Talk:Political correctness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article 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.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
  • "Offensive or just too sensitive?", New Zealand Herald, October 29, 2005. (details)
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable 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.

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Former Featured Article Nominee

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

[edit] History section

old stuff and that.. lolz

The section contains quite a few theories explaining the origin of PC, but none of them seems articulate enough to me. Personally I heord of another one, saying that the actual movement of PC began with the protests by Afro-American population against being permamently called "blacks" (this one is given here as an example and therefore bracketed; the usage of this word is not to be regarded as meant to assault anyone). Then the practice was picked and actively embraced by feminine movement. I can't assert myself to be a specialist in this, but if there is anyone with good knowledge of the subject, I'd recommend checking it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.110.16.218 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Yes, this is all utterly wrong

I agree entirely with the comments of 62.97.164.14. In Britain, even the concept of being 'for' or 'against' PC is ridiculous to the majority of people, who see the phenomenon as a distructive disease that has afflicted the Western World.

I would support his view of PC entirely, but not his condemnation of Wikipedia. What a pity he writes so well on the talk page but will not simply edit the article. Yes, the article is badly written: for a start the opening definition is grammatically incorrect. Political correctness is a noun phrase, and as such cannot be used 'to describe' anything (that requires an adjectival phrase). Adding 'is a term', is just a cheat to make it seem to work. So I am going to put his excellent 'formal' definition at the start. Perhaps he would support me, by helping to keep it there - that's how Wikipedia works, and it can work well. I do not accept that the important statements in this article are supported by valid citations at all. For example, the citation used to support the claim that PC is almost exclusively used in the pejorative sense refers only to names, not even articles, let alone quoted sentences. Lind and Buchanan would never support the idea that PC is used in the pejorative sense, nor would they 'oppose' it. Rather they claim it to be a very serious technique, with traceable origins, used in ernest for 'political' ends by agents of Cultural Marxism, an application of Critical Theory. The above writer is also quite right to point out the repeated use of phrases like 'some would argue', which are clearly discouraged by Wikipedia policy under Weasel words. This page has been tagged as disputed and not representing a world view for some time. I'd like to see it rewritten, with the intention of getting the tags removed? --Memestream 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd be somewhat hard-pressed to support this theory that getting people to call stewardesses "flight attendants" is part of a Marxist plot to foment revolution. Andrew Levine 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Did I mention a 'Marxist plot to foment revolution' - no I did not. On the contrary my understanding is that the Frankfurt School of philosophers declared Marxist attempts at uprising to have failed, and launched a new mode of attack on existing structures in society which they called Cultural Marxism, which would work to change peoples ways of thinking. Nevertheless, I do not find it at all difficult to explain how getting people to call stewardesses "flight attendants" furthers Marxist aims. Traditional societies recognise different roles for men and women whom they regard as having different mental and physical strengths. Evolutionary psychology offers much evidence in support of such claims, backed by sound evolutionary reasons for such specialisation. Marxism has always recogised that the empowerment of women weakens traditional societies, because the caring, conciliatory, tendencies of the woman, which evolved to protect her family, conflict with the tendencies of the man to expand his territory, and offspring. Calling stewardesses 'flight attendants' is just one example of the many changes towards gender-neutral terms that PC encourages. Making job-titles gender-neutral reduces the barrier to women taking on powerful roles traditionally limited to women. I don't expect this to convince you, but I hope you can acknowledge that it has substance, such that the theory is by no means 'far fetched' as you imply. --Memestream 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the notes, and all the times where only an author name is given refer to works referenced in full elsewhere in the article. It would be good to go through and add more complete referencing, but I don't think there's a problem in terms of actually having reliable sources. Also, I removed your definition from the intro - the idea that political correctness is some kind of Marxist plot is extraordinarily marginal; as far as I know, no-one with relevant academic expertise believes that to be the case (the people in quoted as holding that view are either academics in other areas, or pundits; in neither case are they reliable sources for anything other than their own POV). VoluntarySlave 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that your reference for the opening statement is even remotely relevant. Yes, lets tighten them up a lot. A reference in support of a key statement should be a quote that supports that statement, along with its source details so that others can judge the relevance. Your statement that 'the idea that political correctness is some kind of Marxist plot is extraordinarily marginal' is simply your point of view, and carries no weight without supporting evidence. I would not, and have not, used the word 'plot', so please be more careful with terms (plot, like conspiracy, is a 'tag word' used by political correctness to take away credibility and make discussion appear ridiculous). Finally, does Wikipedia only accept citations from 'acedemics'? I think not, nor does it necessarily frown on citations from experts in other subjects. Acedemics, by definition, are reliant on employment in Universities and colleges, and it is widely agreed that PC has had its most drastic effects on college campuses, with many publicised cases of professors losing their jobs simply because they went against the tide of PC. Furthermore, I know of no professors of political correctness, or study courses in it, or books explaining it written by its originators - all of which would be expected in any 'legitimate' subject. So this is one case where the views of acedemics are not going to be useful. Acedemics who refuse to be PC keep quite, or they lose their jobs! --Memestream 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't provided any citations linking political correctness to cultural marxism in any way. You haven't even shown any understanding of what cultural marxism is--it's a mode of analysis used to interpret culture and the media for academic study. Try actually reading Frankfurt School, for instance; it may not be your cup of tea, but it isn't what you seem to think it is. I do agree with you, though, on one thing:
  • Furthermore, I know of no professors of political correctness, or study courses in it, or books explaining it written by its originators - all of which would be expected in any 'legitimate' subject.
I quite agree; political correctness is not really a legitimate subject. Its definition changes arbitrarily to match whichever political pundit is mouthing off about it at the moment, and it lumps together vastly disparate things with disparate causes. --Aquillion 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you agree, but I don't think you can say it is not a legitimate subject - it just doesn't go under the name of 'PC studies'. There are many serious writers who point out that the aims and methods of PC are part of a very well documented project in 'social engineering' carried forward by a string of famous people who wrote quite clearly of their aim to 'change society', and to 'bring down Western institutions and culture'. The most blatant of these were probably Kurt Lewin and Edward Bernays, though they follow in the line of Marx, Lennin, and the 'Bloomsbury set' and have used techniques borrowed from Freud, LeBon, and Wilfred Trotter. Their writings can be found in books that are used in courses in Sociology and crowd Psychology, as well as in papers in the Journals pertaining to these subjects. In particular Kurt Lewin's 'Sensitivity training' based on 'Critical theory' describes PC exactly. Are we not justified in making this vital link, despite the modern name, which probably arose because the masses perceived something to be going on, but not being experts in crowd psychology, were unable to put a better name to it. It's no secret in sociology circles that 'sensitivity training' was propagated through hundreds institutions from Schools and Universities to management circles and NGO's and hence became what we now refer to as PC. I'd like to put more about all this in the article, but there's little point if it just gets reverted as 'a minority view'. I think it can be shown to be the credible serious view, though I'm not against including the alternative view, which I consider to be much less substantiated. --Memestream 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting - please read up Cultural Marxism

I am reverting for the above reasons. Before reverting back this new opening section, which was not written by me, I ask you to read up on the claims made, ie on cultural Marxism and Sensitivity training, etc, and give reasoned explanations of what grounds you have for oposing each claim made. Simply saying that it is the view of an extreme minority is pure POV and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I also urge you to examine my claim that the opening sentence was grammatically unsound. The word correctness, like many words ending in 'nous' is an abstract noun, a state of being, like 'redness'. A noun cannot descibe anything. Redness is a state of being red, not a description of colour (for which the word is red). Consider the sentence 'redness' is a term used to describe cars that are coloured red. It fails grammatically, because redness is a state of being red. It also fails semantically by confusing the general and the particular (cars can be red but redness is in no way defined in relation to cars). This is an exact analogy with the opening sentence that was on this page, because political correctness, by simple virtue of its grammatic form, cannot be about language. 'Political' means, 'to do with the control and running of societies'. As this page stood, the word political was given no relevance. If the page had begun, 'Politically correct language' is a form of language which ..... then it would be gramatically correct, because both subject and object are nouns - but it would not be a page about political correctness, instead it would be about a special subset of the latter, and hence cannot be a definition. I suggest that it is not possible to form a grammatically correct sentence that equates PC with language, since a 'state of being' cannot equate to a language. Nor can it describe a form of language, since a noun cannot describe another noun! On these grounds alone, I hope you will not revert without re-writing. --Memestream 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The grounds I have for opposing your opening about cultural Marxism are simple - you have provided no reliable sources showing that this is a widely accepted understanding of political correctness. I'm agnostic about whether it's ungrammatical or not, but I'd rather have the opening be ungrammatical than POV. VoluntarySlave 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it still fails grammatically, and the reason it fails, as I explained, is that it is impossible to construct a correct sentence to explain what you are trying to explain, simply because what you are trying to explain cannot be. Political correctness is a state of being - that's clear from the ending. It's related to politics - that's clear from the word political. To try to make out that it is a form of language is not just wrong it's impossible, because it has the wrong grammatical form. --Memestream 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meaning!?

what is the meaning...in english terms not using big words!

Is being a PC good or bad is PC is like a campaign run, to stop discrimination?? if I say I am PC..is that good or bad

Yes, it is a campaign run to stop discrimination, and that might seem good, and you are meant to think it is good, except that those trying to influence your thoughts through political correctness do not declare themselves and do not discuss or debate. That means its BAD. It's not just about discrimination, it's about forcing multiculturalism on people who feel they don't want it, and judge that it is not working, but find that they cannot speak up without being tagged as 'not politically correct' and hence bad. So you are meant to think that PC is good, but really you should be thinking and debating and questioning its assumptions. And you are supposed to think that to say you are PC is good, because then you will be no trouble to those who want to control the world. THEY, are Marxists, in other words International communists, the same people that many say brought us the French revolution and the Russian Bolshevic revolution, but not necessarily the people you might associate with those revolutions, as Marxist likes to work behind the scenes through others. Read George Orwell's famous book '1984' - this is what it's about. That's why this page is controversial, and tagged as disputed. --Memestream 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is a page for discussing the article, not discussing its subject. For anyone thinking of editing the article and needing a brief background, though, I will note that Memestream's views above are highly controversial. The opposing view is that "political correctness" in the narrative Memestream outlined above is a concept concocted by conservative commentators as a spurious attack on their political opponents. In this opposing view, the recent shifts in public discourse that get lumped into a broad category of "political correctness" in fact result largely from globalization and changes in the media--globalization forced corporations to consider the views of many more people when trying to keep customers, an expanded franchise did the same for politicians, while a 24-7 news cycle caused everyone to become much more careful in their speech simply because anything you said that could offend, say, 5% of the population would instantly be broadcast to all of them, turning tens of thousands of people against you. It is true that essentially nobody views political correctness as a good thing; but people disagree on how useful the term is, on what it means, and on what its causes are. --Aquillion 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I justify my reply above on the grounds that the questioner felt it necessary to ask here 'what is the meaning, in English'. If the page were doing its job he would not need to ask. So now that we have two opposing views in fairly brief terms, and an agreement that 'nobody views political corrctness as a good thing', how about putting them in the article, because at the moment I don't think it makes clear those two views at all, and the paragraphs 'for' and 'against' make no sense to me. --Memestream 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you have a reliable, verifyible source, go ahead and add it.

[edit] 'Minimum offence' - to who, by who's rules?

I cannot accept the opening paragraph at all. Saying that PC is a term that describes language or behaviour that causes minimum offence is not a sufficient definition, since one man's offence is another man's cherished principle. Patriotism, for example, is still a highly cherished principle for many people, yet they are increasingly afraid to defend their true views because they get labelled 'racist'. Even racism is perfectly legal in most countries (as distinct from incitement to racial hatred), and is held to be a repectable position by many who believe that there are good scientific grounds for believing that races are made differently and should live separately in their own cultures. So the real question is, 'why is it alright for political correctness to insult the beliefs of some groups, while it claims to minimise offence.' The answer of course is that Political Correctness is tied to one particular political view - that of Cultural Marxism. Just saying that it aims to 'minimise offence particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups is not good enough. Are not British patriots an identity group? Are not the British or the Welsh or the Scottish a 'racial group'? Of course they are, but PC carries the implicit message that we must not say that, because they, under the unspoken rules of PC, are BAD groups, while 'ethnic minorities', 'gays' and liberals are GOOD groups. That implicit message is the 'political' bit in 'political correctness'. If it didn't come from Cultural Marxism, then where did it come from, because it's certainly very selective and did not arise out of the will of the British people at the time that it arose, though it has largely succeeded in embeding itself in the minds of the younger generation. In Britain, I suggest, PC is certainly not looked at ironically, its hated by most people, along with the spin and lies of the Blair government. --Memestream 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Patriotism, for example, is still a highly cherished principle for many people, yet they are increasingly afraid to defend their true views because they get labelled 'racist'. Oh, do they really? I can't speak for other countries like Britain, but in the U.S., it's the opposite that is true -- people would certainly be afraid of declaring in public "I am not a patriot". Even those on the left in the U.S., for the most part, use patriotic language. It would be unimaginable, for example, for one of the eighteen current Presidential candidates to renounce patriotism. Their political career would be over.
The answer of course is that Political Correctness is tied to one particular political view - that of Cultural Marxism... If it didn't come from Cultural Marxism, then where did it come from? The answer, "of course"? why "of course"? Can't use in the media of terms and language used with the intent to offend as few people as possible be tied to the simple capitalistic desire to retain as large an audience as possible? If a TV host says things that rankle certain groups, they start to protest and the network loses advertising dollars. So market forces dictate the way broadcasters, journalists, etc., speak. That's a motivation for inoffensive language which is in fact the opposite of Marxism.
why is it alright for political correctness to insult the beliefs of some groups, while it claims to minimise offence. Yes, obviously it's impossible to avoid offending everyone at once. That's way it says "seeks to minimize offense" rather than "eliminate offense." The "seeks to" implies clearly that the person speaking is the one who believes his or her language reduces offensiveness, and (to answer what I think is your main question) yes, of course, there is the possibility that he or she is wrong. Andrew Levine 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I speak for Britain, where people very rarely call themselves patriots now, for fear of being persecuted as racist. In Britain patriotist has a long history of association with race and culture. I guess in the US this is not so, as the US never existed as one race and culture. I agree that my use of 'of course' was sloppy. Nevertheless, in my opinion your other explanation is highly contrived, while the link with Cultural Marxism is made by many writers. --Memestream 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Politically correct" politically correct??

The gender-neutral language article says that this term is used chiefly by opponents. Does this mean that the term "politically correct" lacks political correctness?? What would a term used by both advocates and opponents be?? Georgia guy 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where in the article? Also that would just raise political correctness to a new level of stupidity, even though it is a stupid ideal to begin with and has no proper foundation... Ah, I see it, I believe you misread it - "Gender-neutral language is sometimes described as non-sexist language by advocates, and politically-correct language by opponents". This means that the opponents of gender neutral language(gender neutral language being another silly idea), call it "politically-correct language", not that politically correct is not politically correct. Imperator Honorius 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[In the 1965 book, "Is Paris Burning?" was the word "correct" used somewhat in the way "politically correct" is used]?

[edit] "Pejorative sense"?

I am unconvinced by the claim that the term is almost always used in the pejorative sense.

This would mean that phrases like "not politically correct" almost always mean "righteous", which is false.

And by the way, what kind of reference is "Lind, Buchanan, Sobran, Hentoff, Schlesinger"? Is it a book? Is it a journal? Is it a plane? 83.67.217.254 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the type of reference used for many years in the real world. It refers to some of the books listed near the bottom of the page. Amazing. --Cberlet 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, amazing that WP would accept such a substandard citation scheme. How about Sobran? Since I don't see a reliable source I have removed it. 83.67.217.254 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to improve the citations, feel free. Although it reads in a rather cumbersome way, it would probably be better to use explicit references in in the info, just in case later references are removed (as seems to have happened with Sobran).JQ 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Go and check your local bookshop to see books proclaiming themselves "Politically incorrect". Then look for books saying, critically, that X is not politically correct. JQ 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be original research. Can somebody please tell me how I can verify using reliable sources that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense"? I think that citing three books for such a specific and bold claim is not acceptable. We need a more specific reference, possibly a quotation. Short of that, I will remove the sentence.
Also, you seem to misunderstand either my objection above, or the whole meaning of "pejorative". 205.228.73.13 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter that you disagree with the assessment, what matters is that several authors have made the claim. To rebut it, you need to find a cite from a reputable published source.--Cberlet 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Please quote said authors saying that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". 83.67.217.254 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the authors we've cited are illustrations of the point, rather than people making it. But it's easy to find a direct source for the statement. Go [1] here and we can quote "By the early '90s, political correctness had become a pejorative term associated with Thought Police, ridiculed in the media under such headlines as It's a Sexist, Racist, Fatist, Ageist World or No Free Speech Please, We're Students." Google will turn up plenty more.JQ 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I propose we change the wording to a more balanced "Some take the view that the expression is pejorative" or something like that. The opinion is divided, so stating only one opinion as a hard fact is extremely biased. 83.67.217.254 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
First you need to find examples of people using the term in a positive way (ideally, to avoid original research, people stating that the term is one of praise, and endorsing its use in this way). Otherwise, the only change required is to remove "almost", and say the term "is now used exclusively in a pejorative sense". I assume, from your comments, that you yourself use the term as one of praise, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples of this kind. JQ 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a very balanced view from which is clear what the original meaning is, and how the right wing agenda is bending its meaning. Also see virtually any dictionary.
[2]
[3]

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary: politically correct (also PC) (of language or behaviour) that does not offend particular groups of people Example: It is politically correct to use `he or she', and not just `he', when you mean a man or a woman.

[4]
Also interesting how according to Wiktionary, Politically correct, while listed as an antonym of politically incorrect the definitions do not read like they are antonyms at all. This is because the original definition of PC has been omitted. 83.67.217.254 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The article makes clear the meaning in the same way as these dictionary definitions. The point of the sentence about pejorative use is that no one in fact uses the term favorably and in its original sense any more. It was, as the article continues, used ironically on the left and then pejoratively (mainly, though not exclusively on the right). The quote from 1970 is a good one, showing that the term was used unironically then, although I'd read it more literally as "adhering to the correct political line", rather than as a reference to PC language.JQ 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries, by definition, illustrate the current language in use and are authoritative sources. This is in line with my everyday experience, telling me that the phrase is used mostly without any intent of ridicule (at least it is in the UK).
Anyway, I'm glad you like the article I quoted. Do you agree to use it as a reference to say that the 1970 quote is a "use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and that "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'."? 83.67.217.254 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Cade reference, which helps with the history. On the other hand, we still have no evidence of the term being used in anything like this sense currently, and plenty of evidence that it is now used pejoratively and understood as a pejorative term. Maybe if you could clarify why you think the favorable use is still current, it would help the discussion. In what contexts have you encountered favorable uses? If you can identify them, maybe we could find some reliable sources to illustrate this use.JQ 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No evidence apart from what I've already provided you mean? Dictionaries, by definition, illustrate the current language in use and are authoritative sources. In particular, this makes it clear that there are two distinct meanings of the expression, one original and one acquired. The current article as it stands is biased. Goodbye. 83.67.217.254 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No discussion - no tags

Removed.--Cberlet 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They were discussed, above, but that didn't seem to generate any consensus. Octane [improve me] 25.07.07 0255 (UTC)
Well, yes, there has been no serious discussion of editing text based on either tag for many weeks, and there have been several additions of material for countries outside the U.S. The page in an NPOV way shows both sides of a contentious debate. Why stir up trouble? What's the point?--Cberlet 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I'd just like to see the discussion I mentioned above closed amicably. It rather seems that it just tapered off, without any conclusion. I suppose if no one came back, then that's an indicator that nobody really cared, but still. Octane [improve me] 25.07.07 0319 (UTC)
This page is so highly contentious that it attracts emotional partisans on both side with narrow POV's. They arrive, freak out, discuss for a time, then wander off after other editors point out the long history of disagreements here and the long history of building a consensus that struggles to achieve NPOV. If someone wants to retag and start another discussion over specific text they are welcome to do that. But just restoring the tags without having a serious discussion over specific text is just not constructive, no matter how well-intenioned.--Cberlet 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - yes tags. 83.67.217.254 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No discussion of edits means no tags. Keep this up and I will ask that the page temporarily be locked against anonymous users.

--Cberlet 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-added POV tag, please stop reverting (3RR). I offered several reliable sources with a balanced view in the discussion above (yes discussion), but they were disregarded (no consensus). 83.67.217.254 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, your threats are not conductive to a civil discussion. Please stop. 83.67.217.254 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed the tag again, stating that there was a consensus. I think that from this discussion page it is obvious that this is a very controversial article and we have not found a consensus, in particular about the sentence I disputed. Please stop removing the tag. 83.67.217.254 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of an NPOV dispute tag is to warn the reader that a dispute is ongoing on the talk page. Not just that you disagree with the state of the article, but that there is actually a discussion of the NPOVness of the article taking place.
A discussion of whether to have a tag or not is not a discussion of the NPOVness of the article. The fact that you are squabbling over the tag is not itself evidence that the tag should be there. In order for the tag to be there, you need to be making constructive arguments about how to make the article more NPOV. --FOo 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done just that in the section above. I have now rearranged the introduction and hope that this is an acceptable way to resolve this dispute. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

John Quiggin reverted the contentious point. Dispute stands. Re-adding POV tag. 83.67.217.254 11:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links

In the 'See Also' links, the link 'Spin (political)' redirects to 'Spin (public relations)'. Can someone correct the original link to prevent the redirect?

I would do that, but the page is now semi-protected, for reasons that frankly escape me. 83.67.217.254 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Grow up people. PC is a term of the 21st century and not of a Marxist 19th century. I would suggest you move to the semantics area of this site if you want to discuss the differences between political correctness or being politically correct (although an understanding of the difference between adjectives, adverbs and nouns would help). The term 'politically correct' is self explanatory as it simply corresponds to to the ethics and beliefs of the political powers of the time. Hence in 19th century America n***er was acceptable; in 20th century South Africa 'coloured' was acceptable. Neither terms are acceptable now but who knows how that will change in years to come.

[edit] Cited text to improve page?

OK, everyone has an opionion, and they often conflict, especially on this entry. Sooooooo. Does anyone have text from a reputable published source that would improve this page and make it conform more to the goals of NPOV?--Cberlet 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See above. 205.228.73.13 05:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In particular, I proposed quotes from various dictionaries [5] [6] [7] and a quote from this to the effect of "the 1970 quote is a use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'." This last quotation in particular was dismissed as "OR". 205.228.73.11 06:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries do not share the same goals as an encyclopedia; they provide only a bare-bones definition of what a word means, with (outside of the occasional usage note) little regard for how it is used. They are not useful when better sources are available, and, in particular, it is absurd to suggest that the one sentence devoted to definition in a dictionary can be used to respond to multiple entire published works analyzing the origins and usage of the term at hand. The 1970 quote is plainly not using 'politically correct' in the manner referred to in this article; it makes no connection to language whatsoever, and, indeed, is from 1970, before the word assumed much of its modern meaning. The website you linked to is not a good source, since it itself provides no sources... it is hardly better than a blog, representing the off-hand opinions of the author and nothing more. Given the controversially of the subject, if you honestly believe that there are a significant number of people in the world today who use 'political correctness', unironically, as a favorable term today, it should be simple enough to provide sources that describe this phenomena. --Aquillion 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries are reputable sources and the definitions of the terms describe their current use.
Gary Martin and Phrase Finder are indeed verifiable and reliable sources, and they are used and accepted as such in many Wikipedia articles. If you really think that it is not a reliable source, I challenge you to have such references removed from said articles.
In any case, dictionary definitions and quotes from the Phrase Finder are worth much more than a POV bold statement backed by vague (and POV) references.
The burden is on whoever defends the disputed sentence to find quotes to back it up. 205.228.73.11 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you have that backwards. We have cites to back up the current text. You must locate and provide cites to back up your claims. I agree with what Aquillion posted above.--Cberlet 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We do not have any quotes that support that "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense." On the contrary, I don't see how you can deny that I have located and provided (multiple times actually) references to back up my claims.
Also, I am confused. First, you seek sources "that would improve this page and make it conform more to the goals of NPOV". Now you are saying that "we have cites to back up the current text". 205.228.73.11 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense. Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense. Please find a cite where the term is used in a positive sense, or a cite where someone claims the term is used overwhelmingly in the positive sense. We already have in the entry the claim that liberals and leftists use the term in the positive sense, and the counterclaim that this is not true. You need to mnove beyond a omne-sided POV on this term. The page is trying to explain a complicated situation where claims and counterclaims about the term, its usage, and origin conflict. What you are citing is insufficient, and superficial. AN encyclopedia entry seeks to have more depth than a dictionary definition.--Cberlet 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.
"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact.
"Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. (And by the way please change "in Aufderherde" to ""in Aufderheide", or even better "in Aufderheide (ed.), 1992".)
I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.
I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To repeat a point that's been made many times already, what's needed, if you want to change this text, are some actual instances of the word being used in a non-pejorative sense some time in the recent past (say, this century). It seems clear in fact that to the extent that other encyclopedias claim there is a non-pejorative use t they are out of date, or just plain wrong. Since you seem to dispute this, I'd ask you personally - do you use the term "politically correct" in a favorable sense? Does anybody you know use it this way? If not, why are you pushing a claim which, on your own experience is false?JQ 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the burden of finding reliable and verifiable sources to support that "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense" is on you. Else we have to remove that claim or change it (as I explained above).
You cannot discount the sources that I put forward proving the contrary as "out of date" or "plain wrong" just because they disagree with your POV. The whole point of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
The way I use this term is even less relevant to this discussion than how Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff and Schlesinger use it. 83.67.217.254 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we've established that you've never heard or read the term being used in the way you want to define it, and that the same is true for everyone else here, despite access to Google and lots of other sources. PhraseFinder may have failed to get the usage right, but Wiktionary gets it right, and so should we.JQ 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep citing sources that disagree with your POV as wrong, and even cite a dictionary to support your argument, right after you and two other editors have dismissed all dictionaries as sources for reasons that I cannot understand.
Also interesting how the dictionary you choose to quote is a dictionary that Wikipedia cannot accept as a reliable source, and whose definition of "politically correct" I have exposed as inconsistent with its own definition of "politically incorrect".
Feel free to draw your misguided conclusions about my having never heard this or read that, but all my points regarding the sentence that you are defending still stand. Please stop asking me to prove that the sentence you want to keep is wrong, because, I repeat, the burden is on you to prove it correct, in the way that I have explained above.
You seem to be more interested in getting rid of the POV tag than actually improving the article, given that none of you have fixed the mistakes that I and other unregistered users have pointed out and that we cannot fix because the page is for some reason semi-protected. 83.67.217.254 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not happy to find that this page is fully protected, and wish to join in this discussion in support of the above. Will you please unprotect? --Memestream 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On closer reading, I apologise to PhraseFinder. The definition "Description of the practice of using speech that conforms to liberal or radical opinion by avoiding language which might cause offence to or disadvantage social minorities" is quite accurate, and pretty close to what we already have. Of course, this description is invariably pejorative, as noted in our article. PhraseFinder doesn't say anything explicit about this one way or the other, but it's clear from the examples "Personchester" for example, that this is the case . So, I'd be happy to quote the definition in PhraseFinder with the observation, supported by our references, that the term has been used in primarily pejorative or ironic senses since the late 1970s, and is now exclusively used this way.JQ 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that definition is close to what we have, but I do not consider it adequate as it only covers the use of the phrase politically correct in relation to language. There is overwhelming evidence (which I will try to give in detailed citations if I ever get a chance) that political correctness is being used to censor actions and opinions, especially on University campuses and, in Britain, within local councils and by the 'Commitee for standards in public life'. In all these places it passes effectively as law, and has been used to fire professors, expel students, block talks and lectures, and even to suspend the mayor of London (despite his protests). I would be happy to see the definition relating to language, but only as one example of the application of the term, which I believe is fundamentally coercive in accordance with a particular set of values. Please note that one of the above dictionary definitions makes clear the fact that we are dealing with a NOUN phrase, not an adjectival phrase, as I have stressed before. I want to change the opening line of this article to make it into a sentence, which currently it is not, as it fails grammatically. This is important, as a noun cannot describe anything - it certainly cannot describe language. The inclusion of 'is a term used to describe' is a bit of word juggling that pretends to bridge the meaning gap, but fails to do so. When I went to some effort to get this across before, I was answered to the effect that it didn't matter. It matters a lot to me, as the grammatical error is being used to hide the linguistic impossibility of the current meaning. Can I insist please on grammatical correctness? Do I have support for that? --Memestream 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying that "'political correctness' describes..." may be inaccurate on grammatical grounds, but it's not ungrammatical. In the same way "'to walk' is a noun" is inaccurate on grammatical grounds but not ungrammatical. "Political correctness" is the name of a noun-phrase, and that noun-phrase is the subject of the sentence; "describes" is a verb, and agrees with the subject. If you don't like saying that a noun-phrase describes something, we could say it is "a name given to", which doesn't, AFAICS, alter the meaning at all. VoluntarySlave 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a view on the grammatical issue, but I'd be happy with something like "The term is also used more generally to refer to any action seen as restricting or censoring the expression of views inconsistent with political orthodoxy, particularly where this orthodoxy is liberal or leftwing"JQ 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Memestream. Can someone offer a counter-proposal for the opening sentence, perhaps in a separate section? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To JQ, you keep being dishonestly selective about quotations and sources. As I have already said, since you accept the PhraseFinder as a source, then you should have no problems citing it in support of the fact that the 1970 quote is a "use of 'politically correct' in its current commonly understood sense", and that "Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'." Both of which contradict the sentence that you are so desperately trying to defend, which remains unsupported by any citations, and should therefore be removed or changed as I have explained above. 83.67.217.254 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the accusation of bad faith above, I won't engage further with you, 83.67.217.254.JQ 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just having reading comprehension problems, but I can't figure out what "some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'" means. Could someone explain it? VoluntarySlave 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with JQ's proposal "The term is also used more generally to refer to any action seen as restricting or censoring the expression of views inconsistent with political orthodoxy", provided that the sentence I am disputing is removed. Note that this alternative usage is pretty much consistent with the second definition of the American Heritage dictionary, which we can use as a reference. If we also want to include the last part, "particularly where this orthodoxy is liberal or leftwing", I would like to see some kind of (politically neutral) reference to back it up. As JQ pointed out, the PhraseFinder would seem adequate for that purpose. 83.67.217.254 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not happy that 'Political correctness describes ..' is grammatically correct, though I suspect that a full technical explanation of why it is not correct would be somewhat obscure. What bothers me is that Political correctness is a state of being, and I don't think a state of being (which is passive) can be the subject of the verb (which does the doing). I would therefore like to see the opening sentence read something like: "Political correctness is the state of being judged acceptable according to a widely understood and implied set of values. While the term has in the past been used to refer to the values of a particular political party in power, modern use relates to values which are more obscure in origin, but generally considered to be in accordance with liberal or leftwing politics or orthodox theory." I include 'orthodox theory' because I can cite cases where scientists have claimed that political correctness was behind their persecution over legitimate work which resulted in theories that challenged the current accepted wisdom (for example Ted Steele in his book Lamarck's signature). Another example I would cite is Noam Chomsky in relation to 'inconvenient truths' that have nothing to do with non-offensive language. We could follow the opening definition with something like: "language, actions, teachings, beliefs and theories can all be judged politically correct or incorrect, though some people emphasis the language aspect, regarding language that is calculated not to offend certain groups (especially . . .) as a major feature of political correctness." --Memestream 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Original research is not acceptable on this page. Cite, quote, edit text. The rest is a time vortex--Cberlet 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

The recent set of discussions here are almost all original research. Please find cites, rather than making assumptions that there are actually significant numbers of people, even on the left, that make judgements that anything is "politically correct or incorrect." The whole dispute is over the claim that this is true at all. The contemporary use of the term is almost entirely as a perjorative, as the current cites suggest.--Cberlet 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Can you give us an example of what you consider original research in this discussion?
Also, I disagree that the current cites suggest that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". This was explained in my latest reply to you

When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.
"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact. "Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. (And by the way please change "in Aufderherde" to ""in Aufderheide", or even better "in Aufderheide (ed.), 1992".)
I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.
I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

83.67.217.254 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I just cannot make sense of what is meant by 'the term is used in the perjorative sense'. I understand the words, but that sentence is just too convoluted, given that Political correctness is a noun phrase, a state of being, and so just does not fit in. Is it supposed to mean 'Political correctness is regarded as bad'. Or, 'Political correctness is used to condem people as bad'. Or 'Political correctness is condemned'. Or 'Politically correct language is used to label people as bad'? Please can we drop that sentence as it lacks adequate subjects and objects (yes it has a subject and object, but not for the perjorative action). 'In the perjorative sense' is a meaningless phrase unless defined in relation to something or somebody. --Memestream 10:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

I think that this discussion should pause and wait for an apology from 83.67.217.254 to JQ. Aggressive bullying has been tolerated for too long. We cannot simply ignore it. Driving editors with whom one has a disagreement off a discussion page with a personal attack violates basic Wiki gidelines. I await a response.--Cberlet 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what was said constituted a personal attack or an attempt to drive you off the discussion page. Saying that you were being dishonest in certain matters as described was a reasonable expression of opinion, not the same as calling you a downright liar. The user appears polite, if forceful, and uses no bad language. --Memestream 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood my above post. I am not JQ. I am objecting to the personal attack on JQ. --Cberlet 06:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did realise that, but slipped up in the writing where I should have worded my comment a little differently, replacing 'you' with JQ. Nevertheless I think the meaning is clear.
I apologise if I offended anyone. 83.67.217.254 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garbled sentence

Does anyone know what this sentence is trying to say? It is currently garbled:

  • Critics often use terms such as inclusive language and civility are often used to praise language that they see as "politically correct".

Yikes...--Cberlet 06:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what was meant was
83.67.217.254 07:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect

Why exactly was this page(fully) protected, and by whom? I've just come to it, and though it is difficult to get a full picture of what has gone on, I see no evidence of an 'edit war', or abuse, or vandalism, just very active argument. If the one unregistered editor is considered the problem, then why not ask him for an undertaking of some sort (he seems amicable enough to me) and then unprotect - or else follow the necessary procedure to block him if you really feel that to be justified. At the moment the page appears to be frozen at a supposed consensus by a few editors, and yet it still carries the disputed template, and I for one, having no connection with any dispute, would like to edit it. --Memestream 10:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for a semi-protection, let alone a full protection. I am not aware of any discussions about protecting the article, definitely not on this talk page. The only thing I was involved in that could possibly be construed as an edit war (not without a lot of imagination) was the adding/removal of the POV tag. Please (fully) unprotect. Users have already requested at least two specific uncontroversial changes, and nobody has effected them. 83.67.217.254 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's the story: Cberlet requests a semi-protection specifically against me, and with motivations that I do not accept as corresponding to the truth. (Look at the page history and judge for yourself.) Pax:Vobiscum fully protects. 83.67.217.254 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
See this section for a better understanding of the context of this protection. 83.67.217.254 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If the request was for semi-protection, why can I not edit the article? I'm a well established registered user. --Memestream 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see the log shows full protection. I've just pointed out this error to Pax:Vobiscum and requested that he unprotects the article. --Memestream 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested (in order to exclude only one party, me, from an alleged edit war), and the admin protected fully. 83.67.217.254 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I used full protection to enforce a cool down period (Wikipedia:Protection policy) since there was a revert-war going on regarding the POV-tag. Semi-protection was requested but wasn't appropriate (semi-protection is used to stop vandalism, not in content disputes). I'm going to lift the protection now so that editing can continue, but I will protect the article again if the revert-war continues. Pax:Vobiscum 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Editorialising

I've reverted a set of changes made by Memestream that breach WP:OR, bear no relation to anything discussed on the talk page, and appear to be expressions of personal opinion. The only substantive change I've made since protection was lifted was to include an expanded definition suggested by Memestream (I also fixed a sentence that had been garbled in editing). If we're not going to have to lock the article down again, can I suggest that no change be made without seeking consensus on the talk page first.JQ 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Would that apply to you as well? You have introduced a sentence that you have proposed in this talk page and that has been accepted by one editor (me) conditionally to the removal of another sentence ("pejorative" etc). Since Memestream also expressed his doubts on that sentence, I am now going to remove it. If you want it reintroduced, please resume the discussion above. 83.67.217.254 08:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
John Quiggin reverted all changes since the unblock with comment "Obviously, we're going nowhere here", and no comments left on this talk page. This revert included typo fixes and a link disambiguation. 83.67.217.254 12:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If we are going nowhere, as John Quiggin comments, then I suggest that it is because the page has been held in a state that I (and too many others) regard as POV for a long time. During that time, many editors have stopped by, had a go, and left, saying that the page is essentially wrong (I'll quote them all here if you really want me to, but that would be tedious). Now, two of us want to change things. Of course, our POV may be no better than what we see as the existing POV, but the real point is surely that you have had your chance to achieve consensus, and have never achieved it, as witnessed by the 'disputed' template. Might I suggest that you (JQ and CBerlet in particular) agree to stand back a little for a while and let the page develop along a different course. I do not know to what extent 83.67.217.254 and I agree, but I do know that both he and I have persisted long and hard in the face of almost total reversion of everything we have written. I also know that we are being asked repeatedly to submit our ideas first, on the talk page, for scrutiny by just a few people who seem to think they know better, and yet have managed only to keep the page in an unhappy state of constant dispute. --Memestream 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several key arguments being used against our material, which have been repeated again and again, but which I do not accept. The revert of my material on the basis of OR is one I reject. I also reject the accusation that I am writing my own ideas. Original research in relation to Wikipedia is a tricky business, and I have thought long and hard about it. I would argue that if placing together quotes from reputable authorities leads the reader to new conclusions, possibly conclusions that have not been stated so well before, that is a strength of Wikipedia. It's aiding what E. O. Wilson calls consilience. It's not original research. I would also argue that good editing requires 'paper' research - for example, I have bought six books and studied them in the course of editing this page. True original research is not 'paper' research, it's pushing your own theory. I happen to think that the ideas of Buchanan, for example, deserve serious consideration. They are certainly not 'minority views' inasmuch as that they are our there, repeated over and over on the web and elsewhere. On this page, writers like Buchanan are dismissed as 'crackpot conspiracy theorists', but this is pure POV and we do not have to just accept it. I suggest that it is very hard to prove that the ideas of Buchanan are crackpot, because proving a negative is never possible - you have to show that every conceivable explanation is false, but if the ideas are reasonable, then it should be possible to demonstrate, by citations, that this is the case. I want to do this by adding a whole section on cultural Marxism, critical theory, and Kurt Lewin's 'sensitivity training'. Then the reader can judge whether political correctness looks like an aspect of critical theory maskerading under another name, as Buchanan and others claim. I made changes to the introduction which I believe would set us on a better course, but I cannot make my case for the validity of those changes in one edit, and if every edit I make is reverted instantly, without discussion, by a couple of people who are convinced that their POV is right, I can get nowhere. The proper place for detailed citations in support of the changes is in detail sections, not in the introduction. Demonstrating the case for Buchanan's theory is not original research, it's providing the reader with the supporting evidence that a significant writer has put forward, to counter the 'crackpot' allegations. Incidentally, I intend to cite several new major sources, such as Noam Chomsky. Is he a 'crackpot'? It's hard to add citations that mean anything if I cannot establish the context first. Incidentally, I think all citations should now quote actual text, and where possible a page reference. Just listing three names is rubbish. --Memestream 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole Cultural Marxism theory is, in my view, a crackpot far-right conspiracy theory, tainted with antisemitism. So you see the problem. If I were writing this entry it would look even worse to conservatives. This page is already a compromise. It satisifies few. That's OK, becasue it is cited and NPOV. I think that this page has had the contributions of many editors across the political spectrum who have come here, edited text, and provided citations from reputable sources. We are here to edit text, not insert our uncited opinions -- from any political viewpoint -- into the enty. An encyclopedia aspires to a higher level of information than a dictionary. It is that simple.--Cberlet 15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Would that be in your view as "opinionated but willing to talk", who proudly displays the 'all-seeing eye' on his personal page along with the declaration, "this user serves the will of the Illuminati"? Hardly good credentials for NPOV editing, especially given that those commentators who denounce PC also denounce the Illuminati. You are, it would seem by your own confession, a man on a mission. By the way, I'm not the least bit interested in 'conservatives'. This whole 'tagging' business has no place on Wikipedia, and is part of PC. I judge men by the whole of their writings, not how they get tagged by their enemies. --Memestream 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA Political Research Associates: (I reproduce this here as I think it relevant information for other editors, considering this editor's denial of a Marxist connection, and not as a personal attack). The David Horowitz Freedom Center accuses PRA mainstay Chip Berlet of engaging in "smear" tactics and accuses PRA of promoting a "hard-left agenda". The article on PRA at Horowitz' Discover the Networks (DTN) site says the organization's purpose is to promote the Marxist doctrines of "dialectical materialism" and "progressive internationalism". It says PRA endorsed the adoption of the Plan of Action from the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, "largely a forum for anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric".
I've done a lot of work on the intro, and I now ask that it be left in place and discussed here. I've given serious and specific citations, and I've left all opposing views in place. If you give me a chance I will now write a section on Cultural Marxism and PC, explaining how Buchanan and many others link this with PC. That section will expand on the ideas in the intro, allowing the reader to make sense of the claims of Buchanan etc. --Memestream 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this material is fine for the article, except that it is not backed up by proper citations. Some of it's a bit marginal, like the quote from someone who was on the Archers, but I don't have a particular problem with it. However, this material belongs in the body not in the intro. Note also that the examples added by Memestream all support the conclusion that this term is used exclusive in a pejorative fashion.JQ 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think my citations are better than any produced so far, in that they give a specific quote of what was said, and where. It isn't 'somebody who was in the Archers', it's the long standing producer of the Archers, which makes her a major figure in the BBC, and a major figure in any discussion of 'media propaganda'. The Archers may seem insignificant to Americans (and to me), but, given its status as the longest running 'soap' in the world, together with the allegations of writers like Peter Hitchens that soaps are being written to comply with politically correct values, and the considerable discussion that has taken place in Britain over changes in the nature of Archers storylines (which brought massive complaints many alleging political correctness as the basis of 'unrealistic and contrived storylines'), I suggest to you that this stunning confession from its producer represents a very significant quote indeed. Of course, it is possible that she didn't say it, but the book by Peter Hitchens is mainstream, well known and much reviewed, so I think there would have been trouble by now if he had got it wrong. Please can we drop this term, 'in a perjorative fashion'! I've explained why, but got no response, and others want the term dropped. I do agree that the references would be better in main sections, but I've explained all that, again without reply. Those of us who want to change the article significantly cannot get anything in place for long enough for anyone else to comment on it, or build the structure in which the citations make sense. Currently this is down to two editors, yourself and Cberlet. I think I am justified in reverting back now. It took a lot of effort and time and research. Please leave it for others to see, and challenge only one item at a time before reverting, so that I can make my case as I have done regarding 'the Archers'.
Your comment that all the examples I have added support one side of the argument seems superfluous. There is nothing wrong with that. You are at liberty to add the other side, and Wikipedia rules specifically require fair space to all 'mainstream' points of view. If you want to argue that my material is not 'mainstream' I will challenge you, as I think the idea ridiculous. Please remember that I am in Britain. This page has had a template complaining that it did not represent all parts of the world (which I will put back if I am not allowed my entries). Surely it isn't hard for you to see that Americans might just be living in a different (even blinkered) world, from others, and stop trying to trivialise what I add because it doesn't seem the case in your world. Have you read 'The Abolition of Britain'? It's not 'crackpot conspiracy theory' it's just honest description of what he perceives as happening, which has been said by reviewers to reflect what 'many in Britain feel, but dare not speak'. --Memestream 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a quote and a cite, Memestream. If you are going to edit a controversial entry, is is your obligation to learn the difference and provide an actual citation where other editors can verify the quote and examine the context. Your arguments are often hard to make sense of, and your claims are highly POV and often reflect original research WP:OR. Please take the time to learn more guidelines for editing here before claiming that other editos are engaging in bad actions. Please refrain from further personal attacks. Please do not post false and asinine claims from any of the David Horowitz websites here as proof of anything except the penchant of David Horowitz to allow false and asinine claims to appear under his auspices. As Aaron Barlow explains: "Why lie, if it can be so easily discovered? The point, for Horowitz, like McCarthy before him, seems to be to lie in such a way that the rebuttal sounds like a splitting of hairs." See the reference here: Aaron Barlow, "The Art of the Slur: From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz," the Public Eye Magazine, Fall 2006. I consider what you did above by posting these false and asinine claims to be a personal attack.--Cberlet 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please let's keep it cool. I have a few comments to make, but let me ruminate a bit more. 83.67.217.254 205.228.73.11 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it cool, but I think this constant and quick reversion despite abundant complaint, and lengthy reasoned discussion by me is a breach of Wikipedia policy.
Cberlet: Your writing is condescending. I am an experienced editor, and have studied Wikipedia policy on many occasions, being totally familiar with NPOV and especially the subtleties of OR. If my arguments are hard to make sense of it might be your problem, and a more polite approach would be to tell me what you don't understand, not trash my efforts. On the issue of personal attack, I am very familiar with the rules there too, and did not seek to discredit you by association, which is strictly not allowed. So get your facts right, I did not post material from David Horowitz, I posted a bit of a Wikipedia page on the organisation you work for, which is very different. If you do not like what it says about you personally you can of course object on that page. I posted the material to point out a peculiar contradiction, which is that you constantly delete material in any way connected with conspiracy theories, by labelling them crackpot without furthur explanation. I took this to mean that you think conspiracies, and specifically those discussed by Buchanan and LaRouche, do not exist. Is that right? If so, it is surely very peculiar indeed that you say on your personal Wikipedia page that you 'serve the will of the Illuminati. I think it fair to say that this is (broadly speaking and without going into claims and counterclaims of definition) the very conspiracy group that Buchannan and LeRouche talk about. Perhaps you claim that the Illuminati does exist but is not a conspiracy group - you think you are 'illuminated'? Unless that illumination is openly shared it would seem that you do 'serve the will' of a secret group. That is, I suppose, no bar to editing Wikipedia, but it could explain your persistent grip on this article. --Memestream 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
An experienced editor should know that the Wiki editors who post the icon stating that we "'serve the will of the Illuminati," are being ironic because we have been attacked by crackpot conspiracy cranks who claim it is true. It is meant as a joke. We do not "serve the will of the Illuminati" because that organization was disbanded in the 1700s.--Cberlet 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, Wikipedia seems to be becoming an irony-free zone. MastCell Talk 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Irony and Satire on the web in general is a bad idea, because no matter how silly or extreme you make your statements, it can never be as extreme and silly as what some people will post in earnest. --86.154.218.67 12:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert, and Original research in relation to this article

I have said that I think the constant repeated reversion of large chunks of material without discussion goes against Wikipedia rules and advice. The advice given with regards to reverting is:

  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

I do not think that revert is being taken seriously by certain editors, and what is occuring here is certainly not vandalism. The good faith of my edits, and those of 83.67.217.254 205.228.73.11 is abundantly clear from the sheer amount of work we are putting in, and the seriousness of our comments. I think I will revert again, reluctantly, and request that editors take note of the above, and do not remove valid information, but seek to improve it, or add to it, or request more info on citations etc. I also ask that you do not move it to less conspicuous paragraphs yet because that will restore the unbalance of the intro which is all important. Also because I do not agree that it fits the titles of those paragraphs.

Otherwise, I think you are going against the rules and this paragraph stands as my evidence in any further action you may try to take, like requesting protection for the page.

On Original research I would draw your attention to the following, from the OR page. I think it covers what I am writing, which is definitely not OR.

  • Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. (from Wikipedia:No original research).

--Memestream 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with every assertion and conclusion in the above post. Plopping large amounts of marginal material representing one-sided POV into an entry is not constructive. Please discuss first.--Cberlet 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! You revert within minutes saying you disagree with every assertion in a post that quotes WP! No explanation. I will point you again to the WP statement:

  • If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

Then you say 'discuss first'. What on earth do you think I am doing? Furthermore, I am accused of failing to give proper citations, but it seems that the references I added at the bottom of the page to two books have been deleted, without discussion. Is that so? If so why? I was about to proceed to integrating them into the references with proper inline citation, but the template used is complicated and I did not get time before all was gone again! Please will others help by adding those books back for me, in the references perhaps, or say why they are taken out. They were:

  • The Abolition of Britain, (2000), Peter Hitchens, Quartet books, ISBN 0-7043-8140-0
  • Lamarck's Signature ((1998), Edward J. Steele, Robyn A. Lindley & Robert V. Blandon, Allen and Unwin ISBN 1-86448-796-8

--Memestream 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


As promised, a few comments in no particular order.

  • Let's all relax a little.
  • Please if you must revert, do it carefuly and with consideration of edits that are not controversial. Case in point, "Aufderherde" -> "Aufderheide" and the "spin" disambiguation, which have been mistakenly reverted twice by inconsiderate blanket reverts. The references are currently completely broken.
  • Do I think that the information that Memestream added was original research? Mostly, no. There were quotations from reputable sources, of much better quality than POV assertions passed as hard objective facts and supported by vague, POV and, I agree, "rubbish" citations (yes, I'm referring to the "almost exclusively in a pejorative sense" paragraph, which I agree with Memestream should be discarded, although I suspect for different reasons). Do I think Memestream's changes should stay? Mostly yes, but I agree with JQ that they should mostly be moved in the body of the article, probably under "criticism". Do I agree with the views portrayed in those edits? The answer to this question is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
  • Memestream's edits are, I think by his own admission, POV. And I mean this in the best possible of ways. They enrich WP of well-documented criticism of the term/concept. However, I do think that putting all that in the introduction, well-sourced though it largely is, creates an even worse imbalance between advocates and detractors of PC than there already was.
  • One specific objection I have on Memestream's material, is about PC's aim "not to offend certain groups (especially ethnic, feminist, or racial)". I may be missing something, but was by "feminism" meant gender discrimination?
  • Another general (mild) problem I have with Memestream's writing is that I personally find it difficult to follow and inadequate for the average reader.
  • However, I think that none of these objections, individually or collectively, are sufficient grounds for obliterating Memestream's contributions with inflamatory reverts. The world is not going to come to an end if we leave those well-meaning changes there for a few days while we discuss them.
  • I suggest we try to find a consensus on the intro first, and then move on to the main body. This is why I think that the dual dictionary definition of the American Heritage dictionary is a good starting point.

83.67.217.254 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider my edits POV in the (not allowed) Wikipedia sense of being just my point of view and hence unsupported by citations. What I meant was that all edits on a controversial page are POV, in that they are selective, and there are two or more points of view out there in the world, non necessarily more valid than the others so far as Wikipedia is concerned. I deliberately avoid the word 'gender' since being told that the word was commonly mis-used, as it refers strictly to grammatical classification. My concise Oxford dictionary confirms this, saying 'Gender: the classification of nouns and related words, roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness'. The point is that it refers to words, not the things they represent, and is therefore not interchangeable with the word sex. I guess in a PC world I should therefore say, 'sex discrimination'. Otherwise, I can go along with this. --Memestream 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted warning by MastCell

I have been threatened with being blocked from editing by the above user, who has taken little part in the discussions apart from criticising my seriousness. This, he says, is because I continually revert and there is a revert war on this page.

By my count I have reverted twice today, and once yesterday, and that's it, in months! If this is a revert war, then I'm not in it, am I? Can I have an appology? I never break the 3-revert rule, and three reverts in two months represents restraint by most peoples standards? --Memestream 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been threatened. You've been apprised of the 3-revert rule, because you're engaged in an edit war. The other editors are already aware of it, no doubt, but I wasn't sure if you were. Hence the note. Let me caution you against going right up to three reverts every 24 hours, because in the past, that sort of gaming the system has been frowned upon. As your edits are being reverted by several different editors, and the onus is on the editor seeking to add content to justify its inclusion, please consider working toward consensus here before reinserting your proposed changes again. Also, please centralize discussion; you've posted the same note to my user talk page, and I've responded further there. No need to cross-post. MastCell Talk 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to caution me in this condescending way - I've already told you (on your Talk) that I know the rules and NEVER break the three-revert rule. While I acknowledge that the onus is on me to justify inclusion, this is still overwritten by the rule that reversion is not to be used to delete content that adds something - no matter how much you think it is POV. I have discussed everything at great length and given full references to reliable sources. If anyone thinks this is not the case, then they must start a debate about the reliability of the sources, not just revert. This is made clear in WP:revert:

  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.
  • Generally there are MISCONCEPTIONS that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

Yes, there are indeed misconceptions. --Memestream 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cautioning a user of the three revert rule is standard practice, and if I recall correctly, an advision to inform parties that may or may not be aware of the rule is explicitly mentioned on the 3RR page itself. MastCell did not warn you maliciously but out of concern that you might violate it unknowingly. --ForbiddenWord 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I checked the quotes added to the intro by Memestream. The quote from the editor of the Archers (a long running BBC soap) was imputed by a hostile source (Peter Hitchens) and doesn't appear anywhere on Google, so I deleted it. In any case, this person can't be regarded as a notable example of usage in the UK. The quote from Latham was critical of "new correctness" - anyone who knows anything about Latham would know he is far from PC. I left the Ukrainian English teacher, as this might help to allay the concerns about a global view. She does at least indicate that we need to say "almost exclusively pejorative".JQ 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is a well known British journalist, author and broadcaster. What makes him a 'hostile source', and what is a 'hostile source'? Hostile to the political left no doubt, but that's not relevant here surely. Nothing on the wikipedia page for him, nor anything I found on a quick Google search suggests that he is anything but a respected and significant person. Who wrote this, it's unsigned? --Memestream 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The exact quote I gave, was from a secondary source admittedly, but a reputable one in a book from a mainstream publisher and hence arguably better than Web sources. Take a look please at Humbridge - political correctness in The Archers for an article in which the term PC abounds - 'politically correct storylines' and 'Mr Parkin, who worked on the show for 26 years, finally becoming the agricultural story editor, walked out after a string of clashes with Miss Whitburn. In particular he was said to be annoyed by her promotion of politically correct, and in his view unrealistic, plot ideas.' Here we surely have evidence of useage of the phraPC which supports what I have been saying - that it is not about speach primarily, it's about instilling values, or what Noam Chomsky and others call 'the manufacturing of consent in so-called democracy'.
Take a look too please at Political correctness gone mad Where you will read, "It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you: the nanny state interfering where she doesn't belong." Again not about language surely, but unwanted propaganda.
Then there's PC Thinking is harming society (on the BBC website - a very good source indeed) where you will read "Civitas says political correctness has allowed the creation of "Muslim ghettos" which produce suicide bombers." and "PC thinking now dominates schools, councils and the media, Anthony Browne says in The Retreat of Reason." 'PC thinking', note, not language.
Or Angry Harry where you will find detailed analysis of how science content is manipulated to arrive at desired PC conclusions. Again, manipulation, not language to avoid offence.
There are thousands of examples like this. Just Google BBC+political correctness, or Archers+political correctness, or Vanessa Whitburn+political correctness, and search the pages for PC. Thousands, all in the sense I am urging is the major British one. --Memestream 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just found the ARCHERS quote repeated on the web, at Shooting Parrots where you will find, "Vanessa Whitburn, editor in chief of the BBC Radio-4 soap opera The Archers, set in the non-existant village of Ambridge, is one of these unacknowledged power-wielders. I might add that she once declared that 'to be politically correct is really to be moral. It is having a moral stance. PC is, in fact, my moral plank'." I'd be grateful if anyone else would use these quotes and insert them inline appropriately. --Memestream 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To put this context, going to the blog indicated by Memestream, you find an extract from an article by Peter Hitchens attacking Ms Whitburn (this is what it means to be a hostile source), in which he says, without any supporting evidence " I might add that she once declared that 'to be politically correct is really to be moral. It is having a moral stance. PC is, in fact, my moral plank'". There is nothing remotely approaching a reliable source here, and in any case the material is too trivial to justify inclusion.JQ 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You will find there a blog which says after the quote, "so wrote Peter Hitchens on the Mail on Sunday last weekend". The Mail on Sunday is a reliable source, which is easily tracked down. The point is that the blog, and the Mail on Sunday and the book are all sources that demonstrate use of the phrase in the sense I am demostrating. This is valid, whether they are reliable sources for what Ms Whitburn said or not. Trivial? Try telling that to the millions who listen to and complain about 'the most listened to programme on BBC radio4'. In Britain 'The Archers' is an institution, and hugely important (don't get me wrong, I can't stand it). The fact that it has been at the centre of a big row over PC makes it very relevant here. When it comes to talk radio, Radio4 is the original of course - once the Home Service, the first broadcast radio channel in the Britain and possibly the world. It's very British. --Memestream 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


A recurring pattern in our discussions and citations seems to be that there are three PCs.

  1. Historical use (sticking to behaviour acceptable to the party line)
  2. Behave in a way that does not offend or discriminate (currently the main meaning according to dictionaries and the PhraseFinder)
  3. Being obsessed with this kind of behaviour and imposing it on others in a way that critics see as curtailing their freedom (PC "gone mad")

While I do not deny the existence of the latter, I do think that putting undue weight on it, especially in the intro, is inappropriate. It makes no sense to me to make an article on "X", however controversial, look like an article on "Criticism on X".

Take the article on George W. Bush, which I would guess has been one of the most debated articles in WP. The introduction is mostly neutral, with reference to criticism confined to the last part of the last paragraph (and backed by hard facts from independent sources). Then after four sections there is a "Criticism" section, plus two separate articles about criticism and public opinion (which may or may not be applicable to our case).

I find that balanced. 83.67.217.254 06:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I do not think that well-sourced edits that shift the balance to one side should be removed. As Memestream suggests, other editors, knowledgeable about the opposite view, can always edit away and re-establish that balance. But until then, a POV tag should advertise the need of such edits. 83.67.217.254 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the third definition completely, and reject language like 'being obsessed with'. The third definition is something more like, "As a coercive movement, thought by some to have just come about, and by others to be traceable to a conspiracy to destroy Western culture, which seeks to suppress some types of thought and behaviour and limit open discussion." Like it or not, call it 'crackpot' if you like, this is the main message that is out there. The phrase 'being obsessed with this kind of behaviour' refers to the the second definition - not offending, and in Britain this is not the primary meaning. In Britain it's seen as a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought. I know Americans don't get this, but I must insist that the links I have given very much demonstrate that I am right, many of them referring to 'politically correct thought'. --Memestream 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we may have four definitions.
There may have been a misunderstanding here. When I say "obsessed" in the third definition (used loosely here) I am not referring to PC critics being obsessed about pervasive PC in our society, but rather I refer to PC advocates being obsessed with PC and taking the concept to the extreme (reverse discrimination etc), hence "PC gone mad". This is I believe the second meaning in the American Heritage dictionary, which uses a probably better word for "obsessed": "overconcerned". I also believe that this is the "pejorative" meaning/usage that the article mentions.
I disagree (and so do the reliable and most importantly neutral sources that I cited) that the primary meaning of PC in UK is "a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought", although this may be so in some circles. 205.228.74.11 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The opposite is true. The critics of "Political Correctness" see it as "a form of imposed (Orwellian) oppression of thought." Thus the critics are using the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense. The counter argument is that the term "Political Correctness" was hijacked by right-wing critics of diversity and non-offensive language to imply there is a large "Political Correctness" movement which, in fact, does not exist. We have noted in the entry that a handful of people use the term in an affirmative sense. But it is clear that the vast majority of people use the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense to describe a tendency that they claim exists and of which they dissaprove.--Cberlet 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least five definitions over time:
  1. First historic use -- ideas or actions seen as the proper political course.
  2. Second historic use -- ideas or actions seen as within the Communist Party line.
  3. 1970s-1980s -- ideas or actions seen as overly obsessed with a particular sectarian political viewpoint.
  4. Ideas or actions that are designed to not offend or discriminate.
  5. 1980s-2000s -- the claim that "Political Correctness" is infringing on free speech and trying to dominate the culture and enforce restrictions on language and ideas.
There is very little evidence that #4 ever existed among a significant number of people.
There is very little evidence that #5 can be demonstrated outside of citing people who claim it is true but offer only anecdotal evidence.
In any case, today it is mostly used in the perjorative sense by critics who use #5 as the frame.--Cberlet 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Thus the critics are using the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense." - I have no problem here.
"There is very little evidence that #4 ever existed among a significant number of people." - I disagree. The sources I have quoted report it as the main usage, some of them as the only one.
"But it is clear that the vast majority of people use the term "Political Correctness" in a perjorative sense" - It is not clear to me, given the sources I have quoted. Do you have a quotation to back that up?
"There is very little evidence that #5 can be demonstrated [...]" - Should I take that as a "no"? 205.228.74.11 13:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not possible to prove a negative. It is easy to demonstrate that the vast majority of people who use the term "Political Correctness" use it in the perjorative sense, even when they are claiming (without evidence) that there is a vast "Political Correctness" movement. We quote a number of people who claim there is a "Political Correctness" movement. That's NPOV. But try to find evidence (other than unsubstantiated claims) that there is a "Political Correctness" movement. Where are the social movement organizations that state they are building a "Political Correctness" movement? Where are the books extolling a "Political Correctness" movement? Where are the study guides for "Political Correctness" training? Where? Other than a tiny number of anecdotal examples, there are none to find. It is a myth.
This is from an interview I did for Lip Magazine:
  • In 1988, you would have been hard-pressed to find a dozen citations of the term or any of its versions. By 1992, there were 10,000 articles in the English language on political correctness. Now, even a dullard could figure out that something had happened between 1988 and 1992. So you look for the period between 1988 to 1992 to determine what happened to suddenly make this such a hot term. And really, it starts out with a series of critiques on multicultural projects in higher education. A series of books come out, like Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals, and [D'Souza's] Illiberal Education, criticizing higher education and implying that a liberal authoritarian orthodoxy had taken over college campuses. We're talking here about a reframing of the idea of multicultural education and diversity. And it percolated. All of a sudden these books were prompting newspaper and magazine articles, and there was a series of [conservative] think tanks, such as the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, and groups like the National Association of Scholars, and Accuracy in Academia, who suddenly pick this up, and it becomes a bandwagon. Eventually, it escapes the confines of a critique of multiculturalism and diversity in higher education, and turns into a general critique that liberals and the left are engaging in an Orwellian project of thought control to force people to accept certain language, to re-educate them.
  • But what's being criticized here? Attempts to redress inequalities of power on campus, to look at issues of race and gender, power and privilege, and what belongs in the canon—all of these are absolutely appropriate for discussion on a college campus!
Is that POV? Sure! Is it what I am trying to turn this page into? No! I am seeking an NPOV entry--not an entry that only reflects one POV. That's the goal here. Not writing what one person thinks is the "truth" about "Political Correctness."--Cberlet 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we are talking about two slightly different things. I'll repeat my question. Does anybody have a quote from a reliable and neutral source supporting that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense? I have at least one saying the contrary, and therefore, unless some evidence comes up, I will remove that sentence. 83.67.217.254 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking about different things. You have no support for your proposed deletion in reputable published cites, whereas the current sentence is supported by several cites.--Cberlet 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I will have to repeat myself once again, then. I don't need any "reputable published cites" (and yet I'm pretty sure I have offered a few) to remove an allegation that is not supported. The onus is on you to find quotations that support what you is being passed for a hard fact. The fact that we have something enclosed between <ref> and </ref> does not mean that those are supporting the assertion. What exactly do you mean by "cite"? (Is it even a noun?) I still cannot see a quote supporting that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. Perhaps I should copy and paste once again my remarks on which you have not commented yet

When I read "The term 'political correctness' is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense", with two references that apparently back it up, I interpret it as: "An independent survey has been carried out and concluded that it's an objective and verifiable fact that the English-speaking population on this planet use the term almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". That's why I think that the current wording is misleading.

"Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger use the term in the perjorative sense." Good for them, but four people hardly qualify as representative of the entire English-speaking population. What's more, being listed in the "Against" authors, we cannot even quote something they published and pass it as a hard (and NPOV) fact.

"Ruth Perry discusses how the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense." Excellent, we have one author (again, a detractor) claiming that this is the case. [...]

I propose we change the disputed sentence to something like "[Some] Detractors of PC take the view that the term is now used primarily in the perjorative sense", and only use Ruth Perry (ideally with a quote please, as you correctly requested at the beginning of this section) as a reference, unless this also applies to specific publications of other detractors, in which case they can stay in separate references.

I also encourage you to accept PhraseFinder as a reliable and verifiable (and politically neutral) source and include it as a reference. I also think that it should be made clear in the article that the expression has now two meanings, as described here. 83.67.217.254 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

83.67.217.254 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not accurate and POV. See: Schultz, Debra L. (1993). To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the “Political Correctness” Debates in Higher Education. New York: National Council for Research on Women. According to this study, the term has been appropriated by the right to attack the left. If you want to argue otherwise, please find a cite in a reputable published source. Otherwise, it is just another right-wing conspiracy theory attacking the left. --Cberlet 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
"Not accurate and POV." What does this refer to?
You are not addressing my concerns and not answering my questions. We still have no quote to support that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.
What you offered can be used to support that "Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term 'political correctness' is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." But not that "the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". 83.67.217.254 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Newly-offered "cite" moved as per rationale above. 83.67.217.254 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't delete references. There's no point appealing to the discussion when it shows you have no support on this.JQ 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you would like to join the discussion again and provide a quotation that supports that the term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense, because as I have explained, the references that I have removed do not do that. Also please note that I have not "blanked" references. The sources were left in the article for use by other citations. 83.67.217.254 09:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the Schultz "cite" was restored in support of the fact that the term is usually perjorative. The reason why I moved it elsewhere was that I thought that what she suggested in that article was that the term "has been appropriated by the right to attack the left". Now it turns out that what that article suggests is that the term "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense". Can we have a quote for that please? One (biased) author saying that the term is used that way in this or that circle does not in any way equate to proving the allegation that the English-speaking population uses the term almost exclusively in that way. 83.67.217.254 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is PC an old movement under a new name?

Many people who have asked the questions above, eg.where are the training centres, where are the people with the avowed aim of changing society, have also asked, 'given that this new phenomenon arose rapidly, apparently from nowhere, could it be that we are seeing an existing movement under a new name'.

This is a reasonable question, and a potential stumbling block in trying to get to the bottom of PC. Supppose I said, 'Protestantism is Catholicism'. Many people would say, 'of course it's not'. And yet no one would argue that Protestantism was not the continuation of Catholicism, which was the only form of Christianity for a long time; modified and under a new name.

Just as Protestantism is not Catholicism, Political correctness is not Cultural Marxism, or Critical Theory, or Sensitivity training, but people like Pat Buchanan point out the remarkable similarities and the possible chain of links. They also quote some revealing statements by key figures, such as: "A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries" - Georg Lukacs. Georg Lukacs was part of the 'Frankfurt School', a group of intellectuals led by Horkheimer who 'launched Critical theory, shorthand for 'critical theory of society' 'oriented towards radical social change' (quoted from Wikipedia). Then Kurt Lewin a psychologist associated with the Frankfurt school set out to discover a way to engineer society so that groups got on better, and called it Sensitivity training. His biographer, Alfred Marrow leaves us in no doubt that Lewin's aim as a psychologist was not to understand people, but to change them, hence the title of his book "Kurt Lewin - the Practical Theorist. Lewin set up a number of institutes specifically to teach and spread sensitivity training. Later, Carl Rogers another psychologist, would say, in 1968 that sensitivity training had entered every area of life, and was changing society.

Here we have a possible chain of events leading, by the 1970's to something that looks like Political Correctness, since sensitivity training is all about being sensitive to the other's point of view and avoiding offence. It might just be the 'politically correct speach' which we agree is one part of PC. Critical theory might just be another part 'oriented towards radical social change.

This, very roughly, is the theory of Buchanan and others. To call it crackpot and dismiss it, is not a reasonable approach. To prove it true or false is not our task. The point is that it exists as a possible explanation, in books from respectable publishers, and on the Internet. Buchanan is a key political figure and intellectal. He is not an idiot. Is it not our task to mention the existence of this theory, give an outline of it, and list references to it so that readers may consider it for themselves? --Memestream 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This theory is widely regarded in academia as a crackpot conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, we have long had a mention of and a link to this argument at the Cultural Marxism entry. To add more than a sentence and a link would be to unbalance this entry by giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to a fringe conspiracy theory.--Cberlet 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion, Cberlet, and of course you are extremely well known publically for it, making your comment rather redundant. Wikipedia policy only excludes 'viewpoints held by an extremely small minority'. That is not the case here. A Google search for "political correctness"+"cultural marxism" gives 14000 pages, and while many may be repetitions there are more serious well written articles than I can ever read. WP:NPOV says, 'When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance'. I'm sure you don't regard many of the sources concerned here as reputable, but I do, and many others do. Can you quote Wikipedia policy on how to determine if a source is 'crackpot'. Are you calling Patrick Buchanan 'crackpot'? His book is published by a mainstream publisher, and carries the banner "The New York Times Bestseller". This makes it quite a reputable source under WP:verifiability. The latter says its best if others have commented. The Washington times review says, "a timely,provocative study that asks the question that quietly troubles millions". The Baltimore Sun, says, "Well Reasoned and well researched". These are pretty mainstream sources and they are a long way from calling it 'crackpot'. What gives you the special ability to cast such damning judgement here without proof? I say that the article as it stands is a long way from meeting the requirement for a balanced view of competing theories. --Memestream 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We already mention the claims, and link to a longer discussion at Cultural Marxism. We already include both academic and popular views on this page. Most of the page has text critical of "Political Correctness." The page is relatively NPOV at this point. It can always be improved, but plopping a pile of far-right views into the page will unbalance it. A contentious entry here at Wikipedia is not governed by Internet search hits or bestseller lists. There are thousands of Internet pages that claim Black people are inferior and Jews own all the banks. We do not favor those claims on the Wikipedia pages on Jews and Black people. --Cberlet 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I note that the fourth hit on the Google search I just did is "Reframing the Enemy: 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right."--Cberlet 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That article also says, "Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream." The inclusion of the words 'bizarre' and 'anti-semitic' does not alter the fact that the theory is said to be 'catching on mainstream'. That's the important point for our purposes. If it's catching on mainstream it's not just the view of a very small minority is it? Therefore, it warrants balanced treatment. Unlike you, I do not regard this page as remotely balanced and NPOV yet. --Memestream 13:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Cultural Marxism is another page that has been in dispute for a over a year and has been heavily edited by you. Linking to it therefore solves nothing. --Memestream 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reference in Cultural Marxism saying it is a conspiracy is from the SPLC, which is hardly a source for high-brow academics. There are more than 300 hits in Google Scholar for the term [8], so one does not even have to look "far right views" in order to make a good article about this topic. Intangible2.0 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is alleging that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy are they? I don't think I have even used the term conspiracy. There may be a present day conspiracy that has its origins in cultural marxism, but that's quite a different matter, as I thought I had explained clearly. Crackpot conspiracy and 'far right' are tags being used by Cberlet, which I think have no relevance at all here. I am not trying to add 'far right views' I'm trying to give a fair assessment of what various people have written about PC, in particular Pat Buchannan and Peter Hitchins. Cultural Marxism, according to them, and as I explained above, is part of the chain of events that can be linked to PC. While it is often wrongly portrayed as being 'critical' in the sense of 'analysing' or 'reviewing', one only has to look at what its founders wrote (such as the quotes I gave above) to see that it was movement aimed at changing society, by undermining old values (Lukac's words not mine!) That was certainly not an innocent and proper aim for a purely acedemic group. Whether those people managed to achieve what they set out to do, ie undermine the existing values, and whether that has anything to do with PC today is a subject for much wider study, and I have indicated some of the further links in the chain that such study brings up. You really should read the books and understand what is claimed before jumping to simple conclusions and allowing meaningless words like 'right wing' and 'conspiracy' to cloud the issue. --Memestream 11:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We already mention the concept of Cultural Marxism. It is marginal. It already has the space it deserves.--Cberlet 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Lead

Please do not make changes to the lead paragraphs without seeking consensus.--Cberlet 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this apply to everybody, or only to some? 83.67.217.254 05:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixing grammar, improving clarity of what already is there, and other housekeeping does not require prior discussion. Making claims and adding or deleting text in a way that does not conform with the entry text generally requires a consensus discussion on controversial pages. Here is what is posted at the top of this page:
  • This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

It applies to everyone.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cberlet, do we really need to have all that repetition in the definition? Are you the manager of this page? Who do I ask?

Well, no, and if you can figure out a way to rewrite it so there is less repitition, try it here on the discussion page and we all can discuss it. There are no page managers. We write text collaboratively based on a majoritarian consensus model bound by certain guidelines.--Cberlet 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you do not have to obtain consensus before editing; you may be be bold. However, you will probably get reverted by the ochlocracy guardians of this article. You might want to seek the advice of disinterested parties here. 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That unsigned comment was very unhelpful and disruptive. This page carries a banner that specifically states: "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." How hard is that to understand? If you object to the standards and guidelines of what you refer to obliquely as ochlocracy aka "Mob Rule," here on Wikipedia what is the constructive purpose of your addition to this discussion page?--Cberlet 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It is constructive in the sense that it may be useful advice from a disinterested wikipedian for a user who is being (incorrectly) told that a notice on a talk page trumps official wikipedia policy. In general, if edits are disputed, it is often better to take rational and disinterested advice regarding adopt-a-user than advice from others actively editing or protecting the article. 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability and the other elements of the page banner are official Wikipedia policy. If you are so concerned, why not stay and help edit this page?--Cberlet 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not concerned with the article, but with the information that a contributor is getting. It would be better for the project if other perspectives were encouraged to work within the wikipedia framework. 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The article already includes multiple perspectives, primarily critical of PC. What are you trying to accomplish? What is your point? How is this constructive?--Cberlet 02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I find "Mob rule" very fitting actually. As observed by other users, I agree that there are two (rather novice) users in particular who seem to be owning this article and scare or bore other editors away with serial reverts. This can't be good for the project. 83.67.217.254 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that. I have found that I can make no significant impression on the article despite a huge amount of work backed by excellent citations. Why do you think this page has been disputed for so long Cberlet? Does it not occur to you that it might be because, actually, it is not NPOV, no matter how much you insist that it is? The article does not include multiple perspectives, it pretends to include them, in a manner distorted by the fundamental POV of the page. --Memestream 12:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Could we please drop the complaining and personal attacks and focus on editing text. There have been a number of changes to the entry in recent weeks by Wiki editors who seem able to write clear, accurate, and NPOV text. Text here needs cites to back them up, either new ones or ones already cited that support the lead language. There are a number of conservatives who have criticized PC who could be quoted. Buchanan is already quoted. What text is being contested?--Cberlet 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited addition

"In certain cases, political correctness attempts to use the threat of public shame as a means of controlling people. For example: "If you don't attend our protest rally against apartheid, it means that you support white supremacy." In this case, the speaker is forcing the listener to choose sides in the political arena, even though the listener may be nonpolitical, have personal matters to attend to on the day of the protest, etc."

This was moved to talk page because it did not provide a citation and appears to be original research. Spa toss 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote lead sentences

I was encouraged to contribute, so I have made a stab or two. Feel free to revert if my contributions were not an improvment to the article. Spa toss 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All that you did was convert the lead from a nuanced NPOV into text that only reflects POV from a narrow right-wing perspective (and not even all the right-wing perspectives on the page). Please try to understand that while many people might accept that lead as written, the nuances and complexities that you deleted reflect the range of ideas in the text on the rest of the page. The lead needs to be a fair, accurate and NPOV summary of what the reader will find in the entry text. That is Wiki policy.
I also moved an improperly placed cite lower into the text.--Cberlet 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was from a narrow right-wing perspective. Thanks for letting me know. A summary would be fine, but it looked like it was trying to explain every nuanced meaning of the word in the first sentence or two, to the point that it sounded weaselly. Spa toss 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the lead is trying to encompass the range of theories and claims in the rest of the article. That is the point. It is not a least common denominator synthesis. It is a fair, accurate, and NPOV summary of what follows in the entry.--Cberlet 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we please give it some time before reverting? This is getting a bit hysterical. Some people seem to think that as soon as they see a contribution, and they judge it unworthy, it's their precise duty to revert it and perhaps add a note in the discussion. Well, guess what, there are other editors who would like to see the contribution without having to dig in the history and voice their opinion about it.
I actually like Spa toss's version better than the current version, and I don't think it's right-wing at all. What I don't like in the current intro is:
  1. "Or said to be intended": by whom? This is unnecessary clutter that hampers readability and only adds ambiguity. I also removed it once, but it was reverted as POV (together with another good change that was later accepted by the Holy Custodians). Interesting how the comment suggests that editors have to have quotes to support deletions, whereas it is in fact the opposite.
  2. "A broader critical usage suggests": This does not make much sense to me - do we really mean that the usage of the term suggests something?
  3. "language or ideas seen as unconstrained": again, why do we need "seen as" when we can simply say "language or ideas [that are] unconstrained"
  4. Also, I do not like the asymmetry between PC and PI. As the intro suggests, PC has two current meanings, one neutral (or left-wing if you like), one critical (or right-wing if you like). Shouldn't the definition of PI reflect the same dualism?
83.67.217.254 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not there are a significant number of people who promte "political correctness." There is little evidence that there is any such thing as a "political correctness" movement. There are movements for promoting diversity, equality, and sensitivity in language, as the entry explains. Most people "said to be" prmoting "political correctness" do not agree, reject the term, and consider it a right-wing smear. Thus the first part of the definition is being contested. So "Or said to be intended" refers to the critcs of so-called "political correctness" claiming they know the intent of the people they are criticising as "political correct." The original right-wing usage was concocted in the late 1980s, and soon broadened into a criticism of orthodoxy of any sort. This is an important distinction.
The problem on this page is when editors from either the pro or con side of the use of the term come here and rewrite the lead to reflect their narrow POV as the "truth." Feel free to improve the lead, as several editors have done in the past few weeks. I ti s better now than it was a few weeks ago. But please do not remove all the nuance and complexity from the lead and convert it into a POV assertion that reflects only a narrow view.--Cberlet 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Points 3 and 4 have been addressed. I will ponder on the other two. 83.67.217.254 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"please do not remove all the nuance and complexity from the lead and convert it into a POV assertion that reflects only a narrow view" This is the problem. You're trying to jam an article's worth of nuance and complexity into the lead sentence, and its readability is suffering. If you try to say everything, you might end up saying nothing. Leave the nuance and complexity for later in the article. (You might mention that nuance and complexity exist, but why attempt to explain it in the first two sentences)? Spa toss 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, let us focus on readability and accuracy. I just modified and added a reference back in. Consider introducing the article instead of condensing it into the first two sentences. Spa toss 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Spa toss. Also, wouldn't a neutral reference to a dictionary be better suited to the introduction than the current citation of an extremely opinionated author? 83.67.217.254 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I took out the first occurance of this reference just now. On google books, which has a preview, the book is not about PC, but about framing scientific fads with a Politically incorrect viewpoint.[9] Consequently, I don't think it is a good source for this article. This is an article on Political correctness, not on science. That PC was used to frame a book about science is interesting, but to introduce this book in this article, without out some other party doing so, is original research in my view. Spa toss 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference indicates original research

[2]See, for example, the work of Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger.

Verifying the sentence with the above refernece requires specialized knowledge and skills. Also indicates original research. Moved reference from article to this talk page for disucssion. Spa toss 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, let's get rid of that rubbish once and for all. 83.67.217.254 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Spa toss, I notice you modified the Aufderheide reference. Please note that the same reference is being used pretty much everywhere in this article, so you may want to propagate the changes. Even better, I understand that there is a way to factor repeating references out, so there are no more maintenance problems. Does anybody happen to know how that's done? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the Perry/Aufderheide references. The format probably could be better, but I think this is what you were requesting. 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks. 83.67.217.254 06:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary definition of Politically correct

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Short of another dictionary offering a different meaning of the word, emphasis should be placed on this meaning, with detracting and alternative viewpoints presented and identified per due weight. Spa toss 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have to go considerably beyond a dictionary definition in our article. The lead should summarize what the article is about. Sunray 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but the article should be about the subject, and it should not identify fringe left-wing apologetics as NPOV. Spa toss 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been arguing pretty much the same since many pages ago. I have offered many times the following reliable, authoritative, verifiable and neutral sources and they have been routinely discounted: [10][11][12][13]. 83.67.217.254 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary definition is relevent, but the other user has a point about this not being a dictionary. Even so, I think relying on apologetics to set the tone of the article is also problematic. Spa toss 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree that this is not a dictionary, but it looks that, on this subject, dictionaries and the PhraseFinder reference I put forward are much needed balanced sources that can be used to, as you say, "set the tone" in the introduction of the article. I never said that we should limit the article to a dictionary definition. 83.67.217.254 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we agree. I think I will wait for others outside the choir to offer their viewpoints. Spa toss 22:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The article says this:

The term "political correctness" is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the "party line", [8]and was used in communist countries in this way:
Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation...

The problem is that the quote used here describes Stalin, and understood in that way the usage being claimed makes no sense (he used violence instead of proving his adherence to... his own party line?) It is clear from context that "political correctness" is not being used here as a meaningful idiom in its own right -- Khrushchev's speech could be more accurately translated as "instead of proving that his politics were correct, yadda yadda." In other words, the quote cited does not support the assertion being made. --Aquillion 05:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not expressed perfectly but not far off the mark. Krushchev is making an ex post revision of the correct line, so that Stalin's policies were retrospectively judged as incorrect. There was an implicit assumption that the party line would always be correct, except when it was distorted by deviationists, many of whom Stalin liquidated and among whom he was posthumously classed in the secret speech. JQ 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on political correctness is politically incorrect ?

Its cute in a way, and reflects the difficulty in saying a truth without offending...someone, sometime, someplace.

For example, "The Jews killed Christ' is one of those statments that is politically incorrect, but whose truth lies in that it is a half-truth as well.

Some Jews, together with the Roman authority were responsible for his crucifixtion, however, when you realize that Christ was Jew himself, then it only makes more sense. It is normally people of the country that execute their own ?

To suggest that because one person, or several of one types were responsible does not give one the authority to blame an entire group, that is false logic, black and white thinking that mankind often gets into trouble with.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, original research exposing political correctness in North America, has been often rejected by those who find the info politcally incorrect; so then what do you do, if no one will publish it ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, there is 'bad' in all things, through corruption, the Church, a political ideology that gets corrupted, even the angels...

So perhaps every listing in this encyclopedia, could and should outline the 'bad' side to it.

Water - basic to human existance

Bad side - in excess can cause death, flooding and destruction.

To those who are black and white about the topic, polarized about it, they may see one side or the other.

The only thing that was, (is ? - no, nothing in a perfect state does not exist today), or was perfect would be the conceptnothing, and that might be God.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need more cites and attempted crisper and more accurate lead

Back from fishing trip. Take a deep breath before reverting the lead. Let's talk. It is clear that the term is being used today to describe "orthodoxy" in general. The "Party Line" orthodoxy in communism (democratic centralism) was not limited to Stalinism, but was used across Leninist groups. There is no doubt that the political left in the 1960s picked up the term from Marxist-Leninist usage. As someone active in the U.S. left in the 60s and 70s, I recall this process of converting the term from serious to sarcastic usage. I will find a precise cite for this after the holiday. The phrase "seen as" is not superfluous. It opens up the controversy without distorting the usage. Try letting it just sit there for a few days. Many serious conservative writers could have their thoughts cited in this entry, rather than popular right-wing pundits. There is too much fringe POV from the political right, and not enough scholarship.

Finally, If you are in the U.S., enjoy the holiday weekend.--Cberlet 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, although we need a firmer source than your personal experience, I'm sure one can be found. However, the last time I read this article in detail it seemed to say that the New Left were a bunch of Stalinist infiltrators who invented Political Correctness as part of their nefarious culture-war against America, baseball and apple pie. It sounds like the truth is, the New Left picked up the term "political correctness" as a sarcastic mockery of sectarian Trotskyite attitudes, and then it migrated into a conservative slam against the Left generally. We need to make that clearer, although I think the article looks better than last I saw it. Eleland 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "anti-religious viewpoints"

Other than one author, is there another cite that claims PC is generally "anti-religious?" --Cberlet 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...and apart from two feminists (I still have to see one quotation anyway), is there another cite that claims that PC "is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense"? Because the current wording suggests that this is an undisputed, objective fact, supported by unbiased references. As discussed, this is in sharp contrast with what other more authoritative and more politically neutral sources assert. 83.67.217.254 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the following section should be removed (feeling more strongly about the first part, as already abundantly discussed, but I agree that the second part needs stronger support or downsizing)

The term "political correctness" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.[1][2] Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern that public discourse, academia, and the sciences have been dominated by liberal, anti-religious viewpoints.[3]

We already state (with appropriate references) that

Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender."

which I think illustrates the issue clearly, concisely and most importantly objectively. If necessary, we can move the references for the first block in this second block (one is already). 83.67.217.254 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for pejorative nature of term

Here's another source [14], and a few more [15], [16],[17] Not all meet Wikipedia guidelines, but the references already given do so. And of course, we have innumerable examples of the actual pejorative use, balanced by a single recent positive use (a Ukrainain teacher of English as a second language, IIRC).JQ 11:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked for politically neutral (and yes, authoritative) sources. I have offered a number of such references supporting that common usage is not pejorative or disapproving. The problem here is that both political extremes, for different reasons, are keen to push the view that PC is used in a pejorative sense, whereas the evidence I offered points to a non-pejorative usage outside of those circles. 83.67.217.254 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources meet Wiki guidelines. The consensus here is that your demands have been met. I have removed the tag. Please stop this tendentiousness. The matter has been discussed thoroughly. --Cberlet 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked the dates of the cites I can find, and it is clear to me that the term was first used within the New Left in a non-sarcastic way, given the influence of the Old Left CP on Left ideological matters up intil the 1960s. With the rise of New Left Leninist and Maoist cadre organzations, the term began to be used in a sarcastic way to refer to any similar orthodoxy of belief. I have added a cite for the latter, and we already have a cite for the former.--Cberlet 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

It is clear that Stalin was a totalitarian, and I do not dispute the content of the original text:

  • In Soviet Union, political correctness was adherence to the official policy of the Communist Party. All publications were subjected to pervasive censorship. People found to utter politically incorrect ideas were persecuted, and under some leaders, most notably Joseph Stalin, it was commonplace to disappear them.

But I did ask the poster to provide a cite. To move the uncited text up higher into the article, and insert POV comments, also uncited, is not useful. Even if the original text is cited, however, what ties it to this entry? It still needs a cite to someone making the link to "political correctness." That should not be too hard to find, but it needs to be found.--Cberlet 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My idea in making the change was to link to the subsequent quote, in which Krushchev deemed Stalin not to have been politically correct. But I was in two minds about whether it worked.JQ 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted above:

Сolleagues!
The quotation with reference 8 is not correct.
Source: Вместо доказательств своей политической правоты...
Translation: Instead of proving his political correctness...
Правота – is rightfulness, rectitude but isn't correctness.
Доказать свою правоту - to prove one's case.--VolodymyrF 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss if the translation issue changes the meaning enough to warrant a revision.--Cberlet 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said above, in an earlier exchange. The quotation in question has no relevance to political correctness beyond an old mistranslation; what it says instead is that, paraphrased, Stalin jailed and killed people who disagreed with him instead of arguing his case to them. --Aquillion 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping someone else with a knowledge of Russian would jump into the discussion, but you have every right to make the change, my Russian was too rusty to be of help, Gospodin Aquillion.--Cberlet 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct line

This term was much more common than "politically correct" on the left, and shows a mixture of approving uses [18] "Divorced from the determination to fight for a correct line in the Fourth International, Germain's theoretical defense of the necessity of Trotskyism meant very little" and critical/satirical uses [19] I remember that the local branch of ISO had a punk band of that name in the 1970s. I'm not sure how to work all this into the article,though.JQ 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PCU (film)?

Possibly, under "Satirical use", a reference to the movie PCU would be appropriate? 207.31.229.4 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political correctness and the death of reason

I would like to add some thoughts about the political correctness trend which seems to become the cornerstone tool in the modern western dymagogy. Political correctness started on the healthy basis that words, expressions, and behaviours that may be insulting for particular social, ethnical, religious etc. groups must be contained and a new frame of ethics must be impossed so that everyone should enjoy an equal and fair treatment by the entiry social spectrum . The idea was great. Everybody started to built policies based on this idea, new words have been introduced in our vocabulary, and political correctness has eventually become the flag idea of modern politics as the tool to attract support from the entire scope of this multinational, multiracial society. But as all ideas, political correctness was perfect in theory, was easily and successfully applicable in the very early stages of its existence, and now has started to reveal its limitations and its weaknesses in the moment where it relatively reaches its own maturity like all political system do. Today the news have reported that in Belgium a 19 years old will be trialed for the murder of a woman and her infant child, and should he is found guilty and should his motives where sourced by racial hatry he will condemned to a further 5 years inprisonment on top of the regular penalty for murder!!! Outrageous!!! Since when there is a higher motive than first degree murder? Is this law means that should this man have committed this crime for any other reason than racial hatry then it is a less severe motive and will bear 5 years less? Why racial hatry shouldn t be simply one more of the motives that are trialed as first degree murder? And why those extra five years are not extended to include all first degree motives but are particularly attributed to this motive? What it seems to be is that the murder of this poor woman and her child, a crime that in many countries is punishable by the death sentence, is one of the first signs of the inevitable limitations of the political correctness concept. It seems that governments are nowdays mostly concerned for their PR relations with the new social groups and being eager to demonstrate how politically correct they are they have completely forgotten the concept of Human and human freedom. The most basic human right is that all people are equal irrespectively of colour, origin or religion and yet the Belgium Government created a discrimination in the way that criminals should be treated. All first degree murderers are simply first degree murderers. And in all cases of first degree murder, like the one of this poor woman and her child, the most severe sentence must be imposed with those 5 years to be included for all short of first degree motives not only for racial hatry. But modern politics seems only to care to demonstrate how devoted they are to the political correctness concept and the rest of the aspects are simply trivial. Are we living in the Age of Reason praising as the highest value the human freedom, or sould we simply place a gravestone on this ultimum idea and create space for the brand new political correct dymagogy? Italiotis 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that the purpose of the discussion page is to discuss improvements in the article, not a forum for general discussion of the topic.JQ 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need better cite

I cut this:

  • "Many of these stories originated in The Sun newspaper in the 1980s, and became widely believed. In fact, teachers are allowed to use the nursrey ryhme and to refer to the chalk board as a black board. [20]"

The cite does not support the text. Anyone have a better one?--Cberlet 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I tracked this down [21], suggesting that the text you cut was wrong in every detail (the Express not the Sun, 2006 not the 1980s, and the stuff about the chalk board is, I think, rhetorical hyperbole added in as the story circulated on the Internuts) but not that far off in spirit. Perhaps someone with a little more spare time could locate the actual Express story.JQ 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now tracked down a properly sourced account of the story which turns out to be a fairly typical urban myth, showing more about the gullibility of those making complaints about PC than anything else. See my recent edit JQ 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this source (scroll down to comment by Olly) does trace the story back to the Sun in the mid-80s [22].JQ 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this has been good research and good writing. Good addition.--Cberlet 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence ungrammatical

"Political correctness (PC or politically correct) is a term" is not standard English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.28.118 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but my repeated attempts to provide a correct alternative were to no avail. Look near the top of this page and you will see that another (anonymous)editor wrote: "This article is in grave error and very badly written. Formally, political correctness is the presence, enforcement or promotion of that which is in accordance with what has been declared acceptable by a political group, in particular in relation to Marxism." I agreed, and changed the opening sentence using those words but it was reverted, with certain editors insisting that the opening sentence must not be changed without prior consensus. If you simply register and log in you can perhaps be more effective in helping to change the consensus. --Memestream (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the removal of the external link to the Philip Atkinson essay?

Would those habitually removing the external link to this essay please explain why they are doing so? http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm The Origin and Nature of Political Correctness by Philip Atkinson

I explained in my edit summary - the essay appears to be the opinion of some random guy with a web site. There are a million and one random guys with websites, and we obviously can't include links to all of them, so why should we include this one? Maybe there's something special about this page that makes it worth including; if so, please explain why you want to include the link here, and we can debate whether it ought to go in or not (see links normally to be avoided, particularly point 12). VoluntarySlave 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Precursors of political correctness?

A letter in The Times Friday, Sep 24, 1937; pg. 13 complains about an example of "refainement" (sic) veering towards the lunatic asylum. Given the negative connotations that have become associated with "political correctness" (as the neutral/accepted components are ignored/considered part of common courtesy), would this be an earlier reference to the concept? Jackiespeel 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us more of the context, and quote the relevant text here please. What did he mean? Refrainment? --Memestream (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Times article is copyright The person was referring to a "request for a supply of human milk rather than the conventional wet-nurse or foster-nurse". Refainement - classist/reverse snobbist/received pronounciation reference to "refinement" - reference is also made to "naiceness". The reply, on 27 September, p 13, points out that the milk could be sent in bottles. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a published cite calling this an example of political correctness, it does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion in this entry.--Cberlet (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Shall we say that it is sometimes useful to note "passing resemblances" for others to pursue (which would be OR).

Can someone do an archive please? Jackiespeel (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to put our suppositions or original research into this entry.--Cberlet (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on merging a Japanese term linking from the top of the article page. The viewpoint which uses the term "political correctness" in a perjorative sense (in the sense of "affected use of language which the writer finds absurd") existed before pc was "invented" - I was noting such an example on the talk page for others to make use of - and also that further activity would be beyond the remit of Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is VERY Opinionated and Subjective

I'm not sure what the guidelines are, but this article is a mess and filled with a lot of opinions. Right-Wing PC? You got to be kidding me right? And I quote: "Firebrands like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly called it treason." This is a seriously screwed up article and it needs heavy editing, then some protection. This subject is too controversial to have left and right leaning zealots (primarily left-wing) bring in Fringe Theories. Cobrapete (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Cobrapete (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realise the passage you are quoting is itself a quote, don't you? The fact that allegations of political correctness have been directed against the political right is relevant and appropriate to include, though the article makes it clear that such allegations mostly go in the opposite direction.JQ (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Political correctness" is something very general you DOLTS. It means different things to different people, it's very infected schizophrenic already, and your'e not helping. Also wikipedia as you may know is not just about you americans right? Doesen't look like it from this article. KEEP IT GENERAL AND OPEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.80.22 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is primarily a US term, and it's appropriate that most (not all) of the examples come from the US.JQ (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article would be greatly helped by including information on why people believe racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc., language shapes thoughts and attitudes, reinforces negative stereotypes, leads to discrimination, etc. (i.e., why being "politically correct" is desirable). This is a very widely-held view among academics, and it seems to me that it should form the bulk of the article. Fireplace (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What are your cites for this claim?--Cberlet (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Running a google scholar search for "racist language" or "sexist language" are a good starting point. I'm not advocating we insert any specific sentences -- my point is that someone (hopefully with more expertise in this area than I) should spend a few hours adding a lot of substantive content to this article. Fireplace (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Heart of the Problem

It looks to me like this article is yet another sad case where experts have been driven off by laymen who think they know what they are talking about. Of course, since it's the academic left that's the target of the smear here, anyone who is an expert is also going to be subject to claims of POV. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

The problem is that "PC" is one of those concepts, like meme, that originated in academic parlance but was later picked up and improperly used by people who didn't understand the connotations. This leads us to point where now the majority of the people using the phrase have no idea what it means and no idea that with each repetition they are supporting a movement which seeks to dismantle gains made by feminism and the civil rights movement in recent decades. In the world of political philosophy it's not really even considered controversial that the phrase is a smear directed at a caricature of Marcuse-inspired 1970s radicalism by the Straussian right. It's hard to find cites for this because it's so non-controversial that nobody really feels the need to write about it. It ties into issues that are taken for granted inside academe but are virtually unknown on the outside. It's part of the same conflict that led to the Straussians abandoning the universities and forming think tanks.

Shouldn't Alan Bloom be mentioned in here somewhere? I forget if he actually uses the term or not, but a lot of the right wing frothing about PC is regurgitation of him. He'd be a better cite than the talking heads being bandied about as experts on the subject. There might be some worthwhile sources in the Lingua Franca archive.

69.17.124.2 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your first sentence. Even the opening sentence of the article is a pop-culture misconception of what political correctness is -- it isn't about "minimiz[ing] offence" to minority groups as and end in itself, it's about "achieving social and political change through changing culture and changing language." [23]. The rest of the article (except bits of the "linguistic concept" section) proceeds under that same pop-culture mistake. The article reads as if it were written by talk radio listeners. Fireplace (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Your link there seems to be via a proxy at Harvard - a direct link (although it still might require a subscription to read the article) is at [24]. VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] material deleted from the intro

Rather than deleting sourced material why not move it to a better place? futurebird (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will move it and also give a more accurate idea of the content, which is an attack on PC, not advocacy as was implied in the edit.JQ (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. futurebird (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Take a deep breath. Pause. To every editor who comes here and exclaims that the intro is stupid and the text biased. Please note that many of use, on the left and right, have seen this before. The current text is based on actual cites to reputable published sources. It is a compromise that seeks to achieve NPOV. Please do not assume that every editor that came before you is ignorant or a moron. Please assume good faith. A whole lot of editors from aross the political spectrun have tried to create a page that explains a number of competing ideas about what PC is and what is stands for. There is very little agreement. Please do not try to unilaterally rewrite the lead without discussing it here first. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As regards "what PC is", it's important to remember that no-one has used this term in a positive sense for at least thirty years. Conversely, all sorts of people have projected their own views of what they think PC is. No one interpretation can be regarded as 'right' or even 'supported by usage'. JQ (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Alas, there are a small handful of self-described progressive people who use the term "PC" in a positive sense to defend inclusive language, etc. I think they are clueless, but they exist.--Cberlet (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for discussion (which I've been doing without any kind of edit warring), but it's appropriate to say that an article is poorly written and explain why, and it's appropriate to make constructive edits that might lead to the article's improvement. JQ's point is correct -- there certainly is/was a movement toward things like gender-neutral language, eliminating institutionalized racism, etc., in the U.S., but that movement doesn't label itself the "political correctness" movement. So in a sense, it's perfectly appropriate for this article to be dominated by critical perspectives -- because only (mostly) critics use the term. On the other hand, such an article gives a very distorted impression to the reader who is starting from a blank slate -- the "PC crowd" comes across as being god-hating "womyn" who are censoring global-warming skeptics. So if the article is going to focus on the criticism of political correctness (which it currently does), there needs to be a bright red arrow pointing the reader to the original sources of the views that are being criticized (a "See Also" link hardly accomplishes that). Fireplace (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro is awkward but not too bad. The rest of the article is a trainwreck. There is a lot of content here that has sources miles away from reputable. The fact that Buchanan and Hitchens are media personalities with some name recognition doesn't make their opinions on this matter particularly noteworthy. If Britteny Spears said something on TV about about her pet gerbil it wouldn't justify including her opinion in the article on gerbils. WP:RELY states that peer reviewed accedemic sources should be used and extremist sources should not be. Fox News and Newsmax are much closer to the later category than the former. As the contemporary usage of PC arose from critiques of university culture, there should be no shortage of peer reviewed accedemic sources. Shouldn't the content with non-authoritative sourcing be weeded out? Using non-authoritative sources to ensure a particular misconception is represented in the article is not NPOV. It's wikiality.--69.17.124.2 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I welcome an attempt to weed out the non-authoritative sources, but be prepared to defend your editing changes. There are partisans who insist that Buchanan and Lind are reputable sources. A better solution might be to add more authoritative sources, but go ahead and give it a try. The whole page could use a rewrite. --Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm the above IP user. I broke down and registered with the intention of getting my bold on over Christmas because parts of this article really bug me. I'm now thinking I should wait until the issues with sourcing in WP:NOR settle down a bit since that's going to be critical to weeding out the POV pushing that appears to have slipped in over time. In the meantime I'm going to audit the presently cited sources for context and minimal standards of reliability. I'll put the results on my talk page but not make any changes until policy is a bit more clear and people back here have had a chance to weigh in. I also might snap, flash a supermarket Santa, and never be heard from again. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead must reflect all the contested views

The lead that I just replaced only reflected one of several contested views of what "political correctness" actually was and is.

Over a year ago, editors were challenged to find evidence that sometime in the 1970s or 1980s there was an actual "political correctness" movement that "sought to counter the ways that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes were assumed to be embedded in language, ideas, policies, or social behavior." There was a diversity movement, a multicultural movement, several radical identity movements, etc., but there never was an original "political correctness" movement that "sought to counter the ways that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes were assumed to be embedded in language, ideas, policies, or social behavior."

Therefore the lead needs to be elastic enough to make it clear that based on a majority of scholarly texts, the idea that there was a "political correctness" movement is a rhetorical frame invented by conservative ideologues to challenge left-wing oppositon to "racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or culturally demeaning attitudes."

Simply because a POV idea has gained currency in the public does not mean an encyclopedia should discard complex analysis, but instead we should seek to represent a variety of views in an NPOV way.

There was no "political correctness" movement in the 1970s or 1980s. It is a POV fiction.--Cberlet 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything you say seems correct, but the current lead doesn't reflect that at all. If a majority of scholarly texts say that the PC movement was a rhetorical frame invented by conservative ideologues, the lead should say as much right off -- not merely characterize it as a few held by "some commentators" down in the third paragraph. The current opening sentences suggest the opposite -- that there is a movement whose primary concern is to minimize "offense" to minority groups. Fireplace 04:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite for NPOV and serious cites

My brain is spinning. Could we please consolidate the current discussion in one place? So, Vlvtelvis and Fireplace, you have both noticed serious flaws in the current article. Bon Voyage! The page needs a rewrite. But keep in mind that there are numerous right-wing, libertarian, or idiosyncratic left-wing editors who have very strong views about what constitutes NPOV on this page. The term "political correctness" has entered the popular lexicon. There are scholars who take totally different perspectives. Tread cautiously, please. Get solid cites. Try to work together. :-) --Cberlet (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Following up the As a Linguistic Concept discussion: I've added citations to two seminal articles regarding the demonstrable influence of lexical choices on perceptions, memories, and preferences of speakers and hearers. I also cleaned up the unsupported assertion that it is in fact the strong form of the S-W hypothesis that underwrites the worry that sexist language promotes sexist thought.Leftwinglock (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Having done more reading of the cited sources for this section, I've substantially rewritten the claims about Edna Andrews's article. In fact Andrews did not say that the use of PC terms depends on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and her article was not critical of the fundamental idea. To be honest I don't see why that article is being used as a reference in this context, since the connection between language and thought is only a sidebar in the article (and not a terribly well developed one at that). The main focus of the paper is on the social category of taboos, as seen through C.S. Pierce's theory of semiotics and signification. But at least it's a fairly relevant academic reference, so rather than delete all reference to it, I've made the claims correct and augmented them with more references to linguistic effects on cognition and decisions. Leftwinglock (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to Psychodynamics of Political Correctness[25]. This is the text of a paper published in a respected journal by a professor which I believe largely supports the view of other authors that PC undermines society, and in particular that it does so by 'feminising' men and destroying the natural balance of male and female modes of relating. Before I add material citing this article, can we agree that this is a reputable, reliable source? Professor Shwartz is a specialist in the Psychodynamics of Organisations, with a degree in philosophy and a PhD in organsisational behaviour.[26] --Memestream (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with citing this source as an example of criticism of PC. But I've moved it to "Further reading:against". JQ (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with splitting everything into 'for' and 'against'. Before you can be against something you have to know what it is. This page should be fair in describing what PC is, or how it manifests, and the paper I quoted is an analysis of how PC operates in Universities. Many topics, like politeness, or sycophancy, have people for and against them, but we concentrate on describing the nature of the thing above all. --Memestream (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, one of the best article son controversial issues I have seen in wikipedia Johncmullen1960 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dalrymple (Daniels) quotation

The following has been removed from the article twice:

On the other hand, [[Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist)|Theodore Dalrymple]] claimed that "political correctness" is simply a form of rhetoric, just as with [[communist propaganda]], used by liberals to shame opponents into submission to leftist ideals. He states:

:"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D2C70DCE-BF86-4761-9788-03AB7FAB2608} "Our Culture, What’s Left Of It"], ''Front Page Magazine'', August 31, 2005 -- Accessed January 22, 2008.</ref>

The first time, it was justifiably removed--it was improperly sourced from a secondary source (which was a blog). However, the second time, it was removed for what appears to be a dubious reason--that the online publication interviewing Dr. Daniels (pseudonym Dalrymple) is not WP noteworthy. I fail to see why the source of publication needs to meet WP guidelines of noteworthiness when Dr. Daniels, the source of the information, does. Daniels has been published in several noteworthy publications (e.g., The Spectator), and has published several book-length works (mostly through independent independent publishing houses; some of them noteworthy, such as Overlook); in fact, the interview quoted above is in regard to one of his book-length works, Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses. To disallow the quotation from the article on the basis that the source is not WP noteworthy is tantamount to rejecting a quote from some other WP noteworthy person simply because it appears in a less than noteworthy source (say an interview with Al Franken in some little-known zine). As I understand the policy, the source need not be noteworthy in such a case, merely the person being interviewed.

I'd like to know what the other editors think about this. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is me, sorry, wasn't logged in. » MonkeeSage « 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote certainly didn't belong where it was, and doesn't seem to add anything to what was already in the section under criticism. I guess it might be useful to have a link to a list of people who've criticised PC (very long - in fact you could find dozens in TownHall alone) along with a list of people who've explicitly advocated PC (very short to non-existent), but I don't see why Dalrymple (a British writer) deserves a place in the body of an article about a rhetorical ploy that originated in the US. JQ (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The POV represented (properly, by cited sources) in the current section is that PC is an idea invented by the right to smear the left; Daniels presents a counter-point: PC is a leftist rhetorical ploy. This seems perfectly relevant to the section to me. » MonkeeSage « 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ps. Mr. Berlet, given your previous criticism of FrontPage, it occurs to me; perhaps I've read your edit comments incorrectly, perhaps you have some other reason than WP notability in mind (WP credibility?). I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the properly-sourced citation of Dr. Daniels should be excluded from the article. Thank you. » MonkeeSage « 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are thousands of right-wing propaganda essays condemning political correctness, and this one is from Front Page, a notorioulsy fanatic and shrill website. See WP:RS Try a cite from any of the dozens of conservatve or right-wing writers who have published criticisms of their view of PC in numerous reputable scholarly journals, books, magazines, and newspapers. I agree with JQ that "it might be useful to have a link to a list of people who've criticised PC." But to counter scholarly sources with FrontPage is like comparing fresh filet mignon to rancid hamburger.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concern about Front Page according the reliability policy, since it may be considered an "extremist source"--however, since I'm not aware of Dr. Daniels being classified that way, this seems like the same basic issue I mentioned above regarding WP:N. Since the citation is from Dr. Daniels (the source of the quote is incidental), I think it meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:RS. Again, just as with a quote from some other WP noteworthy / credible person appearing in a less than noteworthy / credible source; I think it is the person, not the source, which must be held up to scrutiny. Am I mistaken? » MonkeeSage « 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The general point here is that there is no need to cite Daniels in FrontPage when we have a string of more noteworthy people saying the same thing in more reputable journals. There's already too much UK content, given that no-one in the UK left ever used the term "politically correct" either positively or sarcastically before the term was imported from US by rightwing critics.JQ (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Then it seems the point comes down to undue weight (WP:DUE)? If that's the case, I see no problem with noting that Daniels is a lesser-known source than the sources given for the opposing view; but I fail to see why total elimination of Daniels is called for. Granted that other sources presenting the same view as Daniels are noted elsewhere; but they are presented in such a way as to lose the logical connection with the section in question, imo. Relegating the opposing view to endnotes and external references, is, I believe, to implicitly denigrate those views as unimportant to the context of the discussion. Kind of like, "here's what you should believe, but if you'd like, you can also check out these loonies over here." The Daniels quote is relevant to the section and meets WP policy and guidelines, as far as I can tell, and so I see no reason to exclude or displace it. » MonkeeSage « 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that last comment. There has been huge condemnation of PC as an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world, and yet whenever well cited material from this point of view has been added to the article it has been moved out of prominence, denied a place in the intro, and denigrated as coming from 'loony extremists' or 'right-wing propogandists'. By a circular process, the authors who identify PC as Marxist/communist, however respectable and notable, are labelled 'extremist' or 'propagandist' simply because they write such 'un-PC' stuff (how else do you define 'extremist' or 'propagandist' except by comparison with what is considered PC?). I'd like to see more weight given to the Marxist explanation here, and more respect to the many writers who propose it with well-argued evidence. --Memestream (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The criticism section begins with a statement of the "PC as Marxist instrument" viewpoint. However, most use of the term does not rely on an analysis of this kind. To point to the most obvious reason for this, by the time the term came into widespead use in the 1990s, world communism was, no longer seen as likely to bring down the Westerm world or capable of controlling large sections of the media and so on. (Of course, there are people who still believe in a global Marxist/communist conspiracy that controls everything, but they can't expect to have their views given much prominence in Wikipedia). JQ (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Your characterization of Daniels as a conspiracy theorist betrays your bias. Daniels is not arguing that PC is part of a Marxist/communist conspiracy to take-over or convert the world, as for example, Lind may be interpreted as doing. That section has nothing to do with Daniels' POV. Daniels is talking about PC as an engineered tool to push a certain political/idealogical agenda (just as propaganda is an engineered tool); which is saying the same thing as the other sources in the section on PC as an engineered term--he merely thinks it was the left who engineered it rather than the right. Daniels' view can be summarized in a statement from Peter Suber:
The more thoughtful conservative critics do not object to the domination of leftist thinking per se; they object to rigging this domination through the stigmatization and abuse, if not formal punishment, of students and faculty who take the unpopular side of any of these controversies, vitiating the freedom of discussion.[27]
Suber and Daniels aren't necessarily of the same opinion on PC, but that characterization of conservative reservations with (perceived) leftist PC, is representative of Daniels concerns and the citation I provided from him above. » MonkeeSage « 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment was a reply to the immediately preceding comment by Memestream referring to "PC as an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world", and not an attack on Daniels. Perhaps you should read more carefully and consider WP:AGF before jumping in with accusations of bias.JQ (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, honest mistake. I had read Memestream as arguing by analogy from the treatment of those proposing the Marxist view of PC to the case I was discussing. On closer reading it appears that they were actually conflating Daniels with those other POVs, and your comment was perfectly justified. I apologize for accusing you of bias. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theories regarding the origin and nature of PC

JQ: I think your dismissal of a possible Marxist link on the grounds that PC arose after communism had collapsed is too glib and just your POV based on your OR. The USSR collapsed, but World communism has not, and the claims of Buchanan and others are based on their own research into the writings of members of the Frankfurt school, several of whom actually wrote that it was their intention to try to replace conventional war with a war against the culture of the West as a means of bringing about world communism. Writing long before the collapse of the USSR they spoke of the failure of the Russian revolution to bring about quite what was intended, and the difficulty of inciting Western countries to revolution in view of the strong cultural values of the West that derived from centuries of Christianity. Whether this theory regarding the origin of PC is correct or not, it's sources hold up, and I think it is for the reader to make up his own mind about the matter. --Memestream (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As noted, the theory that "PC is an instrument that arose from named Marxist/world communist sources with the express intention of bringing down the Western world" is mentioned in the article, and given an appropriate degree of prominence under WP:WEIGHT. JQ (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Appropriate in your judgement (and that of a small controlling group of editors), but not mine. I have said before, and will say again, since nothing has changed, that I do not consider a section heading 'criticism of PC' appropriate, and it is especially innapropriate to the Marxism explanation, simply because it is an explanation of the phenomenon, and not a 'criticism'. There are critics of the various theories, but I suggest that there can be no such thing as a criticism of PC, since PC does not have one accepted definition. I would like to create a section headed 'theories regarding the origin and nature of PC', placed after the intro, and include in it, among others, the Marxist explanations of Buchanan and others and the Psychodynamic explanation of Schwartz. --Memestream (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've created an "explanation" section, with the Sapir-Whorf linguistic idea (the most common one, I think) going first and the Marxist conspiracy explanation second, which I think is in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Too vague. Explanation of what, the term, the origin, the mode of expression, how it impacts on people? I think 'theories regarding the origin and nature of PC' is much more explicit. The section you added is also buried too far down. In Britain Political correctness is almost universally seen as a way of thought imposed on the population though the media, universities, schools, local councils, soap operas and NGO's. The media are full of complaints about such unwanted imposition and about people being fired because they failed to behave in a PC way. Nothing in this article would give the reader a clue about any of that. Our local councils tell us, among other things, not to put up Christmas trees and to use the term Winterval instead of Christmas - a source of much complaint in the media. Our London Mayor was suspended from his post on PC grounds (by the mysterious 'Board of standards in public life'. How on earth does the Sapir-Whorf idea explain that? Where is the origin? Are you suggesting that PC is a spontaneous phenomenon arising in the minds of the people? I doubt that many people in the UK have ever heard of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis. I certainly don't think they would accept that PC arose in the population as a linguistic concept when they see it imposed so forcefully by the bodies I mentioned. --Memestream (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute - Party Line Attacks and Poor Research Support

Just a few things about the article. I've been doing a lot of research lately and have been trying to find what it's supposed to mean today. I don't feel that the article here represents a neutral point of view. For example: "...the term 'political correctness' is a straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s..." Though I don't dispute that this has been stated, I do ask why it is the only information at the beginning of the articles concerning party lines? Going back to 1955 from a book called "Eros and Civilization," by Herbert Marcuse, introduces some of the beliefs that are integrated into modern political correct philosophy. Marcuse can be traced back to the Institute for Social Research where the first generation of post-Marxist philosophers gathered together, in what is known today as the Frankfurt School. After the group moved to New York they developed Critical Theory, which later became part of today's educational theory. All these ideas have close links to today's idea of early century progressivism. Which in turn links to today's left. Also in the section "In conservative rhetoric" I find right-wing attacks are present. That the "...obscure term became part of conservative social and political challenges to curriculum expansion..." No support or explanation for "curriculum expansion" is even given. This term leaves up to the imagination, where more concrete information is needed. I have the biggest problem with the section "As a Marxist conspiracy" where it's said, "Some critics, primarily on the Right, claim that political correctness is a Marxist conspiracy aimed at undermining Western values." Marcuse states in the introduction of his book "... the national Enemy [Mass democracy] who has to be fought and hated..." (please read the whole introduction for proper context) How is it a conspiracy when a famous Marxist theorist states it in his own writing? For a brief overview see this video. Don't think I'm going to use this as a source for my argument, but it does give another perspective on the subject. Until a more comprehensive overview can be done I move this article is in dispute of NPOV. As I type up my research in WP format, I'll post it. Infonation101 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of strawmen--you posit with no evidence whatsoever that Marcuse is somehow responsible for political correctness, and then on the basis of that entirely unproven assumption, claim the right-wing conspiratorial claims about Marcuse are true based on a random quote from Marcuse. You might want to go back and check your calculations :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
To follow up, what is needed here is some indication that the phrase "political correctness" was used by Marcuse or someone else in the Frankfurt School to sum up their program. Otherwise all we have is a theoretical link between the two drawn, well after Marcuse's death in 1979, by Buchanan and others. This is a theory that needs to be covered in the article, but obviously its not the dominant view.JQ (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I support what you say Infonation101, but the others are right in pointing out that you give no evidence of a link to PC. Such evidence is indeed hard to find, but I believe I can provide it. Firstly, it is significant that another Marxist, and member of the Frankfurt school Antonio Gramsci is said to have famously 'counselled his side to begin a "long march through the institutions," by which he meant the capture of the cinema, theater, schools, universities, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and courts, adding "It is past time to begin a long march in a new and better direction".' [28]. Note that the citation I give here is to an article by a university professor of history. See also The Long March[29], and Understanding the Culture war[30] by Steven Yates, who has a PhD in Philosophy and specifically mentions PC. I too am researching this matter, and would point out that the "long march through the institutions" is also a phrase attributed to Rudi Dutschke, a prominent 1960's activist, but I suspect he was repeating Gramsci. I think there is enough evidence for the article to be completely re-written in a form that allows proper weight to be given to the Marxist origins of PC without the nonsense of 'Right wing commentators' and 'straw men'. It's important that everything be properly supported by references and citations, but Buchanan is not the only source for this theory by any means. --Memestream (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also evidence of the link from the Frankfurt school to the PC movement to be found in the writings of Kurt Lewin who took the message from the Frankfurt school and spread it far and wide in the form of Sensitivity training, setting up the NTL National Training Labs specifically to combat racist attitudes. Kurt Lewin also took his message to the Tavistock clinic in London. Since then, both the NTL and the Tavistock can be shown to have formed links with hundreds of institutions worldwide with a role in influencing public thought. Finally, Carl Rogers was a very influential figure, a psychologist with political motives and Marxist ideas. He is linked to Humanist Psychology and Fritz Perls and the establishement of a centre at Essalon that played a big part in the 1960's cultural revolution. --Memestream (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:OR. If you want to draw a link between "the long march through the institutions" and "political correctness", you need to find a WP:RS for this (blog posts, even by people with PhDs are not of much help here). And if you want to change the statement that this link is mainly drawn by right wing commentators, quoting the Virginia Institute or the site of Lew Rockwell is unlikely to help. JQ (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My first reference was to an article on "Virginia Viewpoint" at the site of the Virginia Institute, where I read that "The Virginia Institute for Public Policy is an independent, nonpartisan, education and research organization committed to the goals of individual opportunity and economic growth." In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and given that the writer is a PhD in history, this would seem to me to qualify as a 'scholarly source'. Furthermore I do not rely on the opinion of the writer, but only the fact that he provides a secondary source for me, referring to Gramsci, thus avoiding OR on my part. I see no claim that the Virginia Institute is 'right wing', a phrase which I reject as vague and meaningless, rather it claims to be 'non-partisan'. If you want to describe the institute as 'conservative' then are we to reject all sources that are conservative? I see no policy that requires this. Perhaps you consider it to be 'widely acknowledged as extremist'? If so, can you demonstrate that to be true? --Memestream (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no reference in the Wikipedia article on Lew Rockwell to him being 'right wing'. The article which happens to be on his site is by an author who has been published, not self-published. I refer to the online article here for the convenience of access by other editors, but would refer to the published book in a citation. Can you provide valid grounds for objection? --Memestream (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to point to another Wikipedia entry as a source for proving or disproving a claim. It is easy to establish that Lew Rockwell is a very right-wing libertarian. "Non-partisan" generally mean not linked to a political party. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary" is the classic opening line for a common fallacy of logic. Central to this page is the notion that there is a dispute between conservatives and progressives over the very concept of PC, with liberals split over the matter. The Rockwell material, along with similar right-wing conspiraciy theories about PC by Lind and Buchanan, need to be mentioned here, but in context.--Cberlet (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's OK to refer to other Wikipedia entries in the course of discussion, though not as authoritative sources. I would suggest that Memestream might want to read the article on Paleolibertarianism to get a better handle on Rockwell's thinking. In political terms, Rockwell is a marginal figure compared to Buchanan and Lind, and an obscure academic or ex-academic publishing on his site is not really a useful source. We have the PC as Marxist conspiracy theory, and sources for it, but pretty clearly the dominant views are, on the one side, the mainstream conservative view of PC as a silly attempt to impose liberal reform through speech codes and on the other side, the liberal-left view that the whole controversy was engineered. These are mentioned first, because they are held far more widely. Other views including the Marxist theory and the very small group of liberals who actually support PC get mentioned, but in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for all the comments from both sides. I was able to dig this up[1].

More important, however, was the political objective of bringing socialism according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Participation in labor was therefore considered an effective means of developing in the students a proletarian outlook and a proper respect for labor, at the same time preventing them from becoming isolated from the masses. The concern with political correctness necessitated, among other things, a firm control over education by the communist party, whose educational cadres emphasized Redness at the expense of Expertness.

I definitely don't want to read too much into this so please tell me your thoughts. What I understand is political correctness, as we know it today, began with Communism. It was necessary to agree with government above all else (in another discussion I would argue that this also substantiates a fascist ideology). The article was written in 1963, using the term before what some believe originated by the right in 1990's. Really I see this a greater deterrent of "social change" than what is sourced at the beginning of the article. Going along with Chinese education[2]

Since ideological training is emphasized above all else, substantive content in an educational program and scarce resources are sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

The Marxist theory of soci-economical cultural rule requires "political correctness" be in place to control what is learned, strongly affecting any general ideology. Also, if there is a better way to cite sources on the discussion page, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Chang-tu Hu, International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education, Vol. 10, No. 1. (1964), pp. 12-21.
  2. ^ Susan Biele Alitto, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 13, No. 1. (Feb., 1969), pp. 43-59.
I've added in these useful references, which are consistent with the general account in the article. "Political correctness" was used in the general sense of adherence to the party line in China, then made its way into US radical rhetoric in the 60s before being satirically appropriated as described by Perry and others. In fact, the critical use of the term is already evident in the sources you cite, both of which imply that an excessive focus on political correctness is damaging. I'm also unsure about citing sources on the discussion page. Anyone have any info on this? JQ (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
JQ, thanks for taking care of that. Now I want to throw out a question for anyone reading this because I'm getting at a loss what's happening, which I'll explain. Because of what JQ says at the top of this post I've been hunting through all of Marcuse, Adorno, Habermas, etc. complete works and I cannot find them ever using the term PC in all their writings. I'm going to keep looking, but I'm getting skeptical. Taken from numerous dictionaries, here are some current definitions of PC:

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

Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology

Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

Politically speaking, doesn't this sound like more left-wing beliefs? I could source half a dozen articles about how Marxist contemporaries began the work that is now today's PC, but I can never find them using the word. To me there is a major gap, in that PC is a term created as a "straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s" and now how left-wing beliefs ask if something is or isn't politically correct. Where is the missing information? Infonation101 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think if you read the article closely, you'll get the story. To sum up:
(a) In Marxist terminology, there was considerable emphasis on having a "correct line" or "sound position" on various issues. The terms "politically correct" and "ideologically sound" were sometimes used to describe this. At this point, there was no concern with issues like gender, race and so on - you might be politically correct or otherwise on questions like the relationship between unions and the Party. The quotes you've found describe this.
(b) Within left circles from the 1970s, these terms came to be used ironically, to describe someone who was more concerned with getting the precise phrasing of statements correct than with actually achieving anything worthwhile. If you watch the film "Life of Brian" you'll get the general idea, although the phrase "politically correct" doesn't actually occur there. A minority on the left continued to use the term "politically correct" in a favorable way, but even within this group the meaning came to be focused on using the "correct" terms in relation to gender, race and so on. These concerns are actually more typical of liberals (moderate and radical) than of Marxists, whose primary focus is on class.
(c) Critics on the right picked the term up, and used it to criticise the left, with specific focus on things like campus speech codes, largely the product of liberals rather than Marxists.JQ (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
JQ, thanks for the recap. I do understand that concept of the evolution of political correctness, but I believe that there is more to it. Though I'm not going to try and pass off my own beliefs or rely on right-wing "reports" that make the same statement. Sticking with Wikipedia policy, I will find the published sources I will need to complete the article in a way I feel is more correctly inline with WP NPOV policy, but for the moment I must redact my NPOV stance. But if anyone is able to direct me to the correct sources for this, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Above is a politically correct explanation of PC

I think that the above is the politically correct explanation of political correctness, which hides its true origin. That origin, with the Frankfurt school, is easy to see, since followers of that school actually explained their intention ('the long march through the institutions') in a way that perfectly explains the imposition of PC that is seen today in the media and in universities. A Google search shows that to be the most publicised explanation, but yes, that carries little weight on Wikipedia, and it is true to say that many articles feed off each other on the Web. We are not allowed original research and so cannot trace the roots of PC here by pointing out the obvious similarity, because the term PC was adopted later to refer to that phenomenon started by the Frankfurt school, and so does not appear in their writings - we need secondary sources that claim the link. Those secondary sources exist, and they are well argued in my opinion, but they are all being labelled 'right-wing' or 'extremist' here as grounds for minimising the veracity of their claims. This use of 'tag' words is itself a technique of PC; by attaching a tag word like 'racist' or 'fascist' or 'extremist' to a speaker he is discredited and debate is stifled. I think that Buchanan, Hitchins, and others deserve better treatment here, and if they were not so crudely discredited their argument would stand above the others as making more sense in terms of the evidence and the fact that it provides a cause that predates other explanations. I anticipate continuing objections to what I say from JQ and others, but this article is in dispute and has been in dispute repeatedly, so something needs to change, does it not? I suggest that the 'tagging' as right-wing, etc has no place here, and we should show good faith to all authors, especially on this page. When I pointed out that Lew Rockwell is not described as 'right wing' in the Wikipedia article I needed no tiresome reminder that Wikipedia articles are not good sources. I sought only to point out, here on the talk page, that if editors really think a person justifies a 'tag' they might in fairness try putting that tag on the persons article. The fact that it does not appear there suggests to me that they would not get away with it in the presence of other editors defending the person, and therefore should not be allowed to 'get away with it' here. --Memestream (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I understand you believe in the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory (which claims there is a conspiracy of leftists to take over the world through the machinations of Jews and Commmunists hiding in the Frankfurt school as part of a sinister plan see here, and here). You have a First Amendment right to believe this ridiculous conspiracy theory. Here on Wiki we have an obligation to mention this silly right-wing conspiracy theory. But we are not going to elevate a marginal, fringe, and frankly crackpot right-wing theory based on a tiny handful of POV editors claiming they and only they know the "truth" about PC. Get over it.--Cberlet (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa! You know nothing of the sort. "Machinations of Jews and communists", "hiding", "conspiracy theory", "sinister plan", these are all your rantings, not mine. Perhaps you need to "get over" some obsession? I note that you are, according you your page, "on a mission", and "a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks[31]". I just try to find truth by applying reason. Lets stick to polite, reasoned responses about the topic here please. --Memestream (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<-----Whoa! Above you posted that there has been a conspiracy here on this page about PC that

  • "hides its true origin. That origin, with the Frankfurt school, is easy to see, since followers of that school actually explained their intention ('the long march through the institutions') in a way that perfectly explains the imposition of PC that is seen today in the media".

So you clearly endorse the right-wing conspiracy theory about PC. So let's stick to facts. The facts are that this page represents a reasonable NPOV attempt at sorting out a contentious topic.--Cberlet (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards Rockwell, you might want to read this piece from Cato, itself not exactly leftwing [32]. Note the Rothwell-Rockbard report advocating "rightwing populism" in alliance with (you guessed it) Buchanan. It seems far more sensible to quote Buchanan, who is a significant political figure than his fringe supporters (now somewhat estranged, but the stuff you cite is a bit old, I think). 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. The Buchanan material is in a published book, and clearly qualifies as a reputable source. I was under the inmpression, however, that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory started with the LaRouchites. Is that not correct?--Cberlet (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not refer to any 'conspiracy theory' and I object to the use of that term. If I refer to something that someone said then that is what I am referring to and nothing else. If I say that this page is NPOV (as others are saying) then that does not mean I 'support the conspiracy theory'. Trying to lump together a number of ideas held by a number of writers under the umbrella of 'conspiracy theory' is a cheap attempt to discredit them without discussion. I personally think that PC arose out of the Frankfurt school because my own research into primary sources strongly indicates that to be so, with a number of lines traceable from then to the present day, not because I am a follower of Buchannan or anyone else. Good historians trying to get to the truth use primary sources. Wikipedia does not allow OR and discourages primary sources, but that does not mean that a good editor should not strive to get truth into Wikipedia. I do not expect to be mocked and insulted for trying to find ways of doing so, especially when the page is tagged as in dispute. The way to end dispute is surely to allow more weight to those disputing the current version. That is not happening in any significant way. --Memestream (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way. I know that you have a thing about LaRouche, Chip, but believe me, here in England (where incidentally you might note that I do not have recourse to the first ammendment or any other ammendment) names like Buchannan and LaRouch are barely known and of no interest whatsoever to most people. In fact politics is increasingly dismissed as irrelevant! You say that you were 'under the impression' that the 'Frankfurt school conspiracy' (your word) started with LaRouchites. Do you have evidence of that. Can you point to a date and an author? If so it might help to sort out whether there were prior claims. --Memestream (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My research shows that the political right around 1979 took the idea of cultural hegemony proposed by Gramsci and adopted it as an organizing strategy (especially Paul Weyrich), and then in 1990 through a form of politico-psychological projection, accused the "left" of a conspiracy to enforce PC as a way to dominate society. The link to the Frankfurt School came later, when some rightists utilized the old trope of Communists and Jews as the root of subversion (a paradigm of apocalyptic countersubversion that traces back to the 1790s and the fist Illuminati hysteria).--Cberlet (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Memestream, if you check your comment on 6 Aug, you wrote "I posted the material to point out a peculiar contradiction, which is that you constantly delete material in any way connected with conspiracy theories, by labelling them crackpot without furthur explanation. I took this to mean that you think conspiracies, and specifically those discussed by Buchanan and LaRouche, do not exist. Is that right? If so, it is surely very peculiar indeed that you say on your personal Wikipedia page that you 'serve the will of the Illuminati. I think it fair to say that this is (broadly speaking and without going into claims and counterclaims of definition) the very conspiracy group that Buchannan and LeRouche talk about. Perhaps you claim that the Illuminati does exist but is not a conspiracy group - you think you are 'illuminated'? Unless that illumination is openly shared it would seem that you do 'serve the will' of a secret group." There are quite a few other comments noting your view that Buchanan and LaRouche are advancing a conspiracy theory, and that this conspiracy theory should be mentioned. I've done exactly as you asked, putting forward the Marxist conspiracy theory as one explanation of PC, without any "crackpot" label. So what is your problem? It should be clear to you by now, that this is a minority viewpoint. After all Buchanan and LaRouche are minority figures in US politics. Of the two main parties, Republicans mostly endorse the standard conservative view (nonsense pushed by liberals) and Democrats the alternative view that the whole thing is a beatup. These views come first, by WP:WEIGHT which you haven't soguht to challenge.JQ (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the "Serve the Will of the Illuminati" stuff is a joke, a parody aimed at conspiracist attacks on Wikipedia. Some of us Wiki editors have been denounced by LaRouchites and other conspiracy theorists. Many of the most fanatic conspiracists have been banned, but new ones appear constantly.--Cberlet (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
JQ: It is almost impossible to answer Cberlet without using his own term of 'conspiracy theory', so please do not use those replies against me out of context. I myself regard the term as a 'tag' of derision, which certain groups use in the sense that all conspiracy theories are clearly 'crackpot' (another favourite tag) to stifle debate. I therefore prefer not to use the word 'conspiracy' which in any case, as strictly defined, means combining forces to do evil, and in secret, and not just working together. Many people come together to bring about a commonly desired aim, but we do not necessarily call them conspirators. The Frankfurt school wanted to change the world, but they did not actually make a secret of it. Nor, I feel, did they regard what they were doing as wrong or evil. My interest is therefore in what they said, and in particular the call by Antonio Gramsci for Marxists to take over the culture of the West from the inside. I then note that Rudi Dutschke, a disciple of Gramsci, carried that call into the sixties cultural revolution when he urged rioting German students to take up 'the long march through the institutions'. What he did, incidentally seems far more benign than what some of his friends did, through the extreme violence of the Bader Meinhof gang, showing that Marxism was a major force in the West in 1968. Dutchke did not live long, but he had a following of people who can be traced to positions in many organisations today, giving credance to the idea that Dutchke's call led to what we know as PC. The whole story is not given by Buchannan, or by any other writer, and their standing as politicians in the USA is not of the slightest interest to me. I judge a secondary source by the extent to which it makes sense and is backed up by primary sources, and I would wish to use multiple sources inasmuch as they fill in the whole picture.
My point then is that this theory explains a great deal that other theories do not seem to. It explains why so many Western institutions, like Christmas, are under attack. The idea that PC was invented by the right to attack the left does not make any sense of such things to me, and in England, especially rural England, there are many such things upsetting the people, perhaps in a way that does not occur to inhabitants of the USA where a more multicultural society has always been the norm. It also explains why PC is most virulant in Universities (especially in the USA), in terms of the many students from 1968 who went on to become professors and heads in the universities. I am not happy therefore with the undue weight which in my opinion is given to the other theories. No, I do not recognise the link to the Frankfurt school as a 'minority view', I regard it as the only one that makes sense. I base my judgement on the facts as put forward my many writers, and the primary sources that support those facts, regardless of whether those writers are 'minor political figures' which I do not think has any relevance whatsoever. I am particularly unhappy that no reference to the Marxist roots has been allowed into the introduction. I am unhappy that the 1793 reference and the China reference (both of which are totally irrelevant to the current major meaning of the term) come immediately after the intro. I am also unhappy with the section on Cultural Marxism starting with the phrase 'some critics'. Critics of what? With so many definitions already given it's impossible to deduce a meaning from this. It's a theory. A valid, well argued theory, about the origin of a phenomenon we call PC. Many people have supported this theory, and they are theorisers, not 'critics', because until you are sure what PC is you cannot refer to it's critics. I don't see Buchanan 'criticising' anything. I see him telling it how he thinks it is. To me, it is as peculiar to talk about a critic of PC as to talk of a critic of Malaria or a critic of Chromosomes. You criticise something for being badly done, not for existing as a phenomenon. Finally, given that the path posited from Cultural Marxism to PC is a historical one in several stages, I think it should be spelled out in detail here. The other theories, I suggest, are much weaker regarding historical facts, and warrant less space therefore. --Memestream (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to make the long march from the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxists and Maoists to today's notion of PC (i.e., a linguistic notion that opposes phraseology that is felt to be oppressive to certain groups), then you'll have to do the same genealogy of the positions of Lind and Buchanan--as you say, "a historical one in several stages"--and trace them back to segregationist, overtly white supremacist trends in American thought. Should we go there? Or can we simply accept the actual documented fact that the notion of political correctness, as it is used today, is nothing more than the attempt to ameliorate offensive aspects of every day speech, and which has been seized upon by certain people on the right to attack those in the liberal world. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No I don't, because this article is not about the positions of Lind and Buchanan, it's about political correctness. In an article about 'Darwinian evolution' it is relevant to mention the history of evolutionary thought leading to Darwin, from the Greeks through Spencer and Wallace etc, but unnecessary to mention that in his youth Darwin got the greatest pleasure from shooting animals. We judge theories by their credibility and by the cogency of the evidence presented, not by the character of the men who write them. The 'actual documented fact' that PC is nothing more than ...etc is purely your POV. There are many documented facts about PC, by many writers, who have differing theories. Maoism doesn't enter into it by the way, except for the common use of the term 'long march' to describe a (different) cultural revolution. --Memestream (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here on Wiki we do not as editors decide what theory among many about this or that subject is "correct" or the "truth." We use a variety of tools to help make a page NPOV. We use reputable published sources that represent the main school of thought. We also, at times, include significant minority views if they appear in reputable published sources. On this entry, there is a difficulty, because there are hotly contested views about what "PC" is, how the term was used at different moments in history, and how it is used in public discourse as opposed to the anlyses of various scholars. Editors across the political spectrum have, over time, crafted an imperfect, but reasonable entry text for this page. It can always be improved. It will not be improved by an editor coming here and insisting that there is only one way to explain PC and we are dullards for not agreeing and changing the text.--Cberlet (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to reflect abundant references to 60's counterculture

I have no problem with the nature of Wikipedia editing. I do object to your constantly putting words into my mouth. I have not said that there is only one way to explain PC and I have not referred to anyone as a 'dullard'. I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject of PC, and do not wish to be seen as supporting only Buchanan, Lind and others who you might label as political figures. Rather I would point out that what they say in simple terms is backed up in other references already given in the article. For example, reference 22 refers to Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay 'Repressive tolerance', analysing it at some length in the context of 'speech codes' as applied to university campuses etc. Marcuse was a Marxist member of the Frankfurt School. What I feel is missing in the article at present is a proper explanation of what PC is all about in that it is an all-encompassing term for limitations set on speech and behaviour by a radical movement that came out of the sixties cultural revolution, also known as the counterculture of the 1960s, gaining impetus on the universities campuses of America in particular under leadership from many intellectuals in the humanities, social sciences, political science and philosophy departments whose roots were in the sixties movement. While Marxism lies at the root of this movement, it clearly moved on to encompass gender and race as well as class, and key words like 'affirmative action', 'civil rights movement', 'deconstructionism', 'radical feminism', 'new left', 'multiculturalism', 'sensitivity training', 'antischolarship', 'social engineering', all largely missing in this article, abound in the references, as do names like Derrida, Rousseau, Foucault. It is impossible to make sense of PC without understanding that it clearly arose out of this movement against the validity of truth and experience, towards the idea of relative truths in social science. It's a movement that is widely acknowledged and that can be quite properly debated and yet it is as if the article seeks to expunge all reference to such a movement as the origin of PC. I will try to improve the article along these lines now that I have better references. --Memestream (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you think that "It is impossible to make sense of PC without understanding that it clearly arose out of this movement against the validity of truth and experience, towards the idea of relative truths in social science." Please understand that while I recognize that a number of right-wing commentators make this claim, I think it is a steaming pile of horse manure. In my view, (and the view of several liberal and left scholars) there is no such thing as a "PC" movement, and there never was. It is a right-wing myth. We certainly can include more references to the right-wing POV if they are properly cited. However once again you are claiming that there is a single "true" historical analysis about where "PC" comes from. This is not appropriate, it violates basic Wiki policies, and is tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't violate basic Wiki policies and it isn't disruptive. If editors didn't have different views there would be no need for the talk page, and I have as much right to say here how I see things as you have. Once again you are putting words into my mouth. I do not claim a single true historical analysis, but I do find that there are a lot of writers in agreement on a largely consistent analysis, and that they are not represented here properly. Calling those writers 'right wing' does not alter the fact that their theories are supported by the writings of many famous 'left wing' intellectuals. Do you deny that Dutschke called for a 'long march through the institutions', or would you claim that he had no effect in bringing such a thing about? If he did play a part in bringing about such a thing, would it not seem very likely to be the source of what we now call PC. Do you deny that Marcuse recommended 'working against the institutions while working in them'? Do you not recognise that what we call PC, and the backlash against it, errupted on University campuses, where many incidents were reported. Do you deny that attempts were made to enforce 'speech codes' on campuses to quell objection to the new ideas forcibly. I do not claim a 'PC movement'. I agree that the term was coined by those writing about, and largely objecting to the phenomenon. That phenomenon is broadly described as the 'sixties cultural revolution'. Are you saying that there was no such revolution, that this too is a myth? That there were no student uprisings in France and Germany? That many of those students did not go on to teach in the Universities? Yes this is OR, but it is OR into the blindingly obvious, into established historical fact, as stated in the secondary sources of Buchanan and many others. You can think what you like of their theories, but you are not entitled to trash them unless you can point to authoritative sources that argue cogently against their theories. I don't see any, just left wing abuse and the constant cry of 'right wing'. --Memestream (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Rousseau politically correct?? Yikes. But not for nothing, if the idea is to trace the origins of PC back to assorted "people who tried to get other people to think and act a certain way" then you're gonna have to go back a lot further than the 18th century. Even by the time Jesus came along, the concept was already old. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't. Rousseau is mentioned repeatedly in regard to the French revolution, a violent revolution against the established order in a Western country. Others saw the folly of violent revolution and invented the idea of 'cultural revolution'. I mentioned him only because many others do when writing the history of the sixties revolution, which they regard as ushering in the new ideas that came to be called PC. --Memestream (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Half-truths, Black and white logic, limited hangouts.

While this is original research, I am suggesting this as a means of improving the listing.

Political correctness, gets it power, by the simple reality that there is an element of truth to the statement.

The statements are often, half-truth (there are some 8 new types, and black and white logic a generalized logic.

For example:

"The Jews killed Christ."

Well some Jews may have killed Christ, not All Jews. (Generalized black and white logic.(Well of course, if someone is executed in America, its going to be by another American ) In the case of Jesus Christ, some of "the Romans' were involved as well. Blaming all the people becase of some, is black and white generalized logic.


Jesus Christ was a Jew. ( a simple truth we ignore)

"Limited hangout" a form of half-truth, very useful in painting a certain picture of something. You only tell what you want to.

Stop violence against women. (A half-truth in many forms, the real issue is abuse, and why not stop it against men and children. The statement seems to imply its okay because of their omission.)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, this is WP:OR and therefore can't be included in the article, or discussed at any length here. However, I'd note that, on most views "The Jews killed Christ." is a paradigm example of a "politically incorrect" statement for precisely the reason you set out. This suggests that at least some critics of political correctness want to be able to put forward half-truths that unfairly denigrate particular groups without themselves being criticised. JQ (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on PC

Hey everyone. Interesting stuff I've been digging up. Finding out that the transition in definition of PC here in the United States happened more around 1984 during the Lesbian movement. That one really took me by surprise. Here are some of my sources:

  • Freedman, Estelle B., and Thorn, Barrie. "Introduction to "The Feminist Sexuality Debates"." Signs 10.1 (1984): 102-105.
  • Ellen Shapiro. "Review: The Politic and the Erotic." The Women's Review of Books 1.9 (1984): 13-14.
  • Thomas, Diane. "Second of Five Articles Submitted under the Title: Bridging for Peace: Theory and Action for the 1980's." Political Psychology 5.3 (1984): 471-479.
  • Hunter, Carol, and Rose, Wendy. "A MELUS Interview: Wendy Rose." MELUS 10.3 (1983): 67-87.
  • Stephanson, Anders. "On Soviet Foreign Policy." Social Text 8 (1983): 25-39.
  • Aya, Rod. "The Theory behind "Theory and Society"." Theory and Society 11.6 (1982): 907-913.

Please disregard my earlier posts. Seems I've opened something of a Pandora's box, and it didn't contain what I thought it would. Let me know what you all think. Infonation101 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to see any quotes from those books that actually use the phrase 'political correctness' if you would copy them here. --Memestream (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I'm compiling the information together in a report that a professor of mine wants me to send to a PRJ. I'd be more then happy to get the information on here for you (can't at the moment, I'm on a public computer). When I started to research this I decided that I wouldn't use a single source that doesn't actually have the term politically correct or political correctness in context. I'll be done with the report by the end of the week, and I'll just put a link online so you can read it yourself. From what I'm gathering, both sides have fabricated today's meaning into what they wanted it to be, but for over 100 years it was never used in that context. Cheers. Infonation101 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm curious why we are relying so strongly on the essay by Ruth Perry to make the opinion of the political left. In the book Beyond PC, where her essay has been published, there are at least half a dozen other nicely written articles that would contribute substantially to this page. Also, I wonder, Memestream, why you question these articles? They are similar articles for the argument Ruth makes in her essay (p. 75, Beyond PC). Infonation101 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
More references would be great. I think other editors have not had the time to chase additional sources, so your efforts will be most welcome. JQ (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. It's actually been a research project for me, so I've been able to compile some 50+ usable sources (all of which actually contain the phrase PC). Instead of just throwing all this on everyone I'm going to compile the research using the Wiki style. After that I'll let everyone see and critique. Infonation101 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this topic really belong under the category "Discrimination"?

Bracketing for a moment the problem that this article is already highly skewed towards a conservative orientation, it seems utterly ridiculous to be classifying the concept "political correctness" under "Discrimination." To do so implies an acceptance of a conservative framing and interpretation of the term and does not constitute a fair or balanced approach to the issues involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitman31 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Political Correctness" is listed in the section titled "related topics". For someone looking into social aspects around the area of 'discrimination', especially someone looking at the social context of the US in the past 20 years, PC certainly seems to be a "related topic", if only because of the "conservative framing and interpretation of the term" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that "someone looking at the social context of the US in the past 20 years" under the topic of "discrimination" might find PC to be a "related term" is a conservative interpretation of the term's definition and its social context. I don't see why your reading of this topic is so extreme. It seems to me that a more neutral interpretation of this contested term is more desirable.

It's certainly a related topic, which is exactly where it lists it. I don't really see what the problem is. Celarnor Talk to me 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not a related topic. How do you see it as "related"? Whitman31 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The term itself has a long

history of being connected with discrimination issues, especially those related to race. Jesse Jackson encouraged people to adopt "African American" over "black". By its very nature, it is designed to curb the effects of discrimination by using less perjorative terms. Without discrimination, there would be no political correctness. Political correctness is both dependent on discrimination for it's existence and inextricably linked to it in a dynamic way as society's mores and connotations of words change. To say there's no connection there is simply inane. Celarnor Talk to me 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious! You've done nothing but prove my original point that the terms are not "related" unless one employs a conservative interpretation of the term "political correctness," a move which wikipedia has no business making if it wants to be neutral or objective. The first of the sources you just quoted, the "liberal" one, DOES NOT use the word "discrimination" anywhere is the article. In a telltale moment, the word does appear in the comments box as an epithet supplied by someone coming from a conservative perspective who refers to PC as as "discriminatory" and "Stalinist PC garbage." The other source you quote is so far right politically as to be a completely irrelevant viewpoint for someone compiling a public encyclopedia. The fact that Jesse Jackson encouraged people to adopt "African American" over "black" is unrelated to the topic of "political correctness" unless one interprets the term from a conservative perspective, and wikipedia has no business imposing that view on its readers.

Really, I urge you to remove "political correctness" from the category of "discrimination" for the moment. It's the reasonable thing to do, since the connection between the two cannot be made clear on account of the fact that the term PC is politically frontloaded, an epithet which contains an inherent derisiveness in its usage. Only once these aspects of the term's status are more foregrounded in the wikipedia definition itself, and the definition made more politically balanced, can the relationship between PC and "discrimination" (if there is one) possibly be addressed in a relevant way.

PC is a term used primarily by conservatives as a critique of various kinds of anti-discrimination efforts. I think the article makes this clear, starting with the observation that the use of the term ia almost entirely pejorative. As regards your view that the article is highly skewed towards a conservative orientation, if you read the discussion thread above, you'll find that the conservative contributors here don't think so. There has been a sustained effort to present all views of the question in line with WP:NPOV. However, I'd encourage you to contribute more, being careful to cite sources rather than just adding in your own interpretation. In particular, I think it might be useful to find examples of anti-discrimination actions, rather than just language, being criticised as PC JQ (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] What the true intent of Politically Correct speach is

The true intent is to stifle the inherent right of man to free speach. This has been practiced by many nations in various forms over the centuries. An example would be Spain not allowing any negative comment against Francisco Franco. Thus, dissent against his policies has been inhibited to say the least. However, the practice in it's present form has been polished to a high sheen by a block consisting of socialists, feminists, certain so-called "minority leaders" and others with a leftist bent. The practice is rampant on college campuses in the United States as Speach codes, where individuals are sanctioned or reprimanded or ostracized if they use non-politically correct terms, i.e., terms not acceptable to radical feminists, socialists, "green" activists, persons with non-heterosexual orientations, and their compatriots. For example, those who "deny global warming" in any form or fashion are equated with Nazis, terrorists, or worse. The leader of this particular movement is Al Gore, who has monetary interests in "global warming". Though most of the groups who push politically correct speach do not work in an organized fashion, the victory of one group is often a victory for all of them, as it perpetuates the practice and thus stifles dissent with any facet of the "progressive" or "liberal" movement. Mostly, though, this movement has been unsuccessful, resulting in one term simply being replaced by another, but holding the exact same connotation, or an even more intensiveness to the meaning...an example would be wide-spread use of formerly foul language, such as "bitch" replacing "harpy" or "nag" for a woman who annoys someone a lot. If it were possible to remove dissent through the careful negative manipulation of language, omitting "offensive" terms, it would certainly leave a language crippled and colorless, indeed.

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more on this. However, the practice of Speech codes is not only rampant on college campuses in the United States. It's pretty much rampant everywhere else. CadenS (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the true intent of this discussion page is

The true intent is to assist editors to arrive at text to be placed in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor are its discussion pages.--Cberlet (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


The whole article is very poor. Grasping firmly (perhaps intentionally so) the wrong end of the stick.


The present contents might be edited down and used under a sub-heading.


Surely there must be better than this out there.


Somebody, please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.101.230 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats the great thing about a wiki. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)