Talk:Political correctness/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

examples of political correctness

Akidd_dublin pasted this section in, replacing the previous section. My and Will's sigs were placed in this section by him, not us. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

• adult entertainment this label is in real usage.
• consume option allows to select content at will.
• special population group shifts the focus.
  
  

isn't the term special population, and it replaces the formerly PC term protected group? Nobs 20:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• intergenerational non-consensual sex replaces child rape & pedophilia

i have not made up these terms.

Willmcw
Jmabel

see Beneath A Steel Sky if you have questions.
i have deleted the discussion because it obtained self purpose.
feel free to make an IM request to me.
one of the policies is that wikipedia is not discussion board.
indeed, i have not yet found any explicit instructions for capitalization.
Akidd_dublin 200502071721

Comment moved from article

The following was placed in the article itself, but is clearly more suitable to the talk page.

With reference to the 1912 LaFollette quotation:

• This is not the same usage. The statement "correct political" is an adjective (correct) modifying a noun (political) and, therefore, is not the same as the phrase "politically correct," which is a compound adjective that modifies a noun such as "language."

I tend to agree. "Correct" here seems to mean well-formed and has little, if anything, to do with the contemporary usage of "politically correct". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

A claim is made that LaFollette has been called the "father of poiltical correctness". Who called him that? If he was indeed the father of this movement, surely a more fitting quote could be found than this one which does not even seem to be on the same topic. If he was not labeled that by a large number of people or at least by someone prominent, then the whole exerpt should be taken out as off topic. Qaz 07:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from my remark above at #Dubious substitution, I'd be happy to see most of the LaFollette material gone. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

+1 on this, if it comes to a vote -- Novalis 22:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quote is not presented coherently, and it is not clear that the term is being used in anything related to the same sense as it is described in the artlcle. Delete the quote. --FOo 23:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus on the LaFollette quotes. I'm going to remove the entire section "origin of the term." -Willmcw 01:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I added some qualifiers to this section that clarify what these mean. I think this is useful now, as it lays out some examples that are used to claim that PC is a long-standing attempt at orwellian thought control. BCorr|Брайен 19:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 'A claim is made that LaFollette has been called the "father of poiltical correctness". Who called him that?'

Here are links to the Robert M. LaFolette School of public Affairs 'Social Policy Specialty' and a quote from UW's Institutionalized Political Correctness:

"...the University of Wisconsin-Madison, social and poverty policy issues have been prominent fields of research and instruction for decades, but especially since the founding of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the university in 1966. Part of the War on Poverty, IRP was funded by the federal government for the purpose of supporting basic research on the ‘nature, causes and cures of poverty.’ Over the years since then, IRP has received a federal core grant for the support of these activities, and this has led to the hiring of numerous faculty members in a variety of disciplines who place social and poverty policy issues at the core of their interests.

The La Follette School has built upon this base..."

or see this quote published by the Wisconsin State Legislature, Legislative Referance Bureau in 1997

'“If it be true that taxing mortgages as an interest in the mortgaged premises under such a statute would, in some measure, increase the interest rate, nevertheless such law rests upon sound principles and correct morals.” That is, La Follette suggested that another institution (the state) establish a working rule (a tax on mortgages) that would influence the transaction, and he argued that to do so would be moral, thereby correlating economics, jurisprudence and ethics'[1]

Perhaps a page needs to be started on The Wisconsin Idea, the idea that Progressive Doctrines were a matter of legislating morality and public educational institutions exist to serve state bureacracy. User:Nobs

The foregoing unsigned remarks look to me like a combination anti-progressivist propaganda and irrelevant citation. There is nothing here relating to the term "political correctness". I am only more convinced that the effort to connect this topic to LaFollette is ill-founded. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Now that user Nobs has created Wisconsin Idea, we can move the LaFollette stuff over there, with a link here mentioning it as a prior use of the term. Thanks Nobs! Cheers, -Willmcw 05:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • In an oxymoronic title The Political Roots of Disabilty Claims you can read the ultimate in institutionalized political correctness from the [Institute for Reasearch on Poverty] from the [Lafolette School of Public Affairs], how a certified medical condition has "political roots" User:Nobs

