not WP:FRINGE), so simply reporting it isn't biased; beyond that, it's entirely acceptable to use WP:BIASED sources to cover their point of view. It helps the article because it informs the reader about a significant viewpoint on the topic within academia (with, note, an indication of whose view this is; that is probably what Pincrete meant when he said that it 'covers the bias'.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I endorse what Aquillion says, also how is this biased? It is well sourced as to what numerous commentators on 'the left' have said about PC. The 'antidote', were any required, would be to say more fully what 'right-wingers' say PC is, not to neuter both. The lead should reflect the article, and were any change needed, it should be made there first. Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is biased because it only presents one side, implying through omission that it is likely a true statement since no notable counter is mentioned. Jay Phelps (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It should stay. It is sourced and is a significant point of view. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The text should stay. Are conservatives really that offended by the text in question? 147.153.168.23 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I disagree with the outcome, but such is life. Cheers. Jay Phelps (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The remedy for article content which is perceived to give undue weight to a viewpoint with which an editor disagrees but which are supported by cited WP:RSs is not removal of the presented viewpoint, it is additional presentation of differing viewpoints similarly supported. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree Wtmitchell, in particular, one of the things that I think the article lacks, is a clear statement of what critics of 'PC' say it IS. Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph should remain but it could be made more neutral. Many commentators are scholars but I think using that word gives that paragraph undue weight.

How about, 'Commentators on the left have said that what they call conservatives and right-wing libertarians pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism. They have also said that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the scholars/commentators switch (in fact not all of those referred to in the article are 'scholars'), but why 'what they call conservatives'? Political and social conservatism is a generally used, neutral description and does not need qualifying any more than 'on the left' does. Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more of 'right-wing libertarians'. It may not be that that the people who use the term 'political correctness' can in fact properly described as 'right-wing libertarians'; that could be just what the left wing call them. I suppose that does apply to conservatives too.

To put my argument in a more direct way, I do not think it would be for WP correct to say, 'people who use the term 'politically correct' are right-wing libertarians'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with your last point, but we don't say (or, I think, imply) that. I'm not entirely sure why r-wing libers are mentioned anyway, they are simply a distinct group of conservatives and I'm not sure that they are especially notable for using the term. Within the article, the commentators making this charge, mainly use the terms 'conservative' or 'right-wing', rather than 'libertarians'. 'Right-wing libertarians' is not a common term in the UK, though the phenomenon is a familiar one. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

Generally speaking, we have to go by what reliable sources say about things like this; and all of the academic sources on the subject describe cultural marxism as a conspiracy theory. We can't use editorials from websites like the Daily Bell or vdare to 'respond' to those, since first, those sites lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires; second, those are opinion pieces (so we can't generally use them as cites for statements of fact, just for the opinions of their contributors, when those opinions are high-profile enough to be relevant), and third, their opinions here are clearlely WP:FRINGE when compared to more academic or reliable coverage. We do cover their opinion (that's what the section is for), but we have to cover it in a way that respects WP:FRINGE and which makes it clear what the mainstream view is. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. GAB^Hello! 04:33, 1 January 2016s(UTC)

Just use axel honneth. renegadeviking 2 January 2016s(UTC)

I think that what we have is OK. The view is clearly attributed to 'Some radical right-wing groups'. We might drop the quote though as being too promotional of the expressed view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what we have is largely OK and linked. However, I question Buchanan's presence HERE, he is one of many people to have said that PC is inherently intolerant/censorious etc. but is it relevant to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory? Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

They have a CT dictionary now. renegadeviking) 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Satirical use

Are the specific TV uses (UK and US) notable? The UK source does not even support the specific assertion made (it supports this comic satirising this Daily Mail columnist, but not this columnist's use of the DM cliche 'PC gone mad'). The earlier books and general observations seem noteworthy. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the UK comic (which is not supported by the ref, as prev. cmt). Other 'TV uses' also seem not notable.Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Baa Baa sheep is also unnotable and has little to no relation with the use of the term. We should remove it as well... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Baa Baa Black Sheep

Do you mean Baa Baa Black Sheep? Yeah, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, BBBS, is not a TV programme, nor is the story satirical! The BBBS incident (as has been already said several times) is among the best documented 'urban myths' generated by UK tabloids to illustrate examples of 'PC' policies executed by 'loony left' local councils, it is also one of the few points at which the article actually leaves the US. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it has no apparent connection to the term. In that case we should mention any vaguely speech-limiting case outside "False accusations" even when not using the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The term was widely used in describing the incident, it is very typical of the UK tabloid use of the term, the incident is extensively documented in UK newspaper and book sources inc. Hughes, no 'speech-limiting' actually took place, it was an accusation of 'speech-limiting' that has been repeatedly proven to be false. Saying that it has no connection is as silly as saying that the US 'higher education debate' has no connection with the US use of the term. NB, the section was created in order that editors could express their opinion on the 'TV' examples, could you please respect that. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not evidently. Just above you go on about OR but here you practice it yourself. It has no connection with the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Which claims in my description here, or in the article content, do you believe are not supported by sources, or are synthed? Pincrete (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The link to the term? No sight of it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Critics say altering the words of the traditional nursery rhyme is an example of political correctness gone too far. The original 'Sun' story did not use the term 'PC' (anymore than Bloom did, besides, the 'Sun' is not noted for using words with 4 syllables). The 'story' was extensively recycled over the next 20 years in both tabloids and broadsheets, during which the term was attached to it. Hughes covers the original incident (cannot come up with a quote at present, my Hughes is at home). I cannot access the 'Times' (subscription site). This is probably the best documented UK tabloid 'urban myth' about 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is that in the article? It goes on about everything but the term? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Which article? If you mean our article, we include only a summary as the story is covered in the linked page. My quote is from one of the sources cited. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What else. I checked the sources and there was mention of political correctness but only used vaguely, with some vague unnamed "critics" apparently saying this is an example of it. There's no direct relation, only vague secondhand mention of the case being an example of political correctness. This is a perfect example of a simple case of it being used without really being noteworthy. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The (long-running) BaaBaa story is among the best known (and best recorded) examples of 'urban myths' being recycled by UK tabloids about supposed policies of local councils being adopted for reasons of 'PC'. There are plenty of others! Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like OR, because you have provided nothing to indicate that. I follow UK media and I've never heard about it. And again, little to nothing ties it with the use of the term. You're ORing its relation to the term. And wasn't it you who wrote that this article is supposed to be from the US perspective, when we talked about that one dictionary with two definitions? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have certainly never said that the article SHOULD have a US perspective, the fact that the modern use of the term originated in US, inevitably means that part is going to focus on US.Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote that any article which has established main usage should follow that usage, which you clarified to be US spelling + usage. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Spelling, grammar and language usage WITHIN the article are kept consistent, in the case of PC it's US English. That has nothing to do with content or treatment (ie we don't ignore, or downplay, the US contribution to the 2nd World War in Europe simply because most of those articles are written in UK English !). Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It was in that context, yes, but you did still paint with broad strokes after the US perspective tag had been pointed out that "any article which has established main usage should follow that usage". I thought that was what you meant at the time, but I guess not. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative/Right-wing correctness

