Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 12 April 2011

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 3 months

Conservatism B‑class High‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Political 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 Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept March 8, 2004 Featured article review Demoted May 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 14, 2004 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Offensive or just too sensitive?". New Zealand Herald. October 29, 2005.

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.

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

Please Note: This article is not about language evolution in general, nor mere euphemism.

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, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Former Featured Article Nominee

(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Political_correctness
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

This article suggest Political correctness is a communist conspiracy

Politically correct language is intended to show respect to all people. Examples of this can even be found in the constitution, predating Marxist theories. The links to Marxism- Lenin and Mao are dubious and do not demonstrate politically correct language. Eliminating racist or otherwise biased and offensive or even divisive language has nothing to do with communism or socialism. --DCX (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is definitely pushing a POV. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The links to Communist régimes are clearly there. Misplaced Pages works on specific citations not wishful thinking that there are "positive" political correctnesses as well as the egregiously negative ones. On the negative side,someone can just fish out Mao's exhortation to the press to print what is "politically correct" not what is physically correct. That is an unmistakeable milestone in Political Correctness:the denial of realities for political ends. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The "As an engineered political term" section needs major surgery to stay in the article

Right now, that section, starting from the the title (which implicitly says that one side's assertion is fact) to 100% of the content is just a soapbox for one side's views on the topic of the section. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need any surgery. The section is about a significant opinion concerning the phrase. I don't see where it says one side's assertion is a fact, it's just giving one explanation about its use and development, nothing in the article indicates that it is the correct, or I should really say the only, explanation. You seem to be complaining that a particular point of view is being presented, but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. But admittedly I was perhaps overly brief on my first point, and so here it is expanded a little plus a response to your note. I think that there are a lot of folks )amd a significant opinion) who think that this term came into being and gained popularity as a tool to define and attach a negative label to the orthodoxy that is now called "political correctness". I think that only a small fraction of them (= a small minority viewpoint) would think that the above process was organized and centralized enough to call that process "engineering" of the term. The title essentially that "small minority" viewpoint as being a fact.

My second main concern is that ALL of the material in that section is from the one side / one point of view on the issue. NOWHERE did I say that the viewpoint should not be covered, as you are saying that I did.

My third point is that the last quote was beyond a personal attack against his opponents, it was basically making up lies about what his opponents said, and then making ad hominem attacks based on the lies. Basically saying that

You don't seem to understand Misplaced Pages works. We don't determine the truth of a statement, that's not our role. He said it, it's significant enough to be in the article, whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter, although I know you won't like my response. As for your 2nd point, 'major surgery' to me is not the same thing as 'something needs to be added', which is what you are saying now. If you have reliable sources commenting on this 'engineered' concept, fine, bring them here, but they have to specifically comment on this concept.

Your comment on the way you think it came into being confuses me - it already seems to be in the article in the "Current usage" section, what's missing from that that you think should be added? Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

While being assailed from both the left and the right is not a guarantee of correctness (let alone political correctness), it's striking that the comments on this page are about evenly divided between those who think the article is biased one way or the other. As Dougweller says, the aim is to report all points of view in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT, not to arbitrate between them.JQ (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To y'all. I didn't claim there was any bias in the overall article, just severe problems and bias in that one section which clearly violate wp:NPOV. And, responding to Dougweller on the "came into being" section, I was really saying that to analyze the last quote. Basically it was an ad hominem attack against persons with a particular viewpoint rather than a comment on the issue. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how having various povs in the article violates NPOV. The quote looks relevant to me. Toynbee is a prominent commentator, and I really don't see how it is not a comment on the issue even if it is a criticism of people with a particular viewpoint - and that isn't a reason not to use it. But there is the NPOV noticeboard if you think you want to take this elsewhere. See WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this section as written would survive 5 minutes at WP:NPOVN, but my goal is more to have a discussion to improve the article rather than being driven by any effort or having any issue regarding "sides". I think that this is an important section which should be intelligently covered, and I think that it needs improvement to get there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Having biases in both directions does not make it a neutral article! It makes it biased in both directions. And if people are evenly divided about its bias, it doesn't mean the bias is evenly divided in the article. If the article is 75/25, the 50% who favour the 75% view will still say it's biased due to the 25% they don't like. That is, the opinion divide does not necessarily reflect the article divide. Personally, I think the slant tends significantly more to the "progressive" side. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious Offense