National Review

I don't think National Review deserves its recently added lead-paragraph mention in this article. While I don't doubt their popularization of the term as a stick with which to beat the left, the term was in common use within the left before National Review ever used it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. I would argue that -- while what you say is true -- those on the left that used it were a small segment of the population, and that it was really meant literally, as opposed to in a thought-police manner, as is meant by the Buckleyites and their descendants. So I'm arguing for leaving it in as an important basis for understanding the concept as it is used today. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possibly originally, but I can say first-hand that at least circa 1980-1990 the use of the term on the U.S. left was ironic. It typically referred to people who substituted "politically correct" rhetoric for experience and analysis. It was especially used with reference to the type of privileged activists who ostensibly wished to do things for the poor / ethnic and racial minorities / etc., but often had no interest in working with them. For example, I remember an Women's Studies professor at a meeting to plan a political rally who was terribly concerned with the importance of the phrase "people of color" but who, in the course of discussing music for the rally, turned out to have no idea what "funk" or "hip-hop" meant with reference to music. Similarly, a young gay white man trying to tell a person active in the American Indian Movement that "American Indian" was politically inappropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also true, but that was more of a brief window in the period you mention. I first heard it used by a couple of people I knew (in a nonpolitical context) who were writing and editing the Michigan Review in 1983 at the University of Michigan, and it was used throughout my time there and after I moved to Boston in 1987 in that same way. In my experience, the usage you describe has never eclipsed the more standard use of it as a caricature of the left and liberals. BCorr|Брайен 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, it has been eclipsed by the more standard usage. I believe that this usage was earlier and was a relevant antecedent to the more standard usage. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Show cancelations

Cut a few show cancellations. Censoring (or otherwise restricting) conservative views seems to me to be a different class of problem than PC. PC is about specific language, rather than about general viewpoints. -- Novalis 22:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a person is penalized for expressing their political views, that can broadly be classed as censorship, yes, rather than necessarily needing the specific term "political correctness". However, in public discourse the latter term is often extended to refer not only to the restriction or avoidance of "offensive" language, but to the censorship or suppression of views or mentioning of facts or theories that are deemed "offensive" to mention.

Likewise hate speech laws and academic speech codes are sometimes called "political correctness" when they might be more directly termed censorship. This may be in part because such laws and codes are couched in terms referring to "offensive language" -- implying that there are inoffensive language choices which a speaker may use to express their views -- but this is not always the case. In many cases, people are offended by views and not by the language in which they are expressed: and thus a "politically correct" rule that bans offensive language cannot be separated from the banning of offensive ideas.

It does seem to be the case that people of different political alignments use different words for the officious suppression of speech. Conservatives often use the term "political correctness", which implies that the suppression is being done by something akin to Soviet political officers. Liberals often use the term "censorship", which implies a government office or the restriction of expression in the interest of the public morality. Libertarians often use terms involving "violation of freedom of speech" or "rights violation" which lean on a natural rights view. --FOo 02:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think the term PC stretches that far. Can you find some citations? -- Novalis 17:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eskimo

The article states: "Eskimo, a word that has long been viewed as pejorative by the people it refers to". May I ask for a reference that supports this statement? jguk 14:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a reference, and I wouldn't say confidently that the word is universally regarded as pejorative, but I've known about half a dozen Inuits or Aleuts, and all of them considered the word at least mildly insulting or condescending. (Yes, we should find a reference, and I'm not the one who wrote it in the article, but I'm pretty comfortable in saying it's the kind of thing that should stay while a reference is sought. At most, it might need the qualification "many of the people it refers to".) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Here is your reference [2] -- see the first sentence of the third paragraph Paradiso 08:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reference states nowhere the reason the term Eskimo has been abandoned in Canada (and gives no indication about its use in other countries or languages). IMO the term "Eskimo" might be used as an insult by some but denying its existence as an indication of the combined groups of polar hunter-gatherers in the arctic north of the Americas (and sometimes Asia as well) would indeed be a good example of political correctness.

