Misplaced Pages

Talk:Political correctness: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:41, 16 June 2005 editCberlet (talk | contribs)11,487 edits Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:20, 6 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,760,047 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 6 WikiProject template(s). Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep the rating of {{VA}} "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings in {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}, {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject Gender studies}}, {{WikiProject Linguistics}}. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=High}}
}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{American English}}
{{onlinesource2004|section=July 2004 (21 articles)
{{ArticleHistory
|title=The Trojan Horse Of Political Correctness.
|action1=RBP
|org=American Daily
|date=July 27, 2004 |action1date=12:29, 19 January 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others
|url=http://www.americandaily.com/article/4438}}
|action1result=Kept
----
|action1oldid=2245120
|action2=FAR
|action2date=8 March 2004
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive1
|action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=2685776
|action3=FAC
|action3date=12 May 2004
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Political correctness
|action3result=Promoted
|action3oldid=3738002
|action4=FAR
|action4date=14 July 2004
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
|action4result=demoted
|action4oldid=4877125
|currentstatus=FFA
}}{{onlinesource|year=2005|section=October 21-31
|author =
|title = Offensive or just too sensitive?
|org = New Zealand Herald
|url =
|date = October 29, 2005
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target = Talk:Political correctness/Archive index
|mask = Talk:Political correctness/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros = 0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 28
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Political correctness/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Facts incorrectness ==
'''Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!'''


The article talks about the first appearance, and the fact that the first appearance is in Lenin's book is incorrect, the first appearance is in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) Page 2 U. S. 462. Due to me not knowing much about the subject, I would rather not edit the page itself so I would like someone that knows more about US history to write it. ] (]) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
==Archive==
:There is a difference between the first use of the two words and the first use in any of its modern meanings. There are recorded examples in US, Europe and Australia of the two words sitting alonside one another - without them having any combined meaning as a term. ] (]) 18:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC) … ps it doesn't actually say "in Lenin's book" it says "in Marxist-Leninist discourse", ie it became a 'standard-term'. Some sources say it was specifically in Maoist discourse and found its way from there to USSR and thence into Western 'Marxist-Leninist' speech - all the time meaning rigid adherence to "the Party line". ] (]) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


==POV and self-awareness== == Anti-imperialism ==
The fact that many people who are critical of what they call "political correctness" are oblivious to their POV (such as Same Spade above) does not make their lack of selfawareness an example of NPOV.--] 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I believe that the article should be expanded further. I don't understand why the 'Other political correctness' item is removed. ] (]) 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
:Please refrain from ]s (and ]), discuss the article and not the editors on this page, thanks. <big>''''']'''''</big> 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The definition of a classic PC is limited to simple minority discrimination issues. But this cannot fully explain the political correctness of the 2020s. Because PCs in the 2020s are often associated with ']', they are extended from issues, not narrow minority discrimination. ] (]) 07:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


<u>''Para below copied from Mureungdowon's talk page:''</u>
::Sam, your lack of self-awareness that you have a highly biased POV about this topic is the major problem at this point. Your bias is palpable and vivid in the above paragraph, and you do not seem to be able to step back and see it; nor are you willing to engage in a debate over the merits. You cannot see your bias, and thus construct it as NPOV. It is a closed loop. The concept of "political correctness" was invented as a frame by conservatives out to bash progressives. The concept was first employed to attack liberals and leftists in colleges. These facts belong in the lead. When I cite conseratives and progressives backing up my claim, you sweep them away while refusing to provide cites for your point of view. Then you get self-righteous and claim this is all an ''ad hominem'' attack. --] 19:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Just to explain, . I hope my reasons are self-explanatory, the content seems more about anti-Japanism in Korea than about 'PC' itself. I cannot comment on the quality of the content, since I can't actually read the sources, but we have a long-term position on the article that simple 'examples of use' are excluded. This is partly because there are simply too many things that have been described as 'PC', and partly because examples inevitably lead to ] in analysing the meaning/explanation of the example. I cannot say for sure, but your content ''may'', legitimately belong elsewhere on WP. ] (]) 07:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


Mureungdowon, I can't add much to what I have already said above. The present article is largely based on book-length studies of the use of the term PC, rather than individual examples of the term's use. So what you need is academic sources of that kind and length saying that the term's use has been extended in the way that you say, and in a way that justifies your addition. The sources for your addition barely mention PC AFAI can see, and are largely a stepping-off point for text about anti-Japanism in Korea. The use of the term in Korea, would anyway be a fairly minor aspect of the term's use in English. As I acknowledge above, I can't read the Asian sources, but I think the addition is off-topic. I am quite happy to be proven wrong if other regular editors here disagree with me. ] (]) 19:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
:Lets simplify. Your asking me for a citation as to the origins of this term, correct? <big>''''']'''''</big> 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