nb section heading added retrospectively by Pincrete . Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I just noticed that someone had changed the title of the right-wing section in January to conservative if you were wondering about that. I changed it back as it talks about right-wing political correctness below and someone had apparently removed the other source at some point as well. Oh wait, now I noticed it does mention conservative correctness below as well. But below that Paul Krugman talks about right-wing political correctness so I guess Krugman takes precedence. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your restore, 'right-wing' is explicitly political, whereas 'conservative' is not always so. Besides, 'conservative' is within the spectrum covered by 'right-wing'. There are places where the terms might be interchangable, but I don't think this is one of them. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on compromise on primarily pejorative

A number of comments in the above RfC and at the ANI criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, why not compromise?

The lead is required to be an accurate summary of the article, which is required to be an accurate summary of reliable 2ndary sources studying the term, (rather than sources simply using the term). Most of those studies focus on the period up to the late 1990s/early 2000s-ish, the period when the term 'PC' was most used and 'hottest'. They are all fairly unambiguous that the term was at that time critical/dismissive/derogatory, had earlier been very occasionally ironically critical and even earlier and very, very marginally 'literal'. It is probably because of that period's use that most of us are aware of the term at all.

It was me who initially inserted the precursor to 'primarily' (ordinarily, 'mainly' or 'most commonly', as I recall). No one at the ANI, nor in the RfC, nor the 'ocassional editors' to the page, has so far pointed to any reliable 2ndary sources, which document any significant non-pejorative use, though most of us are aware anecdotally of other uses, particularly in private contexts. I believe a compromise is possible which avoids OR by placing the derogatory use in historical perspective within the lead and avoiding any 2016 definition until/unless 2ndary sources document such use (ie avoiding the present tense). However compromises 'plucked from the air', based not on the article itself, nor on RS are not the answer IMO. 'Often pejorative' implies that there are a significant number of uses, which are not critical. That could be true, especially in private use, but those uses are not in the lead, nor the article, because they are simply not described in good 2ary sources.

I am making the 'historical' suggestion regardless of the outcome of the RfC, since I believe the term is largely 'burnt out' and an historical approach is more appropriate as well as resolving a present problem.

I was, and remain, unconditionally opposed to changing 'primarily/mainly/ordinarily' to 'often' or 'sometimes' etc., for reasons laid out above. However I have started this section in the hope of finding some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse, either based on my own suggestion or some other. Suggestions welcome. Pincrete (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are quite the large number of sources from that period presented which aren't dismissive. In fact the dismissive seem to be in the minority ever after the very early 90s. If you look at the above RfC, countless sources have been given. You also seemed to offer no compromise here. And as a reminder, "often" is a compromise. It went from "pejorative not even mentioned" to "generally pejorative" to "often pejorative". My trajectory towards compromise has taken 2 steps. Meanwhile your trajectory has been ... "primarily". That's it. Currently 7 people have voted for "often". It's time to compromise. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we possibly use this section for its intended purpose, which is to discuss an 'historical' approach and to invite new suggestions. Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you want to lead to only be about the historic usage of the term? Not current day? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as 2ndary sourced studies of the term, or the politics, or similar analyses appear, probably yes. But that's not the purpose of the suggestion, which is to avoid subjective analyses based on primary sources and anecdotal evidence. WP takes the same approach to any term with strong historical links. This example may be 'loaded', but this takes precedence, regardless of how many examples can be found of the two words being used innocuously since. … … btw, I don't personally care a fig whether 'pejorative' is used at all, I think it would be much more informative to say succintly WHO was criticising WHAT and WHY (their objections to the changes). Also at the moment it is nowhere mentioned that gender, race and, to a lesser extent, disability issues were prominent in these disputed changes. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case the lead should state "was", not "is". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is stated clearly the context in which the term was being used, everything could be past tense. By context, I mean something like 'came to prominence/was widely used by critics to criticise/describe/characterise'. Then the 'what', which is mainly language and curriculum changes in higher education in the US, mainly local Govt. and public bodies in the UK, in both cases mainly related to gender and race issues/policies/language. Critics objected to these changes for a host of reasons, which could be stated succintly. At the moment they are not stated anywhere. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible solution?

Okay, could moving the article to "Political correctness (pejorative usage)" be a possible solution? I mean, if the article is about that particular usage, then we don't really need to worry about the fact it's also commonly used sincerely and with its dictionary meaning. valereee (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that would run afoul of both WP:NOTDICT and WP:POVFORK problems. It's not WP's purpose to have separate articles on various different dictionarian approaches to a word's usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Another idea

How about just stating the facts?

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It is used almost exlusively in the media as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. {media refs}

This is not a POV fork but a description of how the differenet ways term is actually defined and used in different contexts. It is not up to us at WP to decide which context and meaning is 'the right one'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we are talking the same language here, even if expressing it differently. I agree with SMcCandlish ☺'s comments above and also think that the 'renaming' option above is just 'shifting the problem'. valereee had another idea on her talk page, which she expressed in terms of 'described as', I don't think that entirely works, because everything on WP is only 'described as', however the spirit of her suggestion and the spirit of Martin Hogbin's, does work if we record therafter when used, by whom, against whom, in what context (educational reforms (US), local govt etc policies (UK), in both cases notably about gender/race etc.), ie we are recording how used in specific contexts, in historical order, including possibly modern more neutral use (if sourcable), without ever saying 'it is', 'it means'. Martin's specific 'media' sentence wouldn't work IMO, but is a basis for improvement, eg 'The term has been used extensively (in named contexts? in public debates relating mainly to gender and racial equality issues?)as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't his media sentence work? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Would this work: Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} When used by political commenters, it is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. {media refs}

The reason I like this better is that 'it is used almost exclusively in the media' sounds like it's only use is in the media. Flipping the order clarifies. I'm not married to 'political commenters' rather than 'the media' but I think it's both broader and more specific, if that makes sense. Broader in that it's not ONLY used in the media, and more specific in that when it is used pejoratively, it's typically being used by people commenting on politics. valereee (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Or this?

'Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It is used often/generally/[or maybe no qualifier] in the media {media refs} and [other contexts] {[other context] refs} as a pejorative term implying that these policies are excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Quibbles, but the term WAS used extensively WITHIN academia in the US prior to 'going public' (for the same purpose and meaning ... criticising educational reforms). I suggest keeping that sentence very brief (It is often used as a pejorative term implying that the policies are excessive?) and moving the 'meat' till after:- The term had only scattered usage before the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage etc. The etc. meaning who/how/about what.

I don't know how this can be said, but it is the thinking/mindset behind the policies which are characterised as 'PC', rather than the policies themselves.Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ... ps might identifying the 'main issues' (gender, race, sexual orientation, disability), which have been at the centre of 'PC' fit in after dictionary refs, nowhere at present does the article clearly identify this basic fact. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be in danger of reigniting the old argument about whether it is pejoritave or not. I propose to avoid this argument by missing out the word 'pejorative' in the first sentence then immidiately after giving contexts in which it is/was used pejorativly. So would it not be better to say:

'Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. {dictionary refs} It was (first) used pejoratively within US acedemia in 19XX as a term implying that these policies are excessive and is still used often/generally/[or maybe no qualifier] in the media {media refs} and [other contexts] {[other context] refs} with that meaning.

This is surely strictly factual, easy to verify, and does not need an argument about whethet it 'really is' pejorative or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the format, 'first used' would have to be 'notably used/widely used' (since first recorded use is 179X and article records 4 or 5 distinct uses 193X-198X, some of which are pejorative) or 'entered mainstream use following' (it went from academia into 'popular use' over about 5 years '87-ish to '92-ish). 19XX would need to be 'during the (late) 1980's'.Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• But "used almost exclusively" is an an even more PoV / OR statement than "predominantly"; while the RfC above has not closed, I'd bet good money it will close in favor of more moderate language like "often". That should be sufficient. It's not WP's job to serve as a prescriptive dictionary and style guide combined (a usage dictionary). Media refs demonstrating pejorative usage are examples of usage, not references about the usage; using them to try to prove a point is patent WP:OR; it's a personal WP:AEIS novel analysis and interpretation based on hand-picked sources forming a corpus of data from which a WP editor is trying to tease a conclusion about usage. That a canonical example of OR. The sources on usage are dictionaries, linguistics journals, political science texts, and other off-WP commentators and analyzers of the usage as its own subject, not casual users of the phrase. Ten seconds on Google [5] shows that the term survives in its original meaning, of limiting and self-limiting public discourse for what we would now call memetic or messaging strategy, side by side with multiple distinct pejorative uses (summarizable as "pseudo-liberal hostility to free speech" and "propagandizing by left-wing political interests against messaging they claim is offensive". It's very clear that the "average American" in everyday speech, and thus the average American journalist, probably means one of these pejorative senses. But so what? It's actually a term of art in political science. You're treating low-end news sources as if they're the only sources that are reliable, when they're actually the least reliable in this context. Within my own lifetime, most of the same news sources refered to tsunamis as "tidal waves", and had to be browbeaten by generations of climatologists, geophysicists, etc., into dropping that misnomer (which they still use metaphorically, e.g. a "tidal wave of support for the candidate"). Just because it showed up in a newspaper doesn't make it good English. Newsprint is written with the primary goal of expediency in mind, and the second one of exicting prose that gets people to buy newspapers. Accuracy (of anything but direct quotations), much less semantic fine points, are nowhere near the top of the list of journalistic priorities.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, I don't understand your main point, 'used almost exclusively' is not being pursued. What Martin Hogbin has suggested, which is a starting point, is mainly HIGHLY sourceable both from academic studies and from legit press (for example the orig NYT articles describing the education 'fracas', which is widely quoted in most studies). I took his (media refs) to be shorthand, not to be 'low-end sources'. I do know the main sources used fairly well after 9 months here and valeree was here last summer and knows some of the problems.

I prefer to wait for a ruling on the RfC, the whole process was so flawed that one may never come, but this is an alternative approach addressing long-term objections raised at the RfC, objections raised at the previous RfC on a similar subject and objections raised by drop-ins. My aim is to make the article clearer and more informative about how used, whilst avoiding a monolithic 'IS'. You don't think it worthy of attention, that the lead (and article body I think), expends 100s of words without ever mentioning that 'PC' is some-what connected with gender and race issues? If there are other uses in science/art insert them into the body of the article and/or propose addition in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC) … … ps, I do not, and have never cared two figs whether the article says 'pejorative' at all, so long as it makes clear HOW the term was used, in WHICH contexts, to make WHAT arguments, for/against WHAT. I'm talking about broad subject areas of course and using 2ndary sources studying use. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My main point is that all those all-capped concerns of yours have to come from reliable sources that address those exact questions about this exact phrase; it cannot come from Wikipedians' attempts to analyze usage. Even if sources do address this, from what I can tell they only address these questions in particular contexts. Sources that discuss the usage of "politically correct" as a pejorative thrown at liberals and pseudo-liberals in everyday argument do not address at all the political science uses that take the term at face value as a communist and socialist messaging and conformity-enforcement mechanism. Sources that observe the pejorative use cannot erase those that observe the face-value use. They don't "outweigh" them. A million sources that use "orange" as a color term can never erase the fact that in botanical sources its a term for various cultivars of citrus. The usages are qualitatively different, operating in different kinds of writing. Show me a political science source that says that the term is no longer used in political science, that leftist philosophy has replaced it with something else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course they do (have to come from RS etc), what makes you think I don't know that? I've been editing at WP for 4 years, I've had to politely cut out oodles of OR on this page alone. This is discussing a sketched format. We/I aren't even remotely interested in attributing textually the relative pejorative-ness(!) of each usage, (though only one usage is noted as explicitly pejorative, others are recorded as literal or ironic), that is part of what I wish to avoid, though normal WP weight applies of course.

