Talk:Political correctness/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Political correctness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Definition of political correctness
Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Primarily pejorative. Most of these sources you've provided are to dictionaries, which aren't really useful for analyzing the detailed cultural implications of a word; none of the other sources you provided support the idea that there's significant non-pejorative usage. My reading is that Loury is unequivocally using it as a pejorative (his title is 'Self-Censorship in Public Discourse'); likewise, Morris is discussing the reasons why he thinks people behave that way in a manner that is clearly using the term as a pejorative. Neither of them goes into any depth on its history as a term, just on their feelings about the phenomenon they feel it describes. Meanwhile, article has, at the moment, nine sources that go into depth on how its primary usage in modern culture is as a slur, pejorative, political attack, or similar terms; and nothing in the article really provides any significant non-pejorative history or usage, which means we have to reflect that primarily pejorative usage in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would you mind pointing out these supposed "nine." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, neither Loury nor Morris do anything like what you described. It seems that if someone defines it as censorship then to you it counts as pejorative?
- They're the first nine sources in the article! Maybe one or two of them are for other parts of that sentence, but my reading is that almost all of them support the interpretation that the term is primarily pejorative in its current usage. Anyway, the purpose of an WP:RFC isn't for us to repeat the same arguments we've had over and over again, it's to get a general sense of where everyone stands and to attract outside opinions so we can try and determine consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Have you actually bothered reading them? Most of them describe it as the concept of not offending. Some are very questionable, for the second is from Helbert Kohl who's described as left-wing by the press and again. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, that's simply not relevant; you can't include or exclude authors based on their politics, only based on their reputation -- whether they are a respectable historian or not. Do you feel that Geoffrey Hughes is similarly unusable? He says that "There is little doubt that the formulas "political correctness", "politically correct", and "PC" are now basically pejorative and ironic in their use." Likewise, the history covered by Schultz, Wilson, and so on makes it clear that the term assumed a pejorative meaning after it was picked up by conservatives in the 1980's. None of the sources you're pointing to contradict this; none of them talk about any significant non-pejorative usage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is when they are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED and have a reputation for being such. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- You removed Nguyen's paper, noting that it's a term paper (yet it's still cited many times), stating that you talked about this on talk page. But I checked and nowhere did you talk about it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned on talk, this is a student's term paper; it doesn't pass WP:RS. Where there does it say Aquillion mentioned it on talk? Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say someone else did? Because no one did? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doug W did.Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was later of another source... Pay some attention please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I assumed that there was only one student paper among your sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nguyen isn't below, but was in the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- And now below, Aquillion claims that the word censorship is also (seemingly primarily) a pejorative. Am I asleep or what? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I assumed that there was only one student paper among your sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was later of another source... Pay some attention please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doug W did.Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say someone else did? Because no one did? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned on talk, this is a student's term paper; it doesn't pass WP:RS. Where there does it say Aquillion mentioned it on talk? Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, that's simply not relevant; you can't include or exclude authors based on their politics, only based on their reputation -- whether they are a respectable historian or not. Do you feel that Geoffrey Hughes is similarly unusable? He says that "There is little doubt that the formulas "political correctness", "politically correct", and "PC" are now basically pejorative and ironic in their use." Likewise, the history covered by Schultz, Wilson, and so on makes it clear that the term assumed a pejorative meaning after it was picked up by conservatives in the 1980's. None of the sources you're pointing to contradict this; none of them talk about any significant non-pejorative usage. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Have you actually bothered reading them? Most of them describe it as the concept of not offending. Some are very questionable, for the second is from Helbert Kohl who's described as left-wing by the press and again. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- They're the first nine sources in the article! Maybe one or two of them are for other parts of that sentence, but my reading is that almost all of them support the interpretation that the term is primarily pejorative in its current usage. Anyway, the purpose of an WP:RFC isn't for us to repeat the same arguments we've had over and over again, it's to get a general sense of where everyone stands and to attract outside opinions so we can try and determine consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Concept of not offending I'll let the sources speak for themselves:
- http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319554 This has been cited 504 times.
- "This paper follows Loury (1994) in developing a reputational explanation for political correctness. Loury summarizes his argument in the following syllogism (p. 437):"
- http://rss.sagepub.com/content/6/4/428.short 93 times citated.
- (a) within a give community the people who are most faithful to communal values are by-and-large also those who want most to remain in good standing with their fellows and;
- (b) the practice is well established in this community that those speaking in ways that offend community values are excluded from good standing. Then,
- (c) when a speaker is observed to express himself offensively the odds that the speaker is not in fact faithful to communal values, as estimated by a listener otherwise uninformed about his views, are increased.
- They are defining something akin to a game theory. Stephen Morris is in fact a game theorist. How else would you describe this kind of social behavior but political correctness? What other term comes to mind?
- Take into notice how similar kind of definition has steeped into regular use:
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct
- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness
- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politically+correct
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politically-correct
- http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/politically%20correct
- http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/politically-correct
- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/politically%20correct
- http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness
- The term is primarily the concept of not offending. The "pejorative" use is secondary. The pejorative use does not belong in the lead sentence. This is how Pincrete once suggested we write the lead as:
- Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, actions, or policies which claim to be intended to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society, and to ensure those people are adequately represented and reflected in all walks of life. The term is primarily used as a pejorative by those who see these policies as excessive, or ironically to suggest such excess.
- It used to stand like that but it was edited out and the primarily pejorative stuck into the first sentence. Here is another source which has opinions for and against. Remember to focus on the neutrality of any source you come across. The aforementioned Glenn Loury states the following:
- To address the subject of "political correctness," when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one's arguments by would-be "friends" and "enemies." Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is "for them" or "against them."
- I've looked at some of the sources used to support pejorative use, and firstly Herbert Kohl is noted for advocating progressive education — as in the thing from which the debate about political correctness in higher education began from. He was likely there opposing Bloom before the term was ever used in this context. And the sourced bit appears in a journal about literature for children. He is both incredibly biased in the matter and the source doesn't seem to pass RS. His paper has been cited 4 times and two times in 2014 by the same Russian, probably having found it here. Even a dictionary is a much more credible source. Cannie Stark is listed as specializing in psychology of women and sexism in research. She has absolutely no relation to either linguistics or historiography. Her paper's cited 11 times. Debra L. Schultz is a women's studies expert who among other women's studies matters has taught women's history, cited 25 times. As this matter is of the fields linguistics and historiography: that taught course is her only credibility in the matter. She also doesn't go nearly as far as the other two. Why are these people being treated as more credible than a dozen dictionaries and two very cited papers by notable academics?
- --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Moving my other sources here to clean up the length:
- nb edit conflict.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment I object very strongly to my name being used and facts mis-represented above. I posted the above suggestion as a 'discussion point' on talk. It was inserted in the lead by Mr Magoo, against my clearly stated wishes, it never 'stood' as he claims. One of the principal objections levelled against my suggestion was that it did not represent the body of the article as that currently stands. We cannot write a lead and then write the article to fit. Even my suggestion does not support the question raised by this RfC, since it puts pejorative second in ORDER only, not what this RfC is promoting namely 'of secondary importance'.
The question this RfC should be asking, is, since the 'derogatory/dismissive' use of the term since circa 1980-90 is very well established in all sources, what is the proper WP:weight to be given to that in the lead? I would support a construction that put 'derogatory' or 'pejorative' into the second sentence (ie what it is followed by how it is mainly used). However, this RfC is asking a fundamentally dishonest question, since it is asking, not only to ignore the body of the article, but to accept an extensive non-derogatory recent, common, use of the term that no sources endorse, (except some dictionaries, blogs, anecdotes and WP:OR).
The article (and lead), does not ever imply that the term was or is SOLELY pejorative, it charts historical use (mainly as a very obscure term among the far left), it charts the term's ironical use, before recording the principal modern use, which is to criticise policies, language and actions, which are most commonly seen as the product of an excessively agenda-ed liberal/left orthodoxy with the criticism mainly coming from social or political conservatives (ie it is used as a derogatory term).Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- We have multiple examples of non-pejorative use in the article. I have gathered even more. And the way you wrote it gives it secondary importance. And I beg you pardon but you didn't word out a wish for it not to be inserted, I thought it was ready to go. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- We have almost NO modern examples of the term's use in the article, either derogatory or otherwise, and who is evaluating whether the use is +,- or =, because individual editors assessing how ALL the primary sources since 1991 are using the term, would involve an endless, fruitless argument which would make hanging-chads look like a picnic. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like I posted below: "The Stephen Morris paper above has been cited 504 times. Glenn Loury 93 times. But of the pejorative sources: Herbert Kohl's paper has been cited 4 times. Cannie Stark 11 times. Again, why are we using these fringe sources as primary sources?" --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- We have almost NO modern examples of the term's use in the article, either derogatory or otherwise, and who is evaluating whether the use is +,- or =, because individual editors assessing how ALL the primary sources since 1991 are using the term, would involve an endless, fruitless argument which would make hanging-chads look like a picnic. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cited by whom? And in what contexts? And what is the relevance of 'cite hits'.?Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Academics from at least half a hundred different universities from the looks of it. Economists, political scientists, jurists; you name it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cited by whom? And in what contexts? And what is the relevance of 'cite hits'.?Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fluff, in the absence of knowing how and in what context these people have been authoratively cited, you might as well be telling us how often these sources have been used as toilet paper. In the absence of straight answers to 3 simple questions, I and most other editors will conclude that you are wall-papering this page, with no other purpose than persuading yourself of your own 'rightness'. Mr Magoo's own private blog. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 13 November n2015 (UTC)
- I gave you two straight answers. I didn't even bother answering the relevance of cite hits. On the other hand you're simply ignoring sources now; and trumpeting one cited by three people, published in a poetry journal. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fluff, the Zinoviev letter is probably cited in a million histories, that's because it's a notable fake. YOU think the cites make the sources RS and the contents important, so we should just take your word for it, even if you have no idea whether the cites are even connected with 'PC'. I don't know what you mean by poetry journal, nor which source you are questioning, it looks an awful lot like mud-slinging.Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again with the bizarre straw men. You point out a notorious forgery as the same thing as a credible study cited as credible by 504 academics? And Kohl's bit is from the children's poetry journal like I've mentioned many times. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I am pointing out that not knowing in what context cited, and therefore whether the cites have merit or relevance, means that Errrrrrrrrrr, we have no idea whether the cites have merit or relevance. This is just counting 'hits' and expecting us to be impressed.
- The Kohl, 'poetry journal' quote is not comparable, there are many sources endorsing the use of the term among CP members in the US around WWII, are you questioning that the term WAS used in that way? If you are, that is a valid reason to question the source, otherwise it's a WP:other crap exists justification. I presume the Kohl quote was chosen to be more 'personal' than other sources covering the CP members' use. The quality of a source needed is proportional to how 'disputable' the claim is, I personally don't find this anecdote very disputable. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I already answered that: "Academics from at least half a hundred different universities from the looks of it. Economists, political scientists, jurists; you name it." And Kohl is used as a source for the lead. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The Kohl, 'poetry journal' quote is not comparable, there are many sources endorsing the use of the term among CP members in the US around WWII, are you questioning that the term WAS used in that way? If you are, that is a valid reason to question the source, otherwise it's a WP:other crap exists justification. I presume the Kohl quote was chosen to be more 'personal' than other sources covering the CP members' use. The quality of a source needed is proportional to how 'disputable' the claim is, I personally don't find this anecdote very disputable. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fluff. We have to take your word for it that the use is relevant to the subject and has merit - based on you having no idea what the use actually was - but the user's title looked impressive!
- What about the use of Kohl do you actually dispute? What content from him do you consider not accurate? The lead does not anyway need to be sourced (that's up to each article), however it must be an accurate, brief reflection of the article's content. The lead has become a mess partly because of 'loose cites' (ie not attached to the claims), so I would not necessarily object to removing the 'Kohl' ref from the lead.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you remove Kohl then what it the primary source for pejorative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The other 7? the October 1990 NYT? errrr what have I forgotten, the new book provided by Fyddlestyx? What else? A 1995 UK book called 'The war of the words'ummm what else? … … Besides, if you read my posts below, I'm actually in favour of a more nuanced account, such as 'it came into prominence as etc.'. What I'm NOT in favour of is attempts to pretend that it's primary usage was neutral, was the name of a 'philosophy', was not derogatory, nor to extrapolate from primary sources other uses. Pincrete (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you check the 7, they mostly go with the general dictionary-like description, although I can't access the Stark one. You might have forgotten but a few were added by me as counterarguments. And Freire like I've written describes two definitions and both in equal proportion but wishes the pejorative to be more of the norm, which is counterargumentative to the point. I don't any longer think we should take pejorative out but like I've written it should be changed to something lesser than primarily, because for one it used to say ordinarily. I also noticed you added generally to the second sentence, even though in pejorative usage the implication is clearly primary. How about swapping primarily and generally from the two sentences? This is what I meant by primarily being too strict, as generally is almost exactly the same but a bit less strict. In this case I could drop the RfC. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- If there's no disagreement here then I'll swap them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- The other 7? the October 1990 NYT? errrr what have I forgotten, the new book provided by Fyddlestyx? What else? A 1995 UK book called 'The war of the words'ummm what else? … … Besides, if you read my posts below, I'm actually in favour of a more nuanced account, such as 'it came into prominence as etc.'. What I'm NOT in favour of is attempts to pretend that it's primary usage was neutral, was the name of a 'philosophy', was not derogatory, nor to extrapolate from primary sources other uses. Pincrete (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you remove Kohl then what it the primary source for pejorative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- What about the use of Kohl do you actually dispute? What content from him do you consider not accurate? The lead does not anyway need to be sourced (that's up to each article), however it must be an accurate, brief reflection of the article's content. The lead has become a mess partly because of 'loose cites' (ie not attached to the claims), so I would not necessarily object to removing the 'Kohl' ref from the lead.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Multiple meanings: The term obviously, and sourceably, has multiple meanings and implications, and we should cover all of them. In general usage it is primarily a centrist to rightist critique of leftist language activism and "thought policing", a usage shared even by some classic liberals, and leftists of more individualist ideologies. In some (mostly current) academic usage, it has varying descriptive meanings; all of them arguably have at least some pejorative edge due to the pejorative usage in general parlance, but this is not necessarily intentional. In some (mostly older) academic sources, that originally established the term, it had/has a non-pejorative, activistic meaning. The lead should pretty much say all of what I just did, in more encyclopedic prose, and the bulk of the article should address all of this usage, probably in chronological order, starting with introduction of the term, it's cooption for derisive purposes, and its attempted re-neutralizing definitional approaches in disciplines like American political science. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Both But for real dictionary purposes, pejorative. For instance, "Native Americans" is a politically correct term because if we referred to them as "Indians" we could be referring to Indians from India. The term has been taken by various critical groups, of being one of "not offending" however. If this RfC is for how we define political correctness, it is primarily pejorative, but if it's how we mostly write about it in the article then it's "non-offensive," because that's how most people think of it today. LesVegas (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Primarily pejorative but over-simplified question The term came to prominence circa 1990 as a pejorative term for certain policies and attitudes which were seen as excessive Stalinist, illiberal, humourless etc.. The criticism came predominantly from social, educational and political conservatives. The criticised largely were, or were seen as, part of a 'liberal/radical orthodoxy'. This is extensively studied and sourced, as is earlier ironic use and also very marginal 'far-left' use dating back to before WWII. This is what the article and sources record. That the term may have 'morphed' post 2000 into many private and public uses is not largely studied, therefore not citable. A compromise that allows for our awareness of that 'morphing' - but nonetheless unequivocally reports that the most frequent public use post 1990, (until the term largely 'burnt out') was dismissive, derogatory, pejorative - such a compromise is possible, however this RfC is misconceived in my opinion, and even fails the basic WP test that the lead should reflect the article. I am unconditionally opposed to the present proposed change, but flexible as to how to present the 'bigger picture'. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it is usually pejorative, though it is sometimes used in a descriptive way by academics or by activists to seek to reclaim the term. I oppose any attempt to remove the reference to it being a usually perjorative term. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments
Comment 1 Here are some others who have disagreed with the pejorative definition, in reverse chronological order: first, second, third, fourth and fifth. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do any of these 'others' provide sources for their opinions? The fact that a lot of fly-by editors object is proof that this is a 'hot-button' topic, nothing else.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's hard to find a source that would for some bizarre reason declare that it's specifically not a pejorative. One of the few that specifically does that is the Phrases article, which used to be a source but was removed. It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re: 'It's hard to find a source that would … declare that it's specifically not a pejorative'. Yes, it's also hard to find sources that specifically says 'the earth isn't flat', we have to go with what sources DO say, not extrapolate our own conclusions, particularily conclusions WP:SYNTHed from an absence of evidence. 'It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively' is NEVER an option, for reasons that should be self evident, an endless dispute of us counting ALL the uses, disagreeing as to whether they are mildly critical, ironic, or downright dismissive would be absurd even as a proposal, even if it were not pure OR. The arguments you are mustering MIGHT validly support a 'time qualifier', eg during the 1990's the term became a pejorative term primarily used by X to criticise Y. However you are attempting to change the whole focus of the article based on the premise (which no one doubts, inc. the article), that the term is not ALWAYS pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- That is such an obvious straw man. You know it's also easy to find sources stating that George W. Bush is a reptilian in disguise, but almost no sources proving that wrong? You can draw straw men like this easily and it means nothing. Again, the sources define it mainly non-pejoratively as intention not to offend like you did before in your two sentence format, then adding after that it's used pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- So we work with the sources that say Bush was a president, I doubt if any RS would say otherwise, and we ignore 'reptilian'. My definition did not say 'intention not to offend', read it. It said ' policies which claim to be intended … is primarily used as a pejorative by those who see these policies as excessive. Nothing about my proposed definition, nor our existing one, suggests that the policies themselves are 'PC', since no source supports policymakers themselves ever using the term, (were the term neutral, they would presumably be happy to use it). The term is used almost exclusively by those who find the policies 'excessive'. We can argue till we are blue in the face whether that is 'pejorative', 'derogatory', 'dismissive' or whatever. It certainly isn't neutral, and this whole RfC is predicated on the notion that we should ignore the most frequently documented use of the term, and the body of the article, because the term MIGHT sometimes be used in other ways, ways which unfortunately haven't yet been the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- How does him being president automatically make him non-reptilian? And this was a joke comparison off the top of my head, how about a study of how something realistic and controversial like gun control. And your definition does say "intended to not offend." For some reason when you quote yourself again you cut out the rest after intended and replace it with an ellipsis. Isn't that just plain distortion? And what do you mean by policymakers not using the term? We have them constantly using the term, Bush notably being one of the first of any. And even if it is used by those find them excessive, they still use it mainly to describe an ideology rather than use it as a simple pejorative. And the most frequently documented use of the term is the simplest definition, as in "The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people — who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion said 'claim etc', I would have thought it obvious that 'policymakers' referred to those policymakers making policies that others criticise as being 'PC'. The term is used to describe an ideology which is described, characterised, and whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it. As I've said previously, some of the phenomena described as 'PC', may be real, some may be terrible ideas or excessive in implementation, however the notion that they arise from a single commonly shared ideology is a belief held only by critics, who appear to imagine a 'Stepford Wife' under every stone. More importantly, the notion that PC is an ideology/philosophy is not borne out by RS studying the use of the term, indeed it is hardly borne out that anyone other than critics has ever used the term. Why? Because they recognise it's largely pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- "whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it" Well, that is very easily proven wrong. The numerous cases I've provided of people describing it either neutrally or even posivitively easily do the job on that. The view that it's used to describe a movement or an ideology is supported by nigh all of our sources, save for the two obviously biased ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The 'cases' I have looked at are mostly people using the term and are primary sources. Only you seem to imagine that the Psych Prof etc. are using the term neutrally, though your/my assessment of that would be OR regardless. Hughes is among the more neutral definers, but even he is clear the term is derogatory. But let's ignore the evidence of numerous academic studies, because a few sources fail to say the term is critical. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- You keep picking one source out of 24 to disprove them all. And even then he again describes it as an ideology and doesn't use it as a pejorative. And even Hughes lists it with multiple different definitions from various trustworthy sources, even if he puts it that the term is pejorative and ironic in his opinion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your/my assessments as to whether someone is using the term, critically are subjective and are OR. What is difficult to understand about that idea? However Hughes uses the term, he is explicit that it is mostly derogatory (a quote provided by Aqu prev.).
- You keep picking one source out of 24 to disprove them all. And even then he again describes it as an ideology and doesn't use it as a pejorative. And even Hughes lists it with multiple different definitions from various trustworthy sources, even if he puts it that the term is pejorative and ironic in his opinion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- The 'cases' I have looked at are mostly people using the term and are primary sources. Only you seem to imagine that the Psych Prof etc. are using the term neutrally, though your/my assessment of that would be OR regardless. Hughes is among the more neutral definers, but even he is clear the term is derogatory. But let's ignore the evidence of numerous academic studies, because a few sources fail to say the term is critical. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- "whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it" Well, that is very easily proven wrong. The numerous cases I've provided of people describing it either neutrally or even posivitively easily do the job on that. The view that it's used to describe a movement or an ideology is supported by nigh all of our sources, save for the two obviously biased ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion said 'claim etc', I would have thought it obvious that 'policymakers' referred to those policymakers making policies that others criticise as being 'PC'. The term is used to describe an ideology which is described, characterised, and whose very existence, is supported only by those who criticise it. As I've said previously, some of the phenomena described as 'PC', may be real, some may be terrible ideas or excessive in implementation, however the notion that they arise from a single commonly shared ideology is a belief held only by critics, who appear to imagine a 'Stepford Wife' under every stone. More importantly, the notion that PC is an ideology/philosophy is not borne out by RS studying the use of the term, indeed it is hardly borne out that anyone other than critics has ever used the term. Why? Because they recognise it's largely pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- How does him being president automatically make him non-reptilian? And this was a joke comparison off the top of my head, how about a study of how something realistic and controversial like gun control. And your definition does say "intended to not offend." For some reason when you quote yourself again you cut out the rest after intended and replace it with an ellipsis. Isn't that just plain distortion? And what do you mean by policymakers not using the term? We have them constantly using the term, Bush notably being one of the first of any. And even if it is used by those find them excessive, they still use it mainly to describe an ideology rather than use it as a simple pejorative. And the most frequently documented use of the term is the simplest definition, as in "The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people — who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- So we work with the sources that say Bush was a president, I doubt if any RS would say otherwise, and we ignore 'reptilian'. My definition did not say 'intention not to offend', read it. It said ' policies which claim to be intended … is primarily used as a pejorative by those who see these policies as excessive. Nothing about my proposed definition, nor our existing one, suggests that the policies themselves are 'PC', since no source supports policymakers themselves ever using the term, (were the term neutral, they would presumably be happy to use it). The term is used almost exclusively by those who find the policies 'excessive'. We can argue till we are blue in the face whether that is 'pejorative', 'derogatory', 'dismissive' or whatever. It certainly isn't neutral, and this whole RfC is predicated on the notion that we should ignore the most frequently documented use of the term, and the body of the article, because the term MIGHT sometimes be used in other ways, ways which unfortunately haven't yet been the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- That is such an obvious straw man. You know it's also easy to find sources stating that George W. Bush is a reptilian in disguise, but almost no sources proving that wrong? You can draw straw men like this easily and it means nothing. Again, the sources define it mainly non-pejoratively as intention not to offend like you did before in your two sentence format, then adding after that it's used pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re: 'It's hard to find a source that would … declare that it's specifically not a pejorative'. Yes, it's also hard to find sources that specifically says 'the earth isn't flat', we have to go with what sources DO say, not extrapolate our own conclusions, particularily conclusions WP:SYNTHed from an absence of evidence. 'It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively' is NEVER an option, for reasons that should be self evident, an endless dispute of us counting ALL the uses, disagreeing as to whether they are mildly critical, ironic, or downright dismissive would be absurd even as a proposal, even if it were not pure OR. The arguments you are mustering MIGHT validly support a 'time qualifier', eg during the 1990's the term became a pejorative term primarily used by X to criticise Y. However you are attempting to change the whole focus of the article based on the premise (which no one doubts, inc. the article), that the term is not ALWAYS pejorative. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's hard to find a source that would for some bizarre reason declare that it's specifically not a pejorative. One of the few that specifically does that is the Phrases article, which used to be a source but was removed. It's much easier to find instances of people simply defining it non-pejoratively. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do any of these 'others' provide sources for their opinions? The fact that a lot of fly-by editors object is proof that this is a 'hot-button' topic, nothing else.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at 24 sources, nor have/will any other editor probably, when the first 5 or 6 one looks at are either not RS, are OR, are student papers or dictionaries which collectively fail to prove anything, one doesn't feel like bothering. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's not because you haven't provided an example of him using it pejoratively and I've pointed numerous times that he keeps defining it as ideology. And the only one that was RS was a student paper which was the fourth one, and which I no longer count among the 24 (it's the 25th). For some reason that was picked out, and used as reasoning to disregard the rest. The four pejorative sources are just as RS as the 24 gathered below. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at 24 sources, nor have/will any other editor probably, when the first 5 or 6 one looks at are either not RS, are OR, are student papers or dictionaries which collectively fail to prove anything, one doesn't feel like bothering. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment 2 Here are some more sources which define it non-pejoratively:
- “Speech codes” I take to refer to rules about what words can and cannot be used to characterize individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. “Political correctness” I take to mean a set of guidelines about what words are and are not considered socially acceptable to use in reference to individuals and groups, especially women and members of minority groups. A speech code, then, can be considered political correctness codified in rules, presumably with sanctions.
- Political correctness (PC) is an influential movement that started in the 1980s. Originally, its purpose was to make a change in undergraduate curricula at Stanford University, to institute campus speech codes aiming to control hate speech at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin, and to emphasize the role of minorities in history and culture (Calhoun, 2001). The movement eventually became a widely accepted acknowledgement that people should avoid words, expressions, and behavior that may hurt any minorities. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became an unwritten law in society.
- The major theme of PC is to tolerate a diversity of cultures, races, genders, ideologies, religions, and alternate lifestyles (homosexuality or cohabitation). This was gradually expanded to include the whole agenda of liberalism, such as environmentalism, animal rights, and quest of rights. Political correctness implies the presence of a sufficient power to enforce compliance with whatever is politically correct. The ultimate objective is to make any person or any behavior contrary to PC forbidden by law so that people who transgress will be punished by the government (Calhoun, 2001).
- A central issue in this book - the connection between words and reality - takes us to many different contexts of social interaction. One of them is the socio-political domain, where the question arises of what language we should use to acknowledge minorities, avoid hurting other people, and avoid discriminating against the weak and vulnerable. Reality here is real human beings, and words are the medium we use to address or talk about them. This use of language is often discussed under the heading of 'political correctness', the kind of behaviour viewed as correct or advisable to discourage chauvinism and discrimination and to promote equality, justice and fairness in human relations.
- Political correctness has been defined in many different ways. Some of the proposed definitions and reports on how the term has been used include the following: [...] None of the definitions or perspectives should be seen as correct in some absolute sense. Whichever perspective on political correctness we adopt, however, it will quickly become clear we are dealing with language and conflict. How do the two relate to each other in this case? We may want to pose the question: is political correctness a function of conflict-ridden language, a language-ridden conflict, or perhaps both? An answer to that question is not hard to find: the PC movement appears to be about both. It is quite clear that central to the discussions and reaction to the PC movement are various social conflicts. They can be traded to inequality and intolerance of, for example, racial, ethnic and religious distinctions. Since language is ubiquitous, these social conflicts usually manifest through language. So language plays a major role in how these conflicts arise, develop and possibly get exacerbated or averted. PC is mainly about what we should not say (what topics should not be touched at all), which opinions are acceptable, or what we should put on the reading lists for school and university students. PC is also, however, about how we should speak to promote social justice, what sort of language forms should or should not be used to avoid hurting anyone.
- Talking sense about political correctness Cited by 9.
- In the United States, political correctness is used to refer to a whole series of progressive initiatives concerning changes to the literary canon taught at universities, the teaching of postmodern and critical literary theory and cultural studies, affirmative action for racial and ethnic minorities as well as women, sexual assault and harassment and regulations regarding campus 'hate speech'.2 In Australia, political correctness has some currency in the conservative attack on multiculturalism and on attempts to rectify the injustices perpetrated in the past and continuing in the present against Aboriginal Australians. Contemporary usage of the term suggests that its application has widened to refer to progressive politics as a whole. Despite such wider uses, however, its primary meaning in the Australian context is to refer to the criticism and regulation of speech. The coherence and implications of this sense of political correctness is central to this discussion.
- I also found this, which seems to describe it as a sort of a philosophy, but which I have struggle reading because I can only read glimpses of:
- Political correctness Cited by 8.
- ...politics (it represents, rather, a new scholasticism), and the translation of a dense and complex philosophy of meaning into simple...
- Just what does it mean to be politically correct? The political correctness doctrine has been the center of controversy in the academic arena. To define political correctness (hereinafter referred to as PC) is an arduous task, particularly because it has various meanings to different