:I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article. I rather want other users to add more anti-imperialism issue to the article. ] (]) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
::Partly. I am asking you for a citation as to the origins of this term, and a definition from a '''mainstream''' source of what the term means and how it came to be used and by whom.--] 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::{{tq|I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article}}. That makes it worse, not better. What you appear to be trying to write seems to be an essay based on uses of the term in a few news sources, rather than a summary of what the best sources say about PC. ] (]) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


== Hoover ==
:. Sources don't have to be "mainstream" btw, they just need to be cited. Either way I think The American Heritage Dictionary is pretty mainstream. <big>''''']'''''</big> 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


{{ping|Valereee}} , the Hoover Institution is an independent conservative think tank. It has loose, contentious ties to Stanford, but isn't part of any of its schools/centers. Reports it self-publishes aren't the same as a manuscript being edited and peer reviewed by Stanford University Press. They're just like any report published by e.g. the Cato Institute or, less charitably, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't seem like we're relying on it for anything, and it doesn't seem helpful as an extra ref IMO. The claim that it's an "academic source" just got my attention. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::Actually, the quality of published sources is debated here at Wiki all the time, so the claim that material just has to be cited is patently untrue. Most of the sources cited or linked to on this page are conservative to ultraconservative. I added the cites to the progressive books. Editors here are constantly advising that dictionary definitions are insufficient. But even if we accept The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms definition (not from the main dictionary, thanks), it raises the issues I am discussing.
:::"Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies."
The other definition is better at showing the struggle over meaning:
:::"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
:::Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters."
That is a more NPOV definition. Compare it to the current lead.
:::"Political correctness describes the attempted erection of boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct.
:::"The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly.
:::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.
::Now compare it to my suggested lead:
:::"::"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). The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. 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 other status.
::That's an NPOV lead. It is based on the arguments made in the 1991 book by conservative luminary D'Souza. If you disagree, cite an actual source that has probed the issue in depth from a scholarly perspective (such as the folks I cited). A popular dictionary definition from the Internet does not count.
::Then we can turn to how this page is overwhelmingly a laundry list of conservative bashing of the left based on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. --] 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Since no discussion has resulted from my request for cites to defend the lead, I am editing the page.--] 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


:No worries, if we don't need it! ] (]) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
==Intro==
:I have not found anywhere that the source is available. Likely this means that the citation is not of much practical use to many readers. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
(I assume what was previously here is not needed. Please add back if it is.)
::So, do we have consensus to remove the citation to Duignan @ Hoover? I don't want to boldly delete it if there is still more to discuss. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 18:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The introduction
:::Zero objection to removing the source if there's a question about whether it's reliable based on the fact it's an {{xt|independent conservative think tank has loose, contentious ties to Stanford University Press}}. That is different from removing it because it's not on Amazon/Marketplace or isn't currently in print. ] (]) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
'''PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT'''
::::I have removed the citation to Duignan. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 18:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, you rudely demanded a cite, and then ignored it when it was given to you. here it is again: "This expression was born in the late 1900s" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct).

Want more (I thought the dictionary was good enough, but I guess not..)?

(http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html)

(http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml)

(http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/)

Shall I revert your intro, or place a factual accuracy dispute header? Sam Spade 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

NM, I rewrote it and placed a dispute header. The dispute header can be removed as soon as things settle down, and we have a moments concensus. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise. I am relatively new here. I humbly beg forgiveness.--] 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Avoid self references ==

The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." . The cites used for writing the lead include the following:
* The Origins of Political Correctness],
An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind
* an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
* with no identification other than "Alexander."

:I removed the above as inappropriate for a wiki article. Merge whatever you can back into the article, but ], and '''please''' consult ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 22:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Citing The Poverty Law Center for anything related to the Right is like citing the Nazi Party for anything relating to Jewish culture. Some phrases such as "white nationalist Pat Buchanan" or claiming that the term has anything to do with anti semitism.I don not know this Lind character or if he is an anti semite, what I do know is that the SPLC is by no means a respectable civil rights organization. It has been criticised by the NAACP and other groups for doing more to fund raise than fight racism. There is a reason that the word controversial is written after every mention of SPLC.