I don't know about the uses outside the political/societal meaning, though you have mentioned them a number of times, these, I think have never been in the article. Either those get included (as suggested prev. in the body), or the article is more narrowly defined in the lead as referring to 'political' use. I don't know which is apt.

I'm sorry but I think you are treating us as if we are completely ignorant of P&G, before even a proposed text is formulated. Concrete suggestions to improve/add/cut are helpful, but reminding us that a blue parrot may not refer to a depressed bird isn't. Pincrete (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Pincrete, to clarify: There are oodles of sources talking about people using the term pejoratively. If we could assume that the number of sources talking about using the term pejoratively vs. number of sources talking about people using the term literally is an accurate reflection of actual usage, the word "primarily" would indeed be correct. This is the heart of the problem, IMO. It's not that no one is using the term nonpejoratively. It's that when they do, no one comments; it's not newsworthy when a word is used in its literal meaning. So without doing OR, how are we to express what we keep hearing from new-to-this-article editors who keep coming in here and saying, "Wait, what? That's not correct; I hear it used nonpejoratively often." My argument to Pincrete is that we need to do a reality check. His to me is that a reality check is OR. And there is where we get stuck. valereee (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, there seem to be a few crossed wires here. My argument is to comment explicitly on what we know from RS about use in various contexts (inc any sourceable 'neutral' use) and avoid any monolithic IS, which is what offends people and causes argument. No one disputes (and RS support) highly critical use 198X -??? and occasional similar current use, nor that the term 'went public' then, nor what the main disputes were (gender/race + a few other issues). No one gets offended at being told that the word 'Puritan' was in C16th very insultingly used by critics, that's informative, they might get offended if we said IS, when a more nuanced approach to 'is' is needed. The historical distance is much greater, but I think the analogy works.

I think that the heart of the problem is 'IS'. You are right that RS talk only about certain (mainly critical) use. My suggestion is to talk clearly about uses we know about, place them in historical context and avoid saying anything about things we don't know about from 'RS'. In short, to avoid 'IS' and leave the reader to decide. ... ps although yes, the avoidance of OR is a prerequisite for any text here if it is to get support. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me -- is IS an acronym or are you capitalizing for emphasis? My point was that we can't source neutral use because no one is commenting about those neutral uses. That is, for us to source those uses as evidence it's being used neutrally in itself constitutes original research. valereee (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, for emphasis. The suggestion wouldn't apply to what Martin called the 'dictionary ref-fed' opening, it might have been clearer, if I had given an example, something like: Dictionary-like opening as now. The term has (often?) been used pejoratively or ironically (in public debates/in the media/nothing?), both usages implying that the measures are excessive.. The term has been/is widely used in relation to gender and racial equality issues. Then 'The term had only scattered use etc. (as now)'

I've changed is to 'has been', I've added 'ironically', I've added the main 'issue' area (said nowhere in article at present, but highly sourcable and pretty basic info).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 February 2016‎ (UTC)

That could open a new dispute; hipsters' use of the word "ironic" to mean "humorous or sarcastic" is one of the most debated attempts to redefine a word in Modern English history. Anyway, I see what you are getting at, and something could emerge from this. The fault in Valeree's approach is in treating this like some kind of "source vote"; it doesn't matter how many individuals use "politically correct" in a snarky way, it's just a different sense. "Primarily" is misleading because it implies an across-the-board usage shift, when the actual usage shift has mostly just been in vernacular speech and low-end journalism. We could probably find a way to word this that accurately gets at the fact that day-to-day discourse and use in mainstream media is most often pejorative, without affecting the original meaning as a term of art (it may have affected the frequency with which that term of art is employed, however, in academic writing – citation needed). PS: I'm reminding the discussion-at-large that we need sources for things (because of the amount of OR that was engaged in, in previous rounds of discussion) not you personally. PPS: I, too, thought at first that you were referring to WP:IS. Most editors do ''is'', though {{em|is}} is a more accessible approach (it uses <em>...</em> markup for emphasis, which screen readers can detect). 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Various 'ironic' uses are covered in the article and are extensively sourced. My reasons for adding it were twofold, firstly simply because these uses are noted in the article, secondly because, while ironic use has (on talk) been argued as a sub-class of 'critical', I think most people distinguish the two. Irony runs the gamut from gentle self-mockery to heavy handed sarcasm, various degrees of that gamut are covered in the article. I'm not suggesting anything that I don't know (poss with mod.) to be fairly widely sourceable.