I just added "religious belief" to the list of offense contexts. I think this is a valid addition, but what do others think? Harvest316 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• politically correctness not is a "pejorative" term..in the 60s/70s/80s/90s/etc was a positive term.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's become a critical term that is sometimes used perjoratively (though I agree it was original positive). But try changing "perjorative" to "critical" and you'll get reverted by someone's bias. It's the nature of politically correct thinkers to "read in" more sexism, racism, etc., than there is in things, and thus they "read in" a perjorative meaning even when it is merely used critically. "Critical" would serve to legitimize the term, and more than anything P.C.'ers hate legitimizing terms they misinterpret. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is an objective description of PC at all attainable?

As this expression appears to be pejorative in the view of most present-day users, irrespective of their POVs, I doubt that any objective consensus is possible. If you label something PC, you are in effect saying that it is in some way hypocritical, sanctimonious or indirectly denigratory (through intimating that people who do not express themselves in the prescribed way thereby reveal themselves as prejudiced, bigoted etc). Any statement about what is and is not PC usage will therefore carry an implication of reprehensible viewpoints and/or allegations in one direction or another, which can only be correctly decoded by someone sharing the viewpoints and frame of reference of the person using the label. Consequently, the term(s) are not possible to use in a value-neutral context, and an agreement on what would constitute an objective description of the term would appear to be unattainable. 83.233.139.61 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Value-based or just plain political? It's not about value differences. It's about ego. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is clearly a pejorative term referring to particular forms of behavior. Probably one of the few places in the article that actually says it is "The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations." It is an effective term to nounify and then disparage this type of behavior. And so the term is always in the eye of the beholder/user. Because it is effective, the folks who think differently have flooded this article with stuff that doesn't fall under this definition so as to make the article an incoherent irrelevant mess which fails to inform the reader. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a mess due to both sides attempting to use it as a vehicle to vent their emotional needs. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no technical reason we can't have an article that is WP:NPOV. The issue of objectivity is dealt with in the NPOV faq.

Quote:

"Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that lack of bias isn't possible. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?

"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

"Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day."

And that is what we should be trying to do here. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If we boil it down, the job in this article is a lot simpler because the topic is just a phrase. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is poorly constructed

This article cites sources that paint this term as a right wing construction so as to undermine efforts to avoid offending people, suggesting right wing individuals (tacitly) intend and support offensive language. That is why the article lacks neutrality. One can cite herself to the moon, but research that yields credible sources that can be cited academically; but lack neutrality, are biased. Presenting one's own opinion on the subject and usage of the term, cited credibly, relevantly, or any argument, are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. It is not a medium for persuasive anti-right or anti-left language, but for explaining how and why the term is used as well as its broader meaning. The term stretches to mean significantly more than the opinions presented in this article, those who wrote it are doing a great disservice for those who seek true neutrality rather than petty persuasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phan8787 (talk • contribs) Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the problem is. The article should present all significant viewpoints. Everyone writing on this subject will have a point of view and we do not attempt to use only neutral sources. Read WP:NPOV. Perhaps you can make some more specific comments here. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP This is a case (the meaning of a term) where objective accuracy does exist. It was really bad and has gotten a tiny bit better. The rosetta stone is the the term PC refers to excessive deference to such sensibilities, not any deference to them. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Objective accuracy for a term called 'political correctness'? How is that possible? Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about it's meaning (as used) and usage. I do believe that objective accuracy exists on that. I know that it operates in a war zone, but I think that that's a different topic. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that we can be objective in writing that the phrase is used by the right to attack the left (which is true, but not a complete analysis of the way the phrase is used). Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific and General Criticism

I understand that sources may lack neutrality. Many sources will be attempting to argue for his or her respective viewpoint. Despite this, the article itself must be written in an impartial manner, which includes language that presents(even if implicit see: Impartial tone) the source in a way that could undermine or support the argument presented in that cited source. Language is powerful, as is syntax, and both can be used in an impartial manner. Summaries of arguments presented in cited sources that are inaccurate, selective, or overly broad, even if a contributor disagrees with the opinion presented, are not in line with the goals set out for the Misplaced Pages project.

I will provide specific criticism, as you asked.

The source used for the below quote found under "Current Usage" is represented inaccurately and violates the principle of verifiability as well as neutrality.

The section discussing the current usage of the term "politically correct" suggests that a current, common usage is as a support mechanism in arguing for a particular agenda, or as support against those who do not ascribe to a particular agenda, that which is stated in the quote below: "Proponents of the view that differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites are (primarily or largely) genetically determined state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness." The tone used suggests that "political correctness" is a tool of the ethnocentric who discount criticism because it attempts cultural sensitivity, and that cultural sensitivity is a competing viewpoint of those who use "political correctness" rather than ethnocentrism. This violates a specific clause of NPOV: "inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized."(Impartial tone) by suggesting critics of political correctness or a prominent use of the term "political correctness" is an ad-hominem attack against those that promote cultural sensitivity by the ethnocentric, and that "politically correct" critics support ethnocentric viewpoints. Moreover, the use of the word "proponent" in conjunction with "differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites" creates an underlying premise. The underlying premise involved is that "political correctness" is a word used prominently by those of racist agendas, and those users of "politically correct" wish to diffuse relevant counterarguments so as to allow individuals to elevate their race above others. This is not a fact, but an opinion on the agenda of those who use "political correctness". "Political correctness" as a critical term has no opinion and is not interested in promoting a given race or ethnicity, nor a bias on any side of an argument, nor a part of a particular ideology as this suggests.

Even if conclusive evidence supporting the sentence in question is not biased and does in fact represent an impartial view on the usage of "political correctness" aside, it further violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability core value. Misplaced Pages clearly states what makes a premise, especially a premise cited as originating or supported by a reputable source, verifiable “The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true…and that the source directly support the material in question.” (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability). This clearly state that contributions must be supported by a reputable source. If source is used as evidence, or as an example, it must also “directly support” the material in question. As such, the premises and conclusions attributed to a given source must be the premises and conclusions of that source, not the “truth” or an extrapolation of premises and conclusions not included in the article.

A “proponent”, defined by Merriam-Webster, is “one who argues in favor of something”. The sentence states “Proponents of the view that differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites are (primarily or largely) genetically determined state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness". This suggests that the source (a) argues in favor of the viewpoint that there exists a genetically attributable disparity between black and white IQs, and (b) the term “political correctness” is used by the source, much as it is used generally, to advance a particular ideology, and considered by users as sufficient to refute critics of (a) and similar premises. This suggests that users of the term “politically correct”, as well as the source, would use “political correctness” as an argument in support of an ideology similar to the premises of (a), particularly to dismiss counterarguments to a premise such as (a) or similar premises. Readers will draw these conclusions based on the wording of the Misplaced Pages article. The source, though, neither argues for (a) nor is (b) an accurate representation of the source’s use of the term “politically correct”. The article cited, entitled “The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future of America”, and the author, critically analyzes the book for which the article was named, and the source articulates that the book relies on “political correctness”, stating: “It is also true that many black Americans nowadays live in conditions which are much less favourable than for most of the whites… So the question is how much of this is due to the environment, and how much to genetical inheritance. Herrnstein & Murray believe that genetical inheritance has an important part to play here. But however persuasive their arguments may appear to be, supported by copious statistics, they are certainly not conclusive… the contributors to The Bell Curve Wars who take the line that, whether or not this conclusion can be supported by objective statistics, it is morally and politically unacceptable. That may well be so, but it would be better to examine critically the evidence upon which Herrnstein and Murray rely, rather than simply to reject their conclusions. Otherwise it may look like conceding that their statistical evidence is unarguable, which of course is not the case." The source does not advocate the conclusiveness of genetic/racial IQ disparity thus making this sentence inaccurate by the policy of verifiability; it makes no direct reference to supporting or being a proponent of genetic/racial IQ disparity. It does provide an example of “political correctness” and its use, but not as described by this contribution.