] 05:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

::There was no self reference, it was an accurate summary. And, the footnote for the first sentence was false, the page linked turns up no such underlying text.--] 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Read further down. <big>''''']'''''</big> 22:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

::I went to the footnote from your version and there was no mention of a comic or the 1920s. The dictionary definitions on that page have no connection to the text you wrote for the lead. It is all from the Lind article or variants snatched from it.--] 23:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no mention of a comic, nor the 20's, you are correct. there was however a mention '''''of the origin of the term''''', in the '''''late 1900's'''''. Look @ entry sourced by The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Cripes, politically I'm a left leaning centrist, but fallacious conversations like this make me want to join the christian coalition!. <big>''''']'''''</big> 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

::The term became an issue in the late 1990s. That's what the cite supports. Nothing else. What comic strip? You cannot cite a sentence with multiple claims to one cite that does not cover all of them. It's not appropriate as a citation. The Frankfurt school fled Germany in the 1930s. All your other cites are to right-wing sources and an anonymous person on a campus. Anyway, it all tracks back to Lind. Lind is the basis of your lead. I asked for published cites from reputable sources. You provide nothing of the sort, and then claim to be a left-leaning centrist and rely on the work of a right-wing ideologue with a theory that most scholars reject as a crackpot right-wing conspiracy theory. The lead I wrote was based on a conservative book by D'Souza in 1991. Have you even looked at this book? Have you looked at any printed source on this matter. Do you just rely on the Internet for research?--] 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

::I cut my text pending an answer.--] 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a mediator or some such, I'm hard pressed to keep from cursing at you :) <big>''''']'''''</big> 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you should restore your old lead, and then we both should give it a rest for a week. :-) --] 00:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

:Hm... do you think a RfC would help? Or a header? You seem to be being pleasent all of a sudden, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. <big>''''']'''''</big> 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

==A requested comment==
Unfortunately I don't have any time to address the problems with this article myself right now, but since it's been put on ], I will comment all the same: I think it's a quite ] right-wing POV piece casually covered with some see-through "NPOV" phrasing. I hope it gets the drastic collaborative rewrite it needs for real NPOV. I'll try to be back to help later. ] | ] 14:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

:Seems to me that it ought to be deleted, as this is a topic that is ''inherently POV.'' Other than a definition (and good luck to anyone who even tries that), there is nothing that ''can'' be said that isn't POV. I would ask that anyone find a ''single person'' who will claim to be in favor of political correctness, per se. If no one says, "I want our speech to be politically correct," then all we're left with is, exactly as you've said, Bishonen, an insult. If no one self-identifies that way, you've got a pejorative, and there's no point in trying to have an article on that. ] 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not? We have articles on plenty of them, even ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 16:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

::Sam, the reason we shouldn't is that there is no there, there. I.e. it is a signifier of without signified. There is no actual group or specific behavior to point to, because there is no group actually in favor of political correctness. Instead, there are people who claim that other people are for political correctness, but that means that this article should, like ], be not about any purported reality, but instead about the history of the ''usage'' of the term, the ''goals'' of those who employ it, the social stresses that might account for the usefulness of the term. I.e. it would be an article about a phrase, and not a phenomenon, or about the phenomena behind people wishing to insult in a particular way. The closest analogy I can think of would be "Revisionism." Once, there was a real thing called "historical revisionism," and it was a good thing. Then there were the two Communist Parties in the USSR and China calling each other "Stalinist/Maoist Revisionists" as insults, and then the pejoration of ''that'' got carried over to historical revisionism so that today "revisionism" is used as a term of opprobrium. The difference is that once upon a time there really were people who would call themselves revisionists. I can find no such for political correctness. ] 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

::I basically agree with Geogre, and would like to see this article deleted. Putting it on VFD was my first thought, except that I just can't imagine any consensus to delete. We've still got the irredeemable racism-magnets ] (read that talk page!) and ], which have both been VfD'd, I think (I '''think''' so—I may not be remembering the details right, as there are presumably complexities to do with their mutual relationship,, but there's certainly been VfD'ing), so how's the community ever going to agree to delete the inherently rather less offensive ]? I think we're stuck with it, and should clean it up. Deep-clean.--] | ] 16:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not sure. I think it's going to be inherently POV, and there have been deletions of articles like that (], and I saw ] yesterday that I hope is on VfD). If there is going to be a real article, it's going to have to be (in my opinion anyway) about the emergence of women workers, the advent of academic Feminism, the Black Is Beautiful movement, and the reinterpretation of harassment laws in the US all combining to make this term a favorite for those who feel that their powers and perogatives have been eroded. That's a long, linguistics haul, I think, and it would nearly be original research (that someone in a Linguistics dept. needs to do). ] 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

::I can imagine an excellent and NPOV article on this topic, but this sure isn't it. Roughly, the outline of that article would be:
::# A brief definition of how the term is used in contemporary political discourse.
::# A brief history of the use of the term ("correct line" in Marxist parties ==> in-joke on the left ==> criticism ''of'' the left and of identity politics).
::# A few examples of the sort of language shifts (etc.) that have been described as politically correct.
::# Critique of the concept (mainly as an effort to lump together several diverse agendas)
::# Some discussion of overt campaigns for "inclusive language"
::# Coda, return to use of the term, this time with more of a focus on how it has passed into popular usage.
:: -- ] | ] 20:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::Here is the current lead:
::::"'''Political correctness''' is ] based on the ] ] of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late ] , and developed at the ], Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the ]"), in the early ], political correctness (or '''PC''') has been a central ] component of all forms of ], and most forms of ]. The concept is said to be particularly embraced by advocates of certain forms of ], especially ], ], ] and the ]."
:::The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, (note there is no attribution which raises the issue of plagiarism). William Lind is an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." . The cites used for writing the lead include the following:
::::-- The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind
::::-- an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
::::-- with no identification other than "Alexander."
:::So the current lead only reflects a far right view of the issue rather than an NPOV approac. This is not appropriate, yet SamSpade continues to revert all attempts to make the article NPOV. This situation should be discussed.--] 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::I've commented extensively on this ] above. Besides what I said there, there is ''nothing'' in the to back up the claim about a comic strip that it is apparently intended to bolster, and also: how can something begin in the late 1900s (in the sense here, clearly, of late 20th century) and then be developed at a school that was closed down by the Nazis in the 1930s? This doesn't even make good nonsense. -- ] | ] 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

:::::I see this is no longer the lead paragraph, but it's still there, and it's still close to nonsense. Neither the comic book thing nor the Frankfurt School claim make any sense. Since no one has seen fit to reply to me, I am going to remove this nonsense. -- ] | ] 05:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Jeez, I tried to fix it by citing it to Lind. See below. I agree it is nonsense, but it is Lind's nonsense. --] 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::See . --] 13:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::: I see, it was so compressed as to have become incoherent. Lind also doesn't get any more specific on "a comic strip" than referring once to an unnamed comic strip; I see no reason to believe he is right. Also, the claim about the Frankfurt School is part of an elaborate case Lind is making, more an opinion-piece type of thing than a scholarly argument from a quick read. I wouldn't object to a good summary of Lind's case in the article, but, with all due respect to all concerned, this confusing paragraph was worse than useless. -- ] | ] 06:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::::: And now I see that you (Cberlet) say much the same below as I just did here. -- ] | ] 06:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

==Plagiarism allegations==
::This sentence now avoids the serious plagiarism of the work of William Lind in a previous version:
:::"According to a series of essays by ultraconservative ideologue William Lind, political correctness, is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900s, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920s, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism."
::I still think it is an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant, but if SamSpade wants it in the text, he needs to avoid the issue of plagiarism of Lind's work.--] 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty. <big>''''']'''''</big> 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::What you did, Sam Spade, was take a very idiosyncratic and original set of claims by William Lind and slightly rewrite them. That is plagiarism. There is only one original source for these claims. If they are to be made here on Wiki, they need to be properly cited. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the concept of plagiarism. I properly credited the paragraph and left it in the text. It is clear from a number of examples that you do not understand the concepts of proper citation or plagiarism. These are not hard to learn, and I encourage you to do so. Intellectual honesty includes understanding the role and form of proper citation and the requirements for avoiding plagiarism.
:::Now someone has deleted them because the paragraph was largely incoherent. I happen to agree. Try taking some key points from the Lind essay, summarize them, and cite them, and place them in the text someplace below the lead. Then we can discuss them properly.--] 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Whats ? Is that me citing my sources? Are you criticizing my lack of inline citation, or what? Inline citation (such as D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998) is frowned upon on the wiki, as you must have noticed. Citations and references are normally provided at the bottom of the page. There are a number of interesting policy pages outlining the principles of this, such as ]. I obviously consider your stooping to false allegations of plagiarism intellectually dishonest. <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:::No, Sam, that's actually not you citing your sources. Inline citations aren't discouraged, they're very much encouraged in a case where there's any doubt which source goes with which part of the text (and here there's more than just doubt). The policy has been in flux until recently, following a lot of discussion about reference standards in Featured articles, which are now very strict, so I don't blame anybody for not being up-to-the-minute on it. But there's more: it's not you citing sources in any sense, it's you adding an external link. (It got doubled btw.) The section "Sources" is for stuff actually used in the article, while the section "External links" is for (online) further reading. This article also has a third section called "Further reading", for printed further reading. The third one is fine, but "sources" and "External links" are not. "Sources" only has one item in it! Those "External links" that are your sources need to be moved there. The reader doesn't have any way of knowing which they are. Btw, there's now a simple way of providing invisible inline references/footnotes which are apparently now preferred for Featured articles (though after trying for 20 minutes to locate the link to the page about it, I give up).--] | ] 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Note to SamSpade: If you look not at the diff, but the actual article version, you will see that the lead as written by you in both versions still had no cite. At one point the lead you wrote had a cite to the wrong source (a dictionary definition that had no relationship to the paragraph you wrote). When you take an idea that is original to a single identifiable person (William Lind), summarize it and rephrase it slightly, and do not cite it to that person, it is plagiarism. I realize that you do not seem to understand the concepts of citation and plagiarism. Anyone can make a mistake. I tried to prod you on this discussion page into dealing with the issue several ways, and you ignored me.
::As for my inline citation, I posted those cites because you repeatedly deleted or reverted many edits I made on the main text page until I added the cites and asked you for cites to back up you claims. I will be happy to remove them.
::The page seems to be making forward process. Could we please just move forward with the editing?--] 21:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lying ''and'' slandering, is this how you conduct yourself professionally as well?