I'm not sure if I should say this, but actually quite a lot of present text has refs and text which may well be dislocated (caused by editors shifting text around furiously last year). Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who said this: "The fault in Valeree's approach is in treating this like some kind of "source vote";" -- what I'm saying is that we CANNOT treat it as a source vote. What I'm saying is that I agree most sources talk about its pejorative use but that fact doesn't mean it's the primary use. valereee (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it was SMcCandlish who said it, (I had to look in page history myself). On a prev. RfC, editors chipped in with various uses, I recognised some. My own experience is mainly of gentle ironic use. Trouble is we have to work within no WP:OR. My strategy is to be more specific about what we do know, (hence 'in public discourse/in public debates/ in the media/ in (specified) controversy areas), and say nothing about what we don't. I don't think there is much doubt that in the 'political arena', the term has been most often used pejoratively or ironically and it is those uses which are the subject of study. We can make it clearer that it is/was being used in that way, while saying nothing about any other way the term might be used that is not the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is probably to summarize the history, briefly, in the lead -- we could easily compress the history of how it began as an ironic self-depreciation and was co-opted into a pejorative term in a sentence or two. Whitney and Wartella say that in early usage, For this group, the identification of anything as “politically correct” was part irony and part sorrow. They then trace the usage to the modern day, saying that "By the time Richard Bernstein, culture critic for the New York Times, writing in the October 28, 1990 Times, referred to a meeting of Left intellectuals at Berkeley, where PC is the agenda of the day, the term had taken on a much more ominious, derisive, and negative connotation" and that "Clearly, by 1990 PC was used by the media and commentators in newspapers and magazines to refer disparagingly to a host of campus attempts to deal with a wide range of issues..." We can cover this (since it's what we have sources for), describing ironic self-depreciation to the current usage in the media. I don't feel we can cover other usages without better sources analyzing them specifically (and they're not really reflected in the article, because, again, we lack sources backing them up) so the best lead based on the sources we have is probably, roughly, "ironic usage in the '80s, followed by pejorative usage in the media" or something along those lines. The issue I think we're running into is that the sources that go into depth on its history all say "it's now used pejoratively by the media", but that some people are reading that and saying "but I've heard my friends use it seriously or ironically!" By making it clear that we're talking about the media, we avoid the implication that it is always pejorative elsewhere without making implicit statements about its usage based on WP:OR -- in other words, the issue shouldn't be "how frequently is it used pejoratively?" but "where do the sources say it is used pejoratively?" --Aquillion (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that isn't true. In the Bernstein article it's said "is spoken more with with irony and disapproval than with reverence" and "sarcastic jibe". It's quite a stretch from solely that to claim it's always being used pejoratively, especially when you consider both sides here have agreed that the term's use has changed since the early 1990s. It's used often pejoratively, which is now what two sources specifically state (I think I've got a third one as well). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bernstein's article is using it pejoratively; every single secondary source covering it agrees on this (it's usually described as one of the turning points where the modern pejorative usage took off, so unlike most cases we have a lot of secondary sources describing how he's using it -- eg. the source I quoted above described his usage as having an "ominious, derisive, and negative connotation.") It's an opinion piece itself, so it's not very useful to rely on directly for statements of fact; but its coverage in secondary sources is valuable, and all agree that it's an important turning point in the term's modern pejorative usage in the media. And because it's the turning point, the fact that he says that people were, prior to that point, using it ironically and sarcastically on college campuses supports that history rather than refuting it. And beyond that, even if we take Bernstein's article as describing its usage as non-pejorative, and even if we ignore that he would obviously be describing its usage prior to the turning point most sources covering it describe (which would mean that what he's saying could be accurately encompassed by a sentence or two saying "originally used ironically, then was taken up by the media as a pejorative term" or something along those lines, since he was writing just before it was taken up by the media in a large scale and was one of the causes of that), he is describing its usage on campuses, not in the media, so your objection there would be resolved by my suggestion. Similarly, my reading of the other sources you've provided is that you're finding sources that are using it rather than sources that are going into depth on its history the way eg. Whitney and Wartella are; and that they're generally sources outside of the media, sources that don't go into particular detail on the term and only mention it in passing. We can avoid contradicting them and resolve the dispute by being careful to say that its pejorative usage is in the media, which is what most of the sources covering its history in depth say. Do you have any sources attesting to meaningful non-pejorative usage in the media? --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• That is again untrue. It doesn't state so. You are ORing the "pejorative". Not a single secondary source I've seen mentions pejorative. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I quoted Whitney and Wartella directly above saying that it assumed an "ominious, derisive, and negative connotation" in the 90's, describing its modern usage as being "used by the media and commentators in newspapers and magazines to refer disparagingly to..."; these both describe pejorative usage. Similarly, Hughes says that "There is little doubt that the formulas "political correctness", "politically correct", and "PC" are now basically pejorative and ironic in their use" (as I've pointed out to you several times before.) The history covered by Schultz, Wilson, and so on makes it clear that the term assumed a pejorative meaning in the media after it was picked up by conservatives in the 1980's (eg. Wilson says that it "suddenly became a pejorative description for the political agenda of those on the Left..."; Suhr and Johnson describe how the term "'PC' acquired increasingly pejorative overtones..."; Stark says how "Political Correctness" has become a pejorative label"; Roberts says how "Of one point, though, we can be certain: the ferocity and breadth of the assault has given 'political correctness' an unquestionably pejorative connotation"; Vincent says "The origins of the term are now rather hazy, but it is clear that, whatever the original meaning of the term, it is now used in a pejorative sense"). I am fairly certain we've discussed all these sources before, and most of them are in the article. None of the sources you're pointing to contradict this, especially if we're careful to narrow our scope to discussing usage of the term in the media, where the sources above go into the most detail; none of the sources you've posted talk about any significant non-pejorative usage in the media, nor present any overarching history that substantially differs from the one established there. All of the sources that cover the term's history in any depth agree that the term was originally used for ironic self-depreciation, but that around the early 90's, it came to be used pejoratively in the media (and among conservative academics) to refer to people who used a certain kind of liberal language or expressed certain kinds of liberal thought; it came to be used by, as you might put it, "penalizers of words" determined to discredit their ideological enemies by calling the way they spoke "politically correct" as a disparaging term. While this obviously didn't cover all usages of the term everywhere, the academic sources we do have on its history are essentially unanimous in describing the overarching scope. You might not personally agree that Bloom, Kimball, D'Souza or Bernstein were using the term pejoratively (although I can't really see how -- in most cases, their contempt for the ideological enemies they're using it to describe is obvious), but every secondary source that has covered their usage has described it that way, and that's what matters. Suggesting that we should ignore that because you've collected a bunch of usages you don't feel are pejorative is WP:OR. Aaand... I realized I just typed an awful lot, when we're supposed to be trying to avoid flooding this page with words. But anyway, if we're going to reach some sort of a consensus, we need to be clear on where we are; you might not agree with all of the sources I've posted, but you have to realize by now that there are, at the least, a large number of sources going into depth on its history that describe it becoming a pejorative term sometime around the 90's? Many of them (as I quoted above) even use that term specifically (not that that is always necessary -- we can paraphrase, especially in the lead -- but I don't follow your insistence that you haven't even seen any sources using the term, when we've been arguing over those sources repeatedly. --Aquillion (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, the good old inaccessible Whitney and Wartella no one has had access to. I asked you a long time ago a full quote from the bit where Dinesh is mentioned. Could you give it now? You seem to have had full access to it all this time. It also seems to be the only source from you to list Bernstein. And it doesn't even mention pejorative, so it's not even useable. The rest of the sources you listed do not seem to be about Bernstein. Wilson does not claim what you write. He quotes a number of people's opinions about the term and one of them is Carol Ionnone from whom that quote is. In fact right above it he quotes Dinesh D'Souza. Is the Whitney and Wartella one similarly just quoting someone else? Similarly the rest of the odd sources you have listed seem to mention it only being used often. Increasingly? Connotation? Right after Hughes writes what you noted he goes on to detail that the term still sees semiofficial use aside from that. Why haven't you given links to any of these sources anyways. You still have no sources for primarily. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Lastly, they seem to detail what it became in the early 1990s. As it has been mentioned and agreed by both sides of the argument, the term's use has changed from the early 1990s. One could say it has become "neutered" (though there was disagreement over that word). In fact Wugapodes listed a bunch of studies that had specifically studied the use of the term. One of them happened to already be above, where it's stated the term is "often derogatory". Sourced linguistic study of the term from current day stating "often". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, the NYT articles are cited by quite a few sources, you yourself inserted the text about them being important. I've long disagreed slightly about that text, not because it is wrong, but because it is uninformative as to what the content and effect of the NYT articles was. I repeat what I say below, it's a futile disagreement to attempt to ascertain overall how derogatory the term is/was. However to state specifically how used, in what contexts is not, and we are mainly now discussing use of the term in the media, and making it clear that we are referring to such usage. If there are secondary sources recording a change to more neutral use, that is also worth including. If not we say nothing, but remove the present implication that media use is the only use. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the relevant text from Whitney and Wartella (I managed to get a copy of it now, yeah):

"But perhaps it was the book about PC that captured the press’s imagination last year, Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education (D’Souza, 1991a), heralded and promoted by a cover essay in the March 1991 Atlantic Monthly (D’Souza, 1991b), which most clearly outlined the range of concerns encompassed in the term PC.’ For D’Souza and most of the popular press writings of the past year, PC refers to the accounting of an unacceptable movement on college campuses..."

"Clearly, by 1990 PC was used by the media and commentators in newspapers to refer disparagingly to..."

The important thing is not how frequently it is used in a given sense, but who uses it and where, and the history of how it achieved its current meaning. We have sources that go into extensive detail on the history of how its ironic and self-depreciating usage in 1980's turned into a pejorative in the media in the 1990's; this is the aspect of the term's history that is most thoroughly sourced. Focusing on one word of that and arguing endlessly over it is not constructive; we need to focus on the overarching weight and context that the coverage gives it. And that coverage (regardless of how we qualify it) traces current usage through the history I outlined above. None of the sources you've presented actually disagree with that history. Arguing over whether it should say "often" or "primarily" is quibbling over meaningless semantics when the core of the history (and the overwhelming majority of the reliable academic coverage) traces the term's history in enough depth for us to specifically say who and why it started to be used pejoratively in the 1990's. In other words, we can say something like "the term, initially used for ironic self-depreciation in the 1980's, came to be used as a pejorative in the media after a series of..." Or something along those lines; we can cover the history without making absolute statements about how it is used everywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• That statement from Whitney and Wartella makes no sense. Dinesh's book from 1991 isn't about the term. It doesn't even mention the term? And could you perhaps rather cite more of the page? The Wartella book also mentions Bloom and Kimball as evident from preview glimpses of it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• You claim it's not important how frequently it's used in a given sense, yet you strongly fight over its frequency for half a year? What? Your actions strongly contradict with your statement. We have a linguistic study of its use in the current date which states often. The history is covered in the history section. The lead shouldn't be five paragraphs long. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the lead should be more explicit that when referring to the 'derogatory' use of the term in the lead, (post circa-1990), we should state the context used, for which the favoured description, appears to be 'in the media' and we should ensure that wording does not imply that this is the only usage.Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• How? People like Martin have had suggestions but they've been sort of shot down. ALso, large amounts of history don't belong in the lead. And haven't we both agreed that the term has become neutered from what it was in the very early 90s? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo,Martin Hogbin has not been 'shot down' by anyone to my knowledge. What I claimed there appeared to be general agreement on is that the 'critical/derogatory/pejorative' use post 1990-ish should specifically refer to the context in which it was used and the favoured wording, seemingly endorsed by most editors (inc. Martin) is 'in the media' or a suitable paraphrase. Personally I would prefer a more specific paraphrase, but am not going to object to 'media'.

There is no question of us including 'neutered', since it was a private opinion and probably not sourced/able, however there is no reason (IMO) why stats/text describing levels of media use (Hughes?) should not be included somewhere. This will tend to indicate that the term had its heyday as a media pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict responding to this post and Mr M's reply 2 edits later

Aquillion, I agree with most of what you are saying, both about why there is a problem for some readers, and about the dangers of OR. Most of the 'cross-over' from self-mockery and irony to outright condemnatory usage is represented in the article at the moment, though there is no reason it should not be expanded or clarified. I'm not sure yet of wording, but making it clear that we are talking about use in specific contexts, in specific arenas, and posssibly more specific 'time windows', would I think take away much of the 'but, that's wrong' reaction.

I don't know whether you read my above point that at present, nowhere is it stated that women, ethnicity, (and to a lesser extent sexual orientation and disability/mental health) have been at the centre of 'PC' since the '80s (Hughes says something about this, but there is probably a better source). Also nowhere do we say why critics dislike 'PC', nor how they characterise it. Some of this would be better in the article rather than the lead, but I'm floating these ideas while discussing the 'overall treatment'.

Hughes also notes a large drop-off in use in the media, though I can't remember the exact years or scale (late 90s perhaps). He also claims (interestingly), that it is around the time that ther term abbreviated, that it became mainly critical.

Mr. Magoo, I don't think anybody is claiming all uses are pejorative, not in any particular period. Personally, I don't want to get back into that argument. What I'm suggesting is being more specific about when used, (decade-ish), where used (media, public debate, US/UK), to what purpose (to criticise certain policies, slightly different in UK/US), and taking the emphasis away from how derogatory the term is overall, leaving that to the reader to work out if s/he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Plane art

This seems far too trivial to be on the page. It's not improve by a quote from a regional newspaper - hardly a reliable source for what constitutes political correctness. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This is giving WP:UNDUE weight to one columnist's use of the words in passing. The article itself isn't even about this subject, as far as I can tell. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not only seem trivial, also very tenuously connected to the subject, applying retrospectively a late 20th C judgemental term on an earlier activity. (signature added retrospectively) Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I now went to look at links between pin-up and political correctness and found numerous mentions. There doesn't need to be two images added by OnBeyondZebrax, though. But since our article lacks images, I think one would fit with the text.

Books and a news article

They’ve been exciting generations of men, on calendars and covers, as centrefolds or even on playing cards: pin-ups. What started as an exercise in oils was soon taken up in various media - Pin-up mascots graced the fuselages of American fighters, and became an essential feature of the male world of garages and barracks. And the age of political correctness hasn’t ended their appeal. PAO Cancels 2016 Division Commander Pin-Up Calendar Responses to the announcement were mixed within the military community, as some vocally supported the decision while others cited it as another sign that the Army was caving under pressure to become more politically correct. From of the posters of the decadently erotic slob "pin-up girls" (the likes of Pamela Andersen to actually entertaining the troops in Vietnam (e.g., in Bob Hope's more racy shows), nothing could be less tasteful and more tacky than the contradictive showing of more flesh in a time where what is sexually and politically incorrect is completely unacceptable—yet leally censored—for a more prudish, sexually repressed American society in the act of resurresting a new Victorian Age. Such sexist behavior, politically incorrect or not (officially or reflecting the common concensus), for "wartime" purposes or not, is demaning and embarrassing, yet necessary for such a society built upon lying smoke and mirrors. Such male chauvinism—all for the cause of war morale—is insensitive and downright sexist. It is precisily due to such outrageous views that the world sees the US as an exploitive source. ...Second World War Mustang B-1 7 with politically incorrect pin-up. Rockets fired into today's conflict zones must be "appropriate" and not offend, the US navy has decreed. Both the garage workshop and the office were explored and items of equipment noted, including the 'pin-up' calendar on the office notice board. It is not always easy to explain political correctness to children and keep your host happy at the same time! Author Martin L. Gross, in his article on sexual harassment, notes the irony of harsh workplace sexual harassment laws ina culture that is otherwise satured with such imagery: In sexual harassment, it has ruled that a woman can sue if the work environment is "hostile" because of pin-up pictures, a Puritan concept in a sex-drenched society (Gross, 1997, n.p.). While Gross's article is actually a critique on what he terms "political correctness", it reiterates an important question: i.e., how are pin-ups in the workplace different to the content of billboards? References

--Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The images seem to be (at best) only tangentially related to the article subject. I would support their removal. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First, none of the above sources are even ON the subject of P.C., but only passively reference it in the course of the authors pejoratively editorializing about what IS their primary subject, so if anything they prove the opposite of whatever MM&M thinks they do. In any case, it would be O.R. to cite them as evidence of P.C. usage any ANY sense short of additional secondary sources characterizing them as such. I rarely ever edit or comment on Wili & prefer just watching controversial articles evolve from the Peanut Gallery, but in all the years of doing so, I've rarely witnessed an editor as inexhaustibly dogged as MM&M at pushing his partisan P.O.V. on an article. The tasks such skills could accomplish are unlimited should he one day ever apply them to viably constructive endeavors. 166.172.59.252 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Their main subject is pin-up, which is our main subject in this talk section. And you're the same Kansas AT&T Wireless IP who voted TWICE above. And I think you have an actual, regular account but when you need to do dirty work like voting additional times or attacking people personally you can't use your main account. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again on each count. I'm am Alabama resident with a 703 area coded iPhone, and if I voted twice its because I really am that unfamiliar with the Wiki editing template. But I've read enough talk pages to write a prologue to its editing guidelines & policies, although as a mental health clinician it's the psychology of crowd sourcing relative to article evolution that really fascinates me. Before retreating back behind the meta-curtain, I'll say that it's revealing & kinda pitiful what little it takes to send you down paranoid rabbit holes of suspicion & investigation before returning with yet even more nothing. 166.137.96.83 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim it's a "paranoid hole of suspicion" in an exemplar exhibit of good faith and then admit that it was in fact true... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker, WP:NPA applies as much to IPs as to enrolled editors. This section is about 'plane art' not for accusations. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pointless to state that to me because I only defended myself from an accusation. Sometimes the only way to do that is to accuse of bad behavior back, like you are doing right now. I also thought it was made clear that our bickering was to be reduced on this talk page, yet you jump into conversations I have with others as well. I am trying to avoid you. I ask you try the same. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIC

Shouldn't this article be mainly about political correctness itself, instead of about the term? (and yes I know WP:notdic mentions PC as an example)

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of American Adults think political correctness is a problem in America today, while only 18% disagree. Ten percent (10%) are undecided." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2015/is_america_too_pc

So what exactly do these respondents see as a problem? Or is WP claiming that 71% of Americans are conservatives and right-wing libertarians? Prevalence 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prevalence, the 71% were responding to two questions, 1* Do Americans have true freedom of speech today, or do they have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble? … 2* Is political correctness a problem in America today? So, one can only guess that they see the inability to 'speak as they wish' as a problem, though the survey is not very precise.

As for your more general question about why the history of the term, not the phenomenon? Part of the reason is that the term is only defined by those who are criticising, unlike other political words (liberal? conservative? socialist? fascist?), which have been defined by adherents as well as critics, 'PC' in the public sphere is almost entirely a derogatory term. Critics using 'PC' have most notably been on the right, but have included more traditional liberal/left-of-centre voices. I agree with you to this extent, the article would be improved by saying more explicitly what the critics say PC is and, therefore, why they think it is a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Prevalence: Another angle to consider is,: If 71% of Americans think PC is a problem, then who is actually responsible for perpetuating the menace of now national proportions? PC is one of those concepts that in usage is almost exclusively defined by its critics. Almost no one favorably embraces the term as a word usage philosophy because of its pejorative connotations. It's like conducting a survey in which you ask, "Are you an asshole?" vs., "Do you know any assholes?" The numbers will never agree, because of the terms' inherent subjectivity, capable of conveying such a crude range of individual attitudes. I live in Alabama, and had to laugh when I read about a local KKK leader insisting he wasn't a white supremacist but a "racial preservationist," presumably because it sounds more politically palatable, not because some philosophical epiphany seized him to join the progressive PC cabal, although if you wanted to piss him off you could arguably level that accusation. In sum, about the only consistency in PC's modern usage is its pejorative charge, which is why such quality is central to any contemporary exposition of the concept.166.137.96.83 (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything not critical of the term or politically incorrect people gets removed. That's just how it is. You're the how-manieth person to come complaining about this article's slanted view? I fought incredibly hard just to bring up Bernstein, who is stated by seven sources to have been the popularizer. And that's an incredibly neutral thing, let alone criticism of someone being politically correct. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has ever objected to the inclusion of Bernstein's articles, I have said that saying he is important without saying anything about WHY, (the content or impact of his articles) is a bit pointless, (ditto Bloom) since it is un-informative. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they have; for including him at all was much resisted. Only a brief mention of NYT was accepted at first, until I brought on source after source. And odd that you point out Bloom as well. Yet you have no issue with Dinesh nor the massive bit about him in the lead. We have by now proved that Dinesh D'Souza is near pointless and he ranks third-to-fourth in terms of importance. The only credible source for Dinesh mentions Bloom and Kimball as well, as proven by brief preview glimpses. I asked for quotations from the book where they are mentioned, as access to the book was achieved. Outside of that we have numerous sources listing Bloom, Kimball and only lastly Dinesh. Dinesh's book doesn't even use the term. Kimball does use the term multiple times in his 1990 book. That is solid. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Bernstein/NYT here and here, the only thing I see being objected to are conclusions based on primary sources and 'clunky', unclear phrasing - some of which is still in place. I also think that sources place emphasis on the series of articles, not simply one article, which is not reflected in the text. Nor is the fact that the articles 'spawned' an explosion of similar articles in US media, nor much else about the content or nature of the impact.

I think a suitable quote covering the subject matter/criticisms of 'the trio' of books (and others less known?), would read better in the lead and move the 'details' of d'Souza (Dinesh?) to his own part of the article, if that is the substance of that complaint. There are, (as I recall) 4 people saying how important Bloom's book was, almost nothing about the content of the book or the nature of his criticisms. So I do not understand in what sense d'Souza is being 'singled out'.

If you need a book, go to a library, or buy it, like the rest of us.

The record needle is stuck again! Whether Bloom, d'Souza or anyone else USED the term at the time is almost irrelevant, they are discussed in many of the books dealing with PC, and were at the centre of public debates in the US/ US media about 'PC'. Bloom didn't use the term either in his book, so what? Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, that is long after the edit warrings took place. I argued for the inclusion even before those bits on talk, let alone on the edit descriptions on the actual article. More sources have been added ever after that which specifically mention Bernstein, like the Anthony Browne book which was originally included in the section you removed from Modern usage. On incredibly random happenstance I noticed a mention of Bernstein in the book, without using any search function.
• Secondly, those "four" about Bloom must be the quotes in the article? Because it wasn't hard finding sources about his connection and I can happily provide you with triple the amount linking him if you want. The hardest thing was finding short, oneliner-like quotes from notable people. The two in the 1980s are both professors and more than that, Gamson used to run a university department.
• And thirdly, please cease the record needle rhetorics. I've asked you to stop using the specific rhetoric how many times now? Dates and their connection do matter. You have in the past brought up the strenuous relation of some material. Why doesn't it also apply to D'Souza? Bloom is very much self-explanatory because at his time the term wasn't yet popular. But D'Souza released his book in 1991. Kimball had released his in 1990 and he uses the term. Bloom and Kimball are about the studies themselves and the change of the material and text, but D'Souza rants about self-victimization and affirmative action, the criteria of the selection of students. That isn't about political correctness per se, so the connection is thin. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about above except it appears to be revisiting long-dead arguments and not ideas for improving the article.

Re d'Souza, he is covered extensively in Hughes and numerous other sources discussing the history of 'PC', therefore he is connected to 'PC', end of story! It matters zilch that he didn't use the term at the time, or that someone used it before or more than him. I still have no idea in what way you think the d'Souza coverage is wrong or unbalanced. None of the editors here, nor the article has ever suggested he was the first/only/main contributor to the 'PC' debate in the '90s, though he was among the most prominent and most controversial and consequently most discussed in RS. 'Affirmative action' was one of the most contentious policy areas around which the term 'PC' was used. It matters nothing that you think this connection to PC is thin, RS don't agree with you.

Re Bloom, you miss the point entirely, no one disputes/has disputed his importance, but the subject, content and ideas of his book are hardly mentioned at all. That would be much more informative than just X and Y and Z think him very important. But I have given in, discussion goes round and round in circles with the same fallacious arguments. Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please, with the rhetoric... Funny that you point out Hughes because he especially lists first Bloom, then Kimball and only then D'Souza. Even then Hughes is also confused by the two different editions, 1991 and 1992, of Illiberal Education. He lists the 1992 to have chapters of the 1991 book, obviously mistaken. Like mentioned many times before, the 1992 one brings up the term but is only a 32-page written version of a minor speech he delivered, completely unnotable.
• And lastly, we have a separate article for the Bloom book itself. In a WP:SPLIT manner, we don't need to delve into what the book is about here. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The 'Bloom mentioned first' argument in Hughes was made by you in October. The answer now is the same as then: "Hughes' first and second mentions of their names both put Bloom first, that is for the simple reason that the first mention is a chronological list and the second an alphabetical one, and 1984 was before 1991 and B comes before S". To make such a mistake once, may be regarded as a misfortune, to repeat it is wasting your and everybody else's time. The 'Hughes doesn't know which version he is writing about' was equally made and dealt with then. A brief mention of the relevant content of Bloom's book is as appropriate as 4 people saying how notable the book was and does not violate 'split'. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• You're using the same singular source as back then. And I responded to that with this: "Bloom's book is so important it had its had its own article for 13 years. Dinesh's book is mentioned on a few books and even then its not directly linked with the term, being mentioned 10 pages apart at best. All of the Dinesh sources point out Bloom. Dinesh himself points out Bloom." I also didn't bring the 1991-1992 confusion up about Hughes back then. I realized that about Hughes just now. Many have made the same error, confusing the 1991 and 1992 ones as the same. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A WP article (or lack of) is no more an argument for relative importance, than appearing first in a chronological or alphabetical list is. Since neither the article nor any editor has (tmk) ever claimed d'Souza was more/less important than Bloom, it is an especially pointless discussion. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's a short and sweet pragmatic argument, part of a larger post, only there to shortly illustrate its weight. Consider the WP:PRINCIPLE, WP:COMMONSENSE and context. And you're ignoring the rest of the post and focusing on a single sentence. And mind you, you brought the conversation back to Bloom here, not me. And since we were talking about what belongs in the article — let alone the lead — and what doesn't, I brought it back to D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)