The reference is indeed an example of political correctness because it implies that one should refer to a people by the name that they use for themselves and not by a name invented by any other group for them. Another example of this would be to use the name Macedonian for Macedonians instead of 'Greeks' or 'Yugoslavian', even though there are many who want to call them Greek or Yugoslavian, and still do, but that would not be politically correct. --by the way, remember to sign your messages :) Paradiso 19:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biased toward conservative labelling

This article, with few exceptions, is almost entirely written from an obvious conservative anti-"PC" point of view. There are no mentions or links to the large body of progressive or feminist studies with a different point of view, especially the work of Ellen Messer Davidow. It needs lots of work to make it less biased. Also, where is the evidence that National Review should be described as pivotal in the contemporary use of the term? They use it, but so do many other conservative groups. --Cberlet 17:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In case anyone didn't catch it, this remark was accompanied by placing an NPOV tag on the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Still learning the norms.--Cberlet 16:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anybody care to discuss the NPOV issue before I start to rewrite the page?  :-) --Cberlet 19:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, sure. I intend to be extensively involved, so we might as well discuss. :) I am fine w the additions you intend, but I find the article biased in favor of PC at the moment, so we may have some issues w slant, NPOV, and any deletions you might intend to make. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article indeed seems biassed slightly in favour of PC (which might make extremely PC people, who don't think it PC enough, angry).

OK, there are strong views on this page, but folks need to understand that many people on the political left think the idea of "PC" is largely an invention of conservatives. I have not deleted much text, and moved much under the section of critics of alleged PC to show that critics currently get most of the text. They also get most of the links and references. This is a controversial topic, and simply calling me "PC" will not make for a civil discussion over the merits of edits.--Cberlet 14:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we're supposed to NPOV this. Should we include the stances of leftist groups/movements who oppose political correctness, or should we include rightist advocates of PC? Why not both? After all, it's readily apparent that this version frames it as "left-wingers invented PC and righties are victims," which is patently absurd. (anon 25 April 2005)

There are two separate issues: (1) making the page balanced and (2) writing from a neutral point of view. The former is difficult. The latter is not: controversial statements need citations as to whose statements they are. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent rewrite by Cberlet

Sorry to revert, i didn't mean to be rude, but I really didn't think that edit was an overall improvement. I do think some of your changes are good, but we need to do this a bit slower, so as to be able to discuss individual points. For starters I didn't find your 1st paragraph to be a factually accurate description of PC. Some of what you said was impossibly vague ("The term Political correctness refers to the idea that there are boundaries to acceptable theories, ideas, or language"), and the referencing of totalitarianism in the intro seemed unfair and innaccurate (to me, anyhow). I also saw a lot of good content was lost, or isolated and disparaged as "criticism". So... lets talk about this step by step. For starters, lets compare intro's. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have this:

SS version 16:23, 29 Mar 2005

Political correctness is the alteration of language said by proponents to redress real or alleged unjust discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. One postulated purpose behind politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people based upon differences or handicaps.

Political correctness is often criticized as resulting in diluted speech which fails to articulate important societal problems. An enforced policy of political correctness in public discourse is sometimes perceived as inhibitive to the freedom of speech of individuals, particularly to the expression of opinions which should be heard even at the risk of offending some group. An example of a policy of political correctness would be censuring speech which calls attention to the misconduct of a particular group to avoid offending members of that group.

The reasoning postulated by proponents for using politically correct terminology is to bring peoples' unconscious biases into awareness, allowing them to make a more informed choice about their language and making them aware of things different people might find offensive.

Two common examples of this practice are to use the word disabled in preference to crippled, and mentally ill in preference to crazy.

However, the new terms are often awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, religion and political views.

Some critics allege that the "PC programme" is an Orwellian attempt to make "bad" or "incorrect" thought difficult. The allegation is that the theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people. Proponents would argue that the goal of changing language and terminology consists of these four points:

1. Certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorisation as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.
2. This categorisation is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.
3. By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think consciously about how they describe someone.
4. Once labelling is a conscious activity, the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent.

In linguistics, the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds that a language's grammatical categories control its speakers' possible thoughts. While few support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong form, many linguists accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. In its strong form, the hypothesis states that, for example, sexist language promotes sexist thought.

Vrs. this:

CB version 16:41, 29 Mar 2005

The term Political correctness refers to the idea that there are boundaries to acceptable theories, ideas, or language. These boundaries can be set formally or informally. Formal methods include laws in totalitarian societies, mandates by groups that enforce internal political discipline (such as Marxist-Leninist cadre organizations), or government policies that specify preferred language. These boundaries also can be set informally through social customs, peer pressure, or campaigns by political or social movements.