:politically correct

:Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies.

:Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


I gave you this reference at least twice:



It backed up the sentence having its origin "in the late 1900s". You, and another, refused to understand that rather important, encyclopedic fact, as well as the dictionary citation for it. Now your trying to willfully deny my source citing for the old intro. I'll make sure to give it an inline citation when I reinsert it. I demand a formal apology for your allegations.
<big>''''']'''''</big> 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::SamSpade, please calm down, You made some mistakes on proper citation, and now are fulminating over it. Your cites and lead paragraph were a mess of bad citation and borrowed heavily from Lind without proper citation. I called you on it and you refused to budge. Now you are rewriting history. In some cases your lead paragraph was almost totally incoherent, but it clearly was based primarily on the work of Lind. It was never properly cited--as in a reference to Lind in the context of the paragraph where his work was summarized. Not a cite on the discussion page, not at the bottom of the article page with no link to the lead paragraph, not mis-cited to a disctionary that contained only a tiny shred of the original source (which was Lind.) We all make mistakes. It is fixed now. Let it alone.--] 23:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you wern't so busy trying to be obnoxious, you might want to reflect on your own copious errors here. If your saying was less than perfect, thats one thing, but the lies and slander strewn above are something else entirely. <big>''''']'''''</big> 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::SamSpade, for two months you have reverted edits, deleted my text, treated me like dirt and generally rufused to discuss the obvious right-wing bias of this page. You have inserted outlandish right-wing opinion without cites as serious material. You inserted a paragraph of material that was clearly based on the work of William Lind. I gave you an opportunity to slide out of that error and you ignored it. Now take some responsibility for your actions. Your mistake is obvious. I am sorry that you now have to deal with the fact of your errors. I am willing to write it off as a simple mistake. We all make mistakes. Take responsibilty for your mistake and move on. I fully realize you did not understand the issues of proper citation and sourcing. Now you do. Learn from your mistake. Stop whining. --] 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Typical. You can insult, abuse and slander all you like, but as soon as I clarify the facts (as I do above, in detail) you try to hush things up, and suggest I am "whining". I do not "whine", I present the truth early, often and in the right place and manner. <big>''''']'''''</big> 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Now SamSpade is seeking informal mediation. I think we are making progress on this page, and if formal mediation is sought, I will cooperate. Otherwise, let's keep editing--] 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked into Cberlet's claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed he is right. Cberlet is a noted journalist BTW, knowledgeable in dealing with concerns about plagiarism. The passage in question was wholly derivative and was presented without attribution or quotes, hence it constituted plagiarism. Since Cberlet's claim was accurate, well-founded and detailed and directs us to a significant policy violation, there are larger issues to be considered here. What to do about this instance of plagiarism? ] 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:How about you take it to arbcom, since cberlet has already refused mediation twice. Or, you could try ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::A mistake was made, and it has been fixed. Could we just please move on? I am out of town for the next several days. I hope I will return and find this matter has faded into memory.--] 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Multiple mistakes were made, and nothing has been fixed, and no apology offered. I've been studying footnotes, and will fix the article shortly. <big>''''']'''''</big> 08:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


::Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--] 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


== Examples ==
Markaci: It might make sense if you read the article and numerous examples of politically correct inclusive language. ] 02:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:You added a quote to the article without an explanation, and nowhere in the article is the NIV Inclusive Language Edition mentioned. I read the list of explanations, and come upon a Bible quote &mdash; to me it didn't make sense, so I removed it. Since you know more about this edition of the Bible than me, I suggest that you include an explanation with the quote. —]]] <small>2005-05-10 T 13:45 Z</small>

::How's this: ''O vain man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' became ''You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' in the 1996 of the bible, James 2.20 (this relevent text to the article is lifted from the Conclusion in the link: "The ]/] agenda is usually associated with people who are ], theologically 'free' or ] in ].") ] 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:::I've gone ahead and . Now when I read it, it makes sense in the article. :-) —]]] <small>2005-05-10 T 16:42 Z</small>

== Suggested revisions ==

* Lose the Stalin quote. What does that have to do with ''political correctness'' at all?
* Likewise, remove the Bill Maher anecdote. How did that incident relate directly to political correctness?
* Take all of the accusations of Orwellian thoughtcrime/doublespeak/etc and merge them into one paragraph in the criticism section.
*Consolidate the criticism section in general. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in there, most of which repeat variations on the claims of censorship and left-wing propaganda. -] 01:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
: someone removed the stalin quote. I actually think that (even though I had never heard of Bill Maher or anything to do with the show) is an example of language that is ''Italic text''not''Italic text'' politically correct, but is perceived as by others. Will attempt third revision. Will not at this time attempt fourth.

==Criticism of PC from the left==

I added a paragraph about criticism of political correctness from the left. Feel free to move it around, put it somewhere else in the article, or modify it or whatever, but I think it should be addressed. As written, the article seems to give the impression that PC is only a charge leveled at the left and that the right (and a few comedians) are mainly the ones using the term as a blanket political epithet. There's more to it than that and it deserves a mention somewhere. There is a very real concern that social class and labor have been replaced by "white skin privilege", ecology has been replaced by "environmental justice", color-blind socialism and a safety net by postmodernism, investigations of government wrongdoing replaced by blanket rejection of "conspiracism", fighting organized white supremacist groups replaced by claims that mainstream society is itself inherently racist, homophobia replaced by "heterosexism", etc. ] 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

: I can't see how this has helped matters at all. This article needs less text, not more. ] 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

==Rewrite==
I have rewritten the page based on some suggestions above, but have tried to keep all the major points and some debated blocks of text in the article for this rewrite. The text is now grouped in more logical blocks. What becomes clear with this edit is that those who reject the idea that "PC" is a real problem have very little text on this page compared to the critics of "PC." This page could use a lot more cites to more reputable sources on many sides of this debate. Anyway, I hope the rewrite will make the next round of editing easier. I really did try just to move stuff around and consolidate repetition in an NPOV way.--] 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Insert===
(This material was moved from above.)--] 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''Political correctness''' is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.

is terrible. I am changing it now. It is not just a term used to criticise and criticism is not the main use of the word. If you have a problem with the changes, please tell me here.
--] 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is addressing points from below. A definition from a dictionary,
* 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
* 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

Looks more like what I had then what is there now. I repeat "criticism is not the main use of the ". Unless you happen to be a right-wing. --] 06:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===End Insert===

:Yes. Cberlet's first paragraph went like this:

'''''Political correctness''' is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.''

:This was changed by Harrismw to this:

'''''Political correctness''' is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.''

:I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language. Cbernet's formulation is admirably precise, but I think it may be rather complex for an opening, so I've simplified it a little:

'''''Political correctness''' is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. The term most often appears in the adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.''

:I optimistically removed the "forms of conduct", hoping that they aren't that important compared to forms of discourse, because having two terms rather than three makes the sentence a lot easier to read. Please just reinsert the conduct if I was wrong about that. Oh, and I don't see any point in talking about a predicative adjective. "Politically correct" is quite commonly used attributively also, as in: "That's a very politically correct remark." ] | ] 03:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::There is a section called intro above. If you could please repeat your problems up there. I'll also address them up there. --] 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::OK, thanks, I'm new here! ] | ] 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Refresher course on policy==

::YIKES! Please carry on one substantative conversation at a time at put it at the end of the text, not up in previous sections. That's a Wiki convention to keep editors from going nuts. After reviewing previous comments on a talk page, it is easier for everyone if the current discussion is at the bottom of the page. Please DO NOT repeat comments in different sections. Having said that, the current edits and discussion show a lot of thought.--] 12:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::#2. NEVER delete comments from a talk/discussion page (except in rare circumstances involving personal attacks). It is considered a form of vandalism. The comments on talk pages are permanent and archived to preserve all text and the flow of the discussion. If you have deleted comments from this page, please go back and restore them. The proper method for dealing with a talk page that has become too long is to archive it, or ask someone else to archive it. Sorry to be the policy police, but this is a contentious page and Wiki policies need to be observed along with courtesy. --] 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Intro again==
OK, so back to the discussion.

Harrismw wrote:

'''''Political correctness''' is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.''

Bishonen wrote:

I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language.

I agree with Bishonen, because for most scholars on the left, the term was an invention of the political right to bash multiculturalism. If you read the history section, this is easier to see. Many dictionaries have simply adopted the right-wing POV without seeing the complexity of the issue. Some on the left use the term "politically correct" to describe their attempts to deal with systems of oppression, but this is VERY problematic, given that the primary master frame for the term is to mock these political ideas.--] 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Sigh...edit conflict with Cberlet. Yeah, I'm not new on the Wiki, just on this page, so I thought you guys must have agreed on a non-standard way of organizing the discussion here. With relief, then, I go on talking here as per usual, responding to Harrismw latest post:

:If you look at the History section of the article, you will see that, yes, PC has been used in a straight-faced way at certain times, though at those time it was a much more marginal and little-used term than now. '''Now''' otoh it's a term of disparagemement, a slur (with the even more marginal exception of "a tiny subset of writers" who have "reclaimed" it). I can't help it if your dictionary is living in the past (dictionaries notoriously do lag behind current usage, AND dictionaries can have agendas, too): the intro should reflect how the word is used today. The time for historical definitions and tiny subset definitions is later, in the body of the article. I hope still more editors will join in this discussion, as our disagreement isn't really over a few lines in the introduction, but goes to the heart of the article. ] | ] 13:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I am newish to Misplaced Pages thus I didn't realise that I broke a convention when I did what I did, sorry :). Any way, I got the definition from answers.com.
::It may be the case in the US that the term is only used negatively, however, at least in Australia as far as I can tell the term is used mainly in the first sense (from the dictionary) (except again, by right-wingers - many of whom are racist).
::It is interesting to note that language has all ways been curtailed. At one stage you were not allowed to blaspheme.

==Viewpoint of critics of "PC"==

Heartfelt thanks to Cberlet for writing a version that can be used for editing the article towards a better state. With his rewrite, it becomes easy to see just '''how''' bad paragraphs 2, 3, 4 under "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"" are! These nuggets and snippets need to contribute to some kind of coherent account, or narrative, or analysis—they need to make sense—or they need to go. It would even be better to have one of those dreaded "trivia" sections, where such "examples" of nothing in particular can be collected. '''I've removed these three paragraphs'''. That may seem drastic, and I add hurriedly that I don't want to delete any text at all; I've put them below for easy reference, bolded and italicized, with comments on what I think is wrong with them. I hope people will restore them to the article, but please not without clarifying them. Mystifying or incoherent material isn't any use. Presumably somebody understands their purpose—the original author, or somebody else (or everybody except me..?).

'''''In the ], some ] systems consider ], which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. These guidelines can be used in the construction of ] that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate.'''''

How is that a viewpoint, or from a viewpoint? And, while I'm not a US resident, is it really the case that US schools merely "consider" bias and sensitivity guidelines? I was assuming many or most schools would already have them, and indeed the article ] says they do. If there was some hint of the opinions expressed in the "considerable debate", it might become clearer what point, or what side of the debate, the paragraph is meant to contribute to. "Within the industry"? What an enigmatic way of putting it. The schoolbook industry..? Why not a clearer reference to it? Surely there's plenty of debate elsewhere? Incidentally, what exactly is the subject of considerable debate—customizing tests, buying schoolbooks, using these particular guidelines, having any guidelines?

'''''A recent situation at the '']'' is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term '']'' in the sense of ''life-affirming''. However it is ''Times'' policy to use the term ''anti-abortion'' in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different and had nothing to do with ]. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged .'''''

Qué? Very illustrative? It's a joke about the stupidity of computers. (A reasonably good joke IMHO—well, in a mild way.) If somebody can rewrite it so that it appears how and why it's illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech, please put it back.

'''''Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for ]) of the term "political correctness" as "nouvelle orthodoxie" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term.'''''

Now this is an interesting fact. I do believe it may be relevant to the article, and I hope someboy will put it back with a clarification of what it's an example of (let alone an "ironic" example). ] | ] 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==The article now has '''two''' lists of PC terminology :-(==
24.130.117.205 has added a list of "Popular and Oft-Used Politically Correct Terms and Euphemisms", apparently without noticing that there already was one (under the better heading "Examples of language modification"). The lists should be merged, and 24.130.117.205's POV use of "in place of", implying that the older terms are intrinsically more rightful than the new, needs to be removed. I'll return and take a shot at a merge if nobody else does, but I'd rather a native and resident Anglophone did it, in view of the fast-moving shadings of offense in the "default" terms. ("Mentally impaired" has shifted from PC to older and rightful? Interesting. An article with any pretensions ought to mention this kind of shift, which goes on all the time.) ] | ] 10:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Politically correct terms? ==

I've two issues with this (actually three if you include the american-centricity of it):
Are some of these terms used?
* "Plus sized" - how often is that said or used? Is "mentally challenged" PC? What about mentally ill? Is latino a PC term? - in what sense is it PC?
* Aren't Pro-Life/Pro-Choice/Religious right all terms used by the supporters not because they're PC but because they put a more positive spin on their views?
Secondly, in what way are african-americans not american?
-- ] 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Well, Be Bold, Joolz, please do the merge, and remove the terms you have a problem with! People are adding to that list all the time now, obviously without reading this discussion, so, at a minimum, there ought to be one list rather than two (and please lose the POV misformatted heading, also). ] | ] 00:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== these are uncited, and probably uneeded ==

They argue that what they see as defending victims of oppression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance or censorship. A rejoinder by critics is that leftist political correctness does exist, as a crusade on behalf of the hypersensitive that can be compared to the objections of monotheists to "insulting" ] with criticism of monotheism.

:I don't have much more to say at the moment, I'm waiting for the page to die down before preforming a much needed overhaul. This was a featured article at one time, you know... ;)

::] 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page. This page needs an overhaul to remove the conservative bias. Please do not begin a major edit without discussing specifics first. That this was once a featured article is ludicrous.--] 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:20, 6 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political correctness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFreedom of speech High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLinguistics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articlePolitical correctness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 8, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
May 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
July 14, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "Offensive or just too sensitive?". New Zealand Herald. October 29, 2005.

Facts incorrectness

The article talks about the first appearance, and the fact that the first appearance is in Lenin's book is incorrect, the first appearance is in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) Page 2 U. S. 462. Due to me not knowing much about the subject, I would rather not edit the page itself so I would like someone that knows more about US history to write it. Urish12 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between the first use of the two words and the first use in any of its modern meanings. There are recorded examples in US, Europe and Australia of the two words sitting alonside one another - without them having any combined meaning as a term. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC) … ps it doesn't actually say "in Lenin's book" it says "in Marxist-Leninist discourse", ie it became a 'standard-term'. Some sources say it was specifically in Maoist discourse and found its way from there to USSR and thence into Western 'Marxist-Leninist' speech - all the time meaning rigid adherence to "the Party line". Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-imperialism

I believe that the article should be expanded further. I don't understand why the 'Other political correctness' item is removed. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The definition of a classic PC is limited to simple minority discrimination issues. But this cannot fully explain the political correctness of the 2020s. Because PCs in the 2020s are often associated with 'Intersectionality', they are extended from issues, not narrow minority discrimination. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Para below copied from Mureungdowon's talk page:

Just to explain, I reverted your additions to 'PC'. I hope my reasons are self-explanatory, the content seems more about anti-Japanism in Korea than about 'PC' itself. I cannot comment on the quality of the content, since I can't actually read the sources, but we have a long-term position on the article that simple 'examples of use' are excluded. This is partly because there are simply too many things that have been described as 'PC', and partly because examples inevitably lead to WP:OR in analysing the meaning/explanation of the example. I cannot say for sure, but your content may, legitimately belong elsewhere on WP. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mureungdowon, I can't add much to what I have already said above. The present article is largely based on book-length studies of the use of the term PC, rather than individual examples of the term's use. So what you need is academic sources of that kind and length saying that the term's use has been extended in the way that you say, and in a way that justifies your addition. The sources for your addition barely mention PC AFAI can see, and are largely a stepping-off point for text about anti-Japanism in Korea. The use of the term in Korea, would anyway be a fairly minor aspect of the term's use in English. As I acknowledge above, I can't read the Asian sources, but I think the addition is off-topic. I am quite happy to be proven wrong if other regular editors here disagree with me. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article. I rather want other users to add more anti-imperialism issue to the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article. That makes it worse, not better. What you appear to be trying to write seems to be an essay based on uses of the term in a few news sources, rather than a summary of what the best sources say about PC. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoover

@Valereee: Regarding this, the Hoover Institution is an independent conservative think tank. It has loose, contentious ties to Stanford, but isn't part of any of its schools/centers. Reports it self-publishes aren't the same as a manuscript being edited and peer reviewed by Stanford University Press. They're just like any report published by e.g. the Cato Institute or, less charitably, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't seem like we're relying on it for anything, and it doesn't seem helpful as an extra ref IMO. The claim that it's an "academic source" just got my attention. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, if we don't need it! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I have not found anywhere that the source is available. Likely this means that the citation is not of much practical use to many readers. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
So, do we have consensus to remove the citation to Duignan @ Hoover? I don't want to boldly delete it if there is still more to discuss. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Zero objection to removing the source if there's a question about whether it's reliable based on the fact it's an independent conservative think tank has loose, contentious ties to Stanford University Press. That is different from removing it because it's not on Amazon/Marketplace or isn't currently in print. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the citation to Duignan. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories: