Talk:Political correctness - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 20 June 2005 (→"Progressive": Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and openness to change. Progressive suggests only ''positive'' change, rather than change for its ow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:48, 20 June 2005 by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) (→"Progressive": Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and openness to change. Progressive suggests only ''positive'' change, rather than change for its ow)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The Trojan Horse Of Political Correctness". American Daily. July 27, 2004.

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

POV and self-awareness

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.--Cberlet 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominems (and hypocracy), discuss the article and not the editors on this page, thanks. Sam Spade 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. --Cberlet 19:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets simplify. Your asking me for a citation as to the origins of this term, correct? Sam Spade 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (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.--Cberlet 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

. 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. Sam Spade 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (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. --Cberlet 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.--Cberlet 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Intro

(I assume what was previously here is not needed. Please add back if it is.) The introduction PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT 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.--harrismw 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." See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report. The cites used for writing the lead include the following:

The Origins of Political Correctness],

An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
An individuals website at the University of Toronto 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 avoid self references, and please consult NPOV. Sam Spade 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.

Guy Montag 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.--Cberlet 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Read further down. Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 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!. Sam Spade 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?--Cberlet 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I cut my text pending an answer.--Cberlet 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 :) Sam Spade 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. :-) --Cberlet 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. Sam Spade 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 WP:RFC, I will comment all the same: I think it's a quite weaselly 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. Bishonen | talk 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. Geogre 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not? We have articles on plenty of them, even Asshole. Sam Spade 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 nigger, 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. Geogre 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 List of ethnic slurs (read that talk page!) and List of ethnic stereotypes, 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 Political correctness? I think we're stuck with it, and should clean it up. Deep-clean.--Bishonen | talk 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 (List of Republican celebrities, and I saw Dumbest man of 2001 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). Geogre 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.

-- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the current lead:

"Political correctness is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900's , and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920's, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism. The concept is said to be particularly embraced by advocates of certain forms of identity politics, especially gay rights, feminism, black power and the Disability rights movement."

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." See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report. The cites used for writing the lead include the following:

-- The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind

--Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.

--An individuals website at the University of Toronto 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.--Cberlet 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've commented extensively on this Talk:Political_correctness#Tin_foil_hat_time above. Besides what I said there, there is nothing in the link cited in the lead 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 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. --Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

See Lind essay here. --Cberlet 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

And now I see that you (Cberlet) say much the same below as I just did here. -- Jmabel | Talk 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.--Cberlet 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty. Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Whats that? 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 Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. I obviously consider your stooping to false allegations of plagiarism intellectually dishonest. Sam Spade 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).--Bishonen | talk 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?--Cberlet 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.

I gave you this reference at least twice:

(here I clarify my source for the intro in a pretty obvious manner as well)

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. Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 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 my intro was less than perfect, thats one thing, but the lies and slander strewn above are something else entirely. Sam Spade 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. --Cberlet 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. Sam Spade 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--Cberlet 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? FeloniousMonk 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How about you take it to arbcom, since cberlet has already refused mediation twice. Or, you could try Misplaced Pages:Copyright_violation. Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 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. Sam Spade 08:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--Cberlet 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. NIV Inclusive Language Edition Nobs 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 — 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. —Mar ka ci 2005-05-10 T 13:45 Z

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 NIV Inclusive Language Edition of the bible, James 2.20 (this relevent text to the article is lifted from the Conclusion in the link: "The politically correct/gender-inclusive agenda is usually associated with people who are liberal, theologically 'free' or neo-orthodox in theology.") Nobs 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that. Now when I read it, it makes sense in the article. :-) —Mar ka ci 2005-05-10 T 16:42 Z

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.
"Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced." like "migrant" and "illegal alien"? The analysis in that line is a comfortable one, but sadly without empirical documentation. Can someone show me a list of these 'elaborate' PC sayings?
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. -Sean Curtin 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 textnotItalic 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. Kaibabsquirrel 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how this has helped matters at all. This article needs less text, not more. dlf 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.--Cberlet 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert

(This material was moved from above.)--Cberlet 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. --harrismw 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. --harrismw 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." Bishonen | talk 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. --harrismw 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'm new here! Bishonen | talk 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.--Cberlet 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. --Cberlet 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro again

OK, so back to the discussion.

Harrismw wrote:

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.--Cberlet 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. Bishonen | talk 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. (By User:Harrismw, who forgot to sign.)

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 United States, some public school systems consider bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. These guidelines can be used in the construction of tests 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 Bias and sensitivity guidelines 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 Los Angeles Times is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term pro-life 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 abortion. 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 French Language) 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). Bishonen | talk 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.) Bishonen | talk 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? -- Joolz 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). Bishonen | talk 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" God 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... ;)

Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The steady trickle and the incoherence

Personally, I doubt that this page will ever amount to anything deserving to be called an "article", the way it attracts a steady trickle of unsourced POV contributions, often inserted at points where they detract from coherence. I've removed the contribution of 206.54.124.160, please NPOV it and return with a source if you wish. 67.114.128.37, please provide a reputable source for your addition, or I'll remove that. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rm addition of 67.114.128.37 per above, feel free to return it with citations and NPOVing. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, merging the lists of examples

Please see my note "The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(" from 13 June above. Nobody has merged the lists as I asked. Nobody has protested against the idea of merging the lists, and nobody has had a word to say in defence of the second list, in response to Joolz' criticisms of it. OK, I'm going to do a somewhat drastic merge, removing not just overlap but dubious terms as well. If you wanted it done differently, change it. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done: I merged the list aggressively, i. e. I removed glaring errors, under the original heading of "Examples of language modification" and took the opportunity of taking out long-standing examples from the older list of, well, anecdotes, mostly unsourced, which weren't primarily about language at all. This left a pared-down and pretty good list, something that hasn't been there in a long time. I drop the erronoeus items into the well of silence (find them in the History, if you like), but paste below the motley collection of examples of... well, again, I don't know what they're examples of, that's the trouble. The section for them, IMO, would need to be named something like "Unsourced anocdotes and pointless trivia". :-( Here they are, put them back if you can find a context for them (and cites!)--Bishonen | talk 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC):

Nativity play replaced by an "End of Season" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey.

A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children.

In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents.

Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement:

Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.

Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be "political correctness gone mad". --Bishonen | talk 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A plea for sanity

I'm new to this page -- just happened to stop by and be depressed by its state. I see some of the above editors working hard to NPOV and make sense out of this page, and I see most of the IP address people and some wikipedians just writing whatever the hell they feel like. I'd like to join the former group, if I might. I would say this: please, please remember that political correctness, in spite of the fact that it has "political" in its name, is NOT a political subject, but a linguistic one. While it may be motivated by a political purpose (and that can be addressed within the article), it should first and foremost be approached as a linguistic, rhetorical and/or grammatical topic. If you think PC is great for society, great. If you think it's bad for society, that's great, too. Neither opinion matters at all for the purposes of this article. Thinly veiled attempts to inject biases are quickly spotted by the intelligent reader and are likely to evoke the opposite of the intended effect -- not to mention defeat the purpose of a wikipedia article in the first place. Anyway, that's my two cents. RiseAbove 00:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of scholarship on this topic, and very little of it is used by editors in this article. Some say the issue is linguistic, some say it is political. Opinions seem to trump scholarly cites in this article --Cberlet 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Worth A Try

I've tried to get a start on a better introduction, keeping in mind that this article, if it's going to be encyclopedic, has to distinguish between the term "PC" (the rise and use of which is worth recording for its part in the "culture wars") and the concept of "PC," which is in dispute. I wouldlike to continue weeding out the drek here.

It's worth thinking about an allied term like "feminazi." Such a word deserves a short entry: "a derogatory term for feminists or others who promote the social equality of women." It would not be encyclopedic to list under that entry a number of feminist arguments and their refutations. The same applies to "PC," although its uses has been more complex. I would like to delete examples that do not serve the puprose of illustrating a point (sigh) and add some subtlety to the description that steers awy from the left/right dichotomy. (Its users are now more likely to be libertarian in slant that socially conservative.) -- 68.40.200.167

I tightened up the language, made it a bit more balanced for the conservative side of things (sigh) and moved the cite to a better place in the paragraph. Otherwise, it it indeed a better introduction. --Cberlet 13:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

68.40.200.167, I'm not sure if you intended to take out my copyedit of your intro. I won't change it back, but please check it out: don't you think those were improvements? Bishonen | talk 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editorial Questions

1) To what standard of grammar do we want to conform this page? There is a relatively large number of grammatical, dictional and rhetorical errors here, but the page seems to be frequently altered and reverted, which can tend to make copyedits pointless. I'm a big grammar Nazi, but am I merely sticking my finger in the dike by attempting to fix these?

2) What is the difference between liberals and progressives? If there is no practical difference (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), we can remove one or the other to augment concision, which this article (especially the intro) badly needs.

3) I switched the "especially" in the second paragraph to "including." Was there a specific reason these forms of identity politics were chosen as especially wont to be accused of political correctness? If so, I think there needs to be a parenthetical citing some stats, or a sentence explaining why. Also, is multiculturalism a form of identity politics? Maybe I'm understanding it in the wrong sense...

4) The first sentence seems to imply that political correctness is disparaging efforts to do what most people consider "good" things, such as "raising awareness" and "eliminating social and political biases." This strikes me as rather POV, in that I infer that political correctness is working against (or at least not taking seriously) these "good" goals by mocking them. I would rather the first sentence, at least, addressed the issue in a more clinical manner. Cberlet suggests that it can be considered both a linguistic and a political phenomenon, and that's fine, but shouldn't the article lead with the linguistic aspect? If for no other reason, simply because it's easier to avoid polarizing the reader right off the bat.

That's it for now. More when I get to the meat of this bad boy. RiseAbove 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Criticism Added

I added the following:

"Some conservatives would also view the us of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.)

Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society."

Because I felt like not all the criticism of the "PC concept" necessarily came from the true right of the spectrum (for instance, I would not agree at all that 'feminazi' is an 'allied term'--some level of mocking of 'politically correct' is much, much more widespread and acceptable in the American mainstream), and I thought in general that the lightweightedness of this section posed NPOV problems. -- stancollins 20 June, 2005

"Progressive"

If one does happen to hold the belief that the way in which language is used colors personal and political opinion, then surely the use of the word "progressive" to describe one side of the political spectrum would be objectionable, since it connotes something vaguely scientific, or at least uniquely forward looking, about that side of the debate. In that context, especially on this page, it poses NPOV problems. I decided to put it in quotations. -- stancollins 20 June, 2005

I tend to agree with you, stancollins. I would rather we just said "liberal" or "left-wing." As I suggested above, I'm not sure the term "progressive" even adds anything if we've already used liberal. Then again, I could be wrong about that... RiseAbove 19:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a person who has written for "The Progressive" magazine and who considers himself a progressive, it is a bit strange to have people claiming the term has no meaning. Progressives and liberals are both on the political left, but the terms are not identicial in meaning. The quotation marks are POV.--Cberlet 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it has no meaning. If you'll see my questions, above, I was just asking what the difference is among a liberal, a progressive and others on the political left. As someone who has not written for "The Progressive" magazine, and is just some guy off the street, I was left wondering. If there is no meaningful, immediately apprehensible difference, perhaps it would be best to just go with "those on the political left" for the sake of concision and ease of understanding... And I agree with stancollins that the use of the word "progressive" can frequently have a POV effect, especially on a psycholinguistic level. However, I also agree with Cberlet that the quotations can have a similar effect. Thus, I would suggest circumlocution to solve the problem. Further, I think a lot of the introduction to this article is rather rife with psycholinguistic (or, more simply, implied) POV points that could benefit from being looked at (please see my questions, supra). While it may be unavoidable, it is clear between the lines that this article has an agenda, and I think that's not ideal for Misplaced Pages. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. RiseAbove 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, maybe solve the problem by just using "those on the political left" ?--Cberlet 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and openness to change. Progressive suggests only positive change, rather than change for its own sake. A true progressive can often appear reactionary, if they are defending decency against an onslaught of moral relativism. Sam Spade 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories:

Archive