The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly.

Today the terms "political correctness" or "politically correct" are most often used to describe communication that uses language in a way to avoid being interpreted as offensive to anyone with respect to race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping.

These are controversial terms used in different ways by various groups over time with a large distance between usage by most conservatives and progressives. Many conservatives argue there is (or was) an actual "PC movement" of liberals and leftists. Most progressives argue the idea of an actual "PC movement" was an invention of conservative critics of progressive social reforms.

The term should not be confused with the word euphemism.

Lets discuss

Let's start by mentioning how profoundly unfair your revert was, Sam. I tried to start a conversation here weeks ago. No one could be bothered. Now you just revert. It is an act of censorship, not discussion.

This article is badly written and superficial. That is on top of the POV. Even most serious conservative scholars would agree with the definition I wrote. The text of the page agrees with the definition. The Maher issue is over free speech and the limits of debate, not language. The terms "language" and "free speech" and "ideas" mean different things. The contemporary usage starts within Marxism-Leninism, and is then reversed by progressives to disparage doctrinaire thinking on the Left, and then reversed again by conservatives to describe what they see as Leftist attempts to place boundaries on language, speech, and ideas. This is an accurate NPOV usage history that complements the linguistic history already posted.

You might start by reinserting by references to the Ellen Messer-Davidow articles which you had no reason to delete.--Cberlet 15:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I tried to talk, (scroll up and see Talk:Political_correctness#Biased_toward_conservative_labelling) but instead of you and me discussing, you and an anon got into a bit of a scrape. Also your rewrite came about 18 minutes after my last edit, w/o discussion. I would ask that you keep in mind that this was a featured article not so very long ago, and that the content hasn't changed a whole lot since then. Your opinion about the words history would need to be sourced, and placed amongst the other theories (it doesn't seem to be crystal clear what the real origin was, I assume it began in more than one place and time, being a rather simple concept). As far as merging your version w mine, that sounds great, indeed that was my intent all along, I was just hoping to have some dialogue. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)

I restored the Ellen Messer-Davidow references. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

My recent edit on the recently rewritten lead paragraph should not be considered an endorsement, nor have I necessarily fixed all of the issues with the writing of that paragraph. Feel free to revert to the version before the anon edit I tried to fix; still, I think there were some good ideas in this, and someone might want to look at merging some of this with some of the wording from a couple of versions back. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Someone on the conservative side should explain why they insist on limiting the concept to the use or alteration of language when even the major conservative scholars argue "PC" is far more than language, but also involves conduct, free speech, acceptable limits of debate, etc. This article is totally superficial and slanted (except for the early lingustic history). There is not even a serious discussion of the major battles over "PC" on campus. It is also hard to have a serious discussion with people who do not post cites to their claims. --Cberlet 14:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I imagine similarly difficult to reaching compromise with a user who generally rebukes "the conservative side" and ambiguously requests citations (for what, pray tell?) rather than addressing specific issues? Its rather hard to have a discussion when you don't seem particularly interested in doing so, despite my repeated attempts (see above). Seriously, lets deal with this according to the wiki process, line by line, point by point, merging the two versions and achieving an article all reasonable persons can accept. What say you, good sir? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. What groups and individuals were involved in forming the movement for "political correctness?" Where and when was this movement founded? Who were the original key ideological proponents by name? What were their major theoretical or practical publications (books or articles)?

Who were the original key ideological critics of the movement for "political correctness?" What were their major theoretical or practical publications (books or articles)?--Cberlet 18:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you have answers for these questions? Because I sure don't. I always thought it was a term used to discribe a phenomena from both inside and without... kinda like the term "Chav". (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit:

In terms of modern popular usage, the term politically correct was used in the 1970s by Marxist-Leninist cadre organizations to set the boundaries of what was the acceptable "Party Line." The term political correctness was then used jokingly to describe an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement. The term politically correct as a derogatory reference rose to broad usage in the early 1980s.

There never was a mass movement for "political correctness." A handful of people on the political left have used the term (and continue to use the term) to talk about language or ideas or conduct. The idea of that there was a large push for something called "political correctness" was invented in the early 1990s by conservatives to disparage postmodernism, feminism, the political left, and calls for less bias and more sensitivity in language based on race, gender, and sexual identity. A major confrontation over this was an issue on college campuses in the 1990s. One of the key conservative critics who launched the campaign was Dinesh D'Souza who wrote the seminal 1991 book: Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. I note with irony that I am the one who added his book to this page. See also: Berman, Paul. (ed.). 1992. Debating P.C.: The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses.

I would like to challenge editors to find a major publication on the political left that calls for "political correctness," and uses that term. There are a few such cites, but almost none represent a published book or article. Happy hunting. Published anywhere between 1970 and today will suffice. If in two weeks no such publication is found, I will argue that there needs to be a rewrite that edits all the sentences that suggest that people who promote "political correctness" promote a particular point of view. The term as currently used by most people is a rhetorical invention by conservatives in the 1990s to bash the political left. If you doubt this, compile a bibliography and check the date range.

For a progressive analysis, see Lauter, P. (1995). "Political correctness" and the attack on American colleges. In M. Bérubé & C. Nelson, Higher education under fire: Politics, economics, and the crisis in the humanities (New York, NY: Routledge).--Cberlet 23:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this. The main use of the term within the left in the 1980s was already a disparaging one, referring to those within the left who parrotted rhetoric instead of thinking for themselves. And, no, I don't have a citation on that, just my own experiences: I'd love to find something in print. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you two are basing your argument in a strawman, the strawman being that there is a claim being made that people on the left self label their demands for political correctness as "political correctness". I'm pretty sure they almost never do. Usually they do things like censoring books with the word "nigger" in them (like huck finn), or telling school children not to say "retard", but "differently abled" instead. There is also an increasing amount of foolishness regarding gender (mostly coming from gender studies students) wherein terms like "Heteronormative" arise to label those who have the temerity to claim there are two genders (male and female). If you’re looking for a "political correctness movement", look no further than women’s studies, African American studies, Queer studies, gender studies, and so forth. They may not self-label as "politically correct", but neither does the average chavster self label as such. Regardless of self-labeling, its pretty obvious to both those within and without which direction those labels are pointed. In summary, "politically correct" is a label which happens not have been "reclaimed" as of yet. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that your views and this page on the subject are highly biased POV against the views of women’s studies, African American studies, Queer studies, gender studies, and many other areas claimed and supported by many of us on the political left. I am asking for three things. 1), that the language and discussion on this page has more balance and takes the controversy seriously rather than the current dismissive tone. 2) that the history of the use of the term "PC" is amplifed and discussed in terms of the current major usage being the result of a conservative campaign against the left that began in the early 1990s. 3) that the roots of the conservative anti-"PC" campaign be firmly planted in battles over curriculum in academia, and that the discussion on this page not imply that the controvery is primarily over language, when that is only the most superficial popular understanding of the topic.--Cberlet 22:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL... LMAO... um.. so your a PC leftist then, eh? I suggest you give some thought to NPOV, specifically writing for your opposition. I don't mind adding more neutral content, but that really doesn't sound like what you have in mind. Once again, I advise you to take things slow, and that you discuss specifics in talk. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing. I write NPOV material about people and groups and ideas I disagree with all the time here on Wiki; and I write entries for print encyclopedias. I am saying the current article is not only NOT neutral, it is one-sided, and factually dubious, and very superficial. I have actually read the Dinesh D'Souza and Paul Berman books. Has anyone else editing this page? This page does not even accurately represent scholarly conservative writing on the subject of "PC."--Cberlet 12:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is this recent addition of the phrase "protected groups" to the lead? The term has no obvious meaning in this context. It means something in the context of certain European countries that have specific constitutionally protected status for certain ethnic minorities, but I'm unaware of any common use in the U.S., and the PC thing is mostly a U.S. matter. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The term "protected groups" has a specific legal meaning and is used in various employment laws. It makes no sense as it is used in the new lead sentence:

"Political correctness is a phrase which describes communication or conduct which has been purged of controversial attributes which could be perceived as objectionable by protected groups, especially as regards to issues of race, gender, or disability."

This sentence is convoluted. What is a "controversial attribute?" Who defines it? This sentence is claiming that "Political correctness" only refers to "communication or conduct which has been purged" of something. This is far too limiting. What is wrong with the lead paragraph I wrote? Can other people find definitions from mainstream published sources rather than just right-wing publications and web sites? My paragraph includes the basic claims and themes from both conservative and progressive sources. --Cberlet 03:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"A woman's right to choose"

The recent addition of "'A woman's right to choose' instead of pro-abortion" strikes me as wrong: the terms differ in far more than just connotation, they differ in denotation. Being for or against abortion is not the same as being for or against the legalization of abortion. Plenty of people are pro-choice (believing that this decision should be made by the woman without interference of the state) but anti-abortion (believing that one should pursue social policies that will minimize the number of abortions). This is the position represented by the statement that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".

I think the insertion of a misleading shorthand, muddying this complex question is inappropriate for this article, which has enough thorny issues with which it must engage. I am going to remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute header

Who is disputing what, and what needs done so the header can be removed? Sam Spade 16:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to cite the basis for your reverts and edits, and refuse to allow others to make changes. Until you agree to actually debate the merits of much of the text on this page, the header is appropriate. Start by citing one conservative scholar who agrees with the definition in the lead.--Cberlet 17:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is such a lead, based on actual scholarship, left and right:

"The concept of Political correctness is based on the claim that some on the political left seek to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. The controversy erupted in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998)."

What's wrong with this?--Cberlet 17:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it appears to be a quote. Sam Spade 17:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a quote, it is "quoted" from my earlier edit. --Cberlet 18:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, whats with (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998)? Sam Spade 18:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on. They are the books on political correctness that I consulted to write the lead. What are your cites?--Cberlet 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is factually false:

"The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, [[[disability]], or any other protected group."

"Protected group" is not accurate.--Cberlet 17:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Sam Spade 17:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Protected group" is now politically incorrect; the new term is "Special Populations" (see Annual Register of Grant Support, A Directory of Funding Sources 2003 Nobs 18:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Protected group" is a legal term with a specific legal and regulatory meaning.--Cberlet 18:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats how I meant it. Sam Spade 18:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gay people and other groups said to be sheltered by PC are not "protected groups," so it is not accurate.--Cberlet 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The entire article is slanted toward a conservative point of view and is lacking cites for a controversial topic.--Cberlet 17:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well thats one POV, any others? Sam Spade 17:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Cberlet on this. The article is currently biased toward a right-wing POV, and lacks good citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that this is a phenomenon primarily of the left, any criticisms of it are going to be defacto "right wing" in nature. Considering that PC thugery is a tool used most often to silence dissent and criticism from conservatives, it seems pretty obvious to myself why they are also the predominant critics of it. After looking of the article I see no reason to make any substantial changes to either its content or its tone.

If you have issues with the article, please cite them specifically in bullet form so that they can be dealt with in a timely manner. TDC 15:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

How many times do I have to do this? Read the discussion! I have asked for evidence that there is or ever was a substantial leftwing movement for "political correctness." There never was such a mass movement. There were a series of movements aimed at addressing stereotypes, bigotry, and supremacy. These concers were skillfully reframed by conservatives under the rubric "political correctness." This should be reflected in the lead, and then the whole article needs to be rebalanced to show arguments on both sides of the issue.--Cberlet 15:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Sorry for the double post, my Exploerer crashed...)--Cberlet 15:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How many times do I have to do this? Read the discussion! I will quote:

"As far as I can tell you two are basing your argument in a strawman, the strawman being that there is a claim being made that people on the left self label their demands for political correctness as "political correctness". I'm pretty sure they almost never do. Usually they do things like censoring books with the word "nigger" in them (like huck finn), or telling school children not to say "retard", but "differently abled" instead. There is also an increasing amount of foolishness regarding gender (mostly coming from gender studies students) wherein terms like "Heteronormative" arise to label those who have the temerity to claim there are two genders (male and female). If you’re looking for a "political correctness movement", look no further than women’s studies, African American studies, Queer studies, gender studies, and so forth. They may not self-label as "politically correct", but neither does the average chavster self label as such. Regardless of self-labeling, its pretty obvious to both those within and without which direction those labels are pointed. In summary, "politically correct" is a label which happens not have been "reclaimed" as of yet. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Sam Spade 16:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)