Considering the quoted material, the sentence must be revised to accurately represent the source from which it originates. It is not used by any particular side as an ad-hominem, nor does it describe a particular bias toward supporting ethnocentric views intended to elevate one race above another. An accurate, valid, representation of the source’s position as well as a more accurate portrayal of the way “political correctness” is used in this context is: “‘Political correctness’” is often used in a critical manner, such as in the argument on the statistical relationship between race and IQ, where the potential to offend, controversy, or sensitivity of a demographic group is seen as insufficient to ignore, discount, or ban certain topics from the critical analysis of objective data. This is controversial because many find moral grounds as sufficient for excluding some topics from analysis or discussion if those topics have the potential to strongly offend a specific demographic of people regardless of statistically significant data.”

The entire 3.2 “As an engineered political term” section is clearly critical of right wing politicization of the term, painting the right wing as taking advantage of cultural traditions and values for political gain. How is this neutral? It is clearly a biased criticism of the right wing’s use of the term. It has no place in an article that claims neutrality. It is a one sided attack on right-wing conservatives use of the word and their goals from using the word in a speculative manner. It even admits sourcing the section and molding it from commentary. That is not neutral, and there simply is no argument that it is neutral. Even more, if it is claimed that it is a relevant issue, explanation, or argument, it lacks any balance whatsoever. How can a section aimed at right wing politicization of the term that contains blatantly critical commentary from only one side of the spectrum be argued as balanced? If it is given its own section, or considered an explanation, it needs balance or should be removed. The only plausible appropriate area for this section is under the “Criticism” heading, where commentary and opinions are separate from informative writing. If anything, it is clearly critical of the term’s usage.

Much of the article seems to have a pro-left tone, criticizing right-wing viewpoints on political correctness while praising left-wing uses of the term. Is it because the term is used by right wing pundits to criticize leftist policies that try to be culturally sensitive? It is inaccurate to say that political correctness is a term used for attacking the left. It is a term that criticizes what individuals on both sides of the political spectrum view as an attack on cultural traditions that many people value, not just "right wingers" looking to undermine policies of the left. That may be part of the definition, but it is a very small and narrow part of political correctness and the use of the term. It can include policies such as schools that no longer allow games where children "win" or "lose" so as to prevent the pain associated with losing a game. When an individual criticizes this policy as "politically correct" to excess, is he or she a "right winger attacking the left" because she values competition? How about Philadelphia's Daniel Rubin's commentary on Center City's "Holiday Village" fiasco, lasting two days before changing back to "Christmas" (Rubin, 12-2-10)? Even more, the mayor of Philadelphia is a black democrat, and Rubin a Jew? Rubin uses the word "politically correct" here, but are these men "right wingers"? Is their purpose to attack "left wingers" when using the term "politically correct"? Come on man. That's just not the case. It is used a lot to attack the left, but it is by no means the most prominent vernacular use of the word. It is mostly used to criticize policy by individuals with respect to personal conviction that transcends politicization. --Phan8787 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% at the detailed level and 90% on your general theme. You should work on the article. A few comments that might related to the other 10%.

• I don't ascribe to the myth that somehow an accurate article arises out a random gathering of material from wp "RS" 's (quote marks intended) including "RS" 's covering (providing a soapbox for) soapboxing and mis-information by political operatives. And the "predominance in RS's" is an unusable / never been successfully used criteria to deal with this. I think that we have to consensus an accurate, sourced article.
• I think that all of the "right / left" stuff is inaccurate. While there might be some correlation with right/left, overall the "sides" on this are those for and against what the term posits is EXCESSIVE deference to those sensibilities, wrongly at the expense of other considerations, including an orthodoxy and enforcement system of such orthodixies.
• The word EXCESSIVE is important. Although this article is accurate in some key places, the general theme of this article implies that those tagging behaviors/orthodoxies are "political correctness" are opposed to all cultural/racial sensitivities. "PC" is not used to refer to behaviors that are so insensitive that they are near-universally rejected. For example, someone saying "kill all n#%@^rs" would not be called "politically incorrect" just as cannibalism would not be referred to as "non-vegetarian".
• PC IS a somewhat engineered term, and used by one side in some particular culture wars. Not per the soapboxing/mis-information-by-political-operatives way that this article describes it, but nevertheless it is so.

Just a couple thoughts. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

- I agree, reputable sources do not ensure accuracy. They do provide transparency (limited) though. If a claim is written but uncited, it carries less weight. I agree, though, and citing inaccurate op. ed. is counter-intuitive. I think the three pillars on which to build consensus are accuracy, balance, and sources; all of which work together to make a quality article.

- I agree with your second bullet as well. If the article descends into "right" vs. "left", I think we will be stuck in a zero-sum blame game for who's perspective is appropriate and why. The idea that the debate surrounding "P.C." concerns what is and is not appropriate deference on a case basis accurately describes the term. A good example of how political correctness is presented in a very non-political manner can be found in the GEICO caveman commercials, where both sides of the debate are jabbed.

- The word excessive is important, I agree. I think that respect is important as well. The parties involved generally want to respect others, but at the same time do not want to forsake something perceived as valuable. Whether it is data, cultural traditions, books, songs, games, etc., users do not want to defer excessively and lose something valuable. Most are trying to keep a respectful balance, and when individuals believe that balance becomes tilted the term is used.

- I agree that it is a term used by political pundits, engineered particularly on one side, but the main problem was the section's excessive use of one-sided opinion. It lacks the other side's viewpoint on the term's purpose, engineered or not. I do not necessarily think the other side needs to be presented in this section, but if it remains under the "explanations" heading it must be more neutral. Otherwise, this section belongs not under "Explanations" but under "Criticism" because it is not an explanation but a criticism of the word's use. I am not disagreeing with the existence of this section, just changes to set about appropriate organization of the article. Do you agree with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phan8787 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the frequent big problem situations is when political operatives deliberately put out mis-information about a matter where objective accuracy exists, (I.E. not an opinion) and then if a newspaper covers what they say, such becomes supposed a wp:rs for the misinformation. The problem is that wp allows deliberate mis-use / mis-presentation. In reality it is not info about the subject, it is info about what the operative said.

When I was talking about the term, I was really thinking structure for the article. PC is a term, and it is a behavior which the term essentially says is bad.

Answering your question, it's a bit complex to understand exactly what you are intending, but such is not necessary. I'd say just start editing.....from what I can see you'll do just fine. If someone disagrees, there's BRD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved the section to "criticism", where I think it fits quite nicely :). A section entitled "criticism" is specifically for opinions on the term's use. I think it provides a better balanced perspective on critical views with respect to the term and its use as well. I might be wrong though. I always accept "criticism", no pun intended, if anyone thinks this is wrong. --Phan8787 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

POV?

Addressing the edit summary with the recently placed POV tag, "Political Correctness" is a pejorative term, and the characterization of certain behaviors as such. I think the person placing the tag made a logical error, basically assuming that the article is about the behaviors being characterized rather than the characterization of them. In short, the TOPIC IS a POV, not the coverage of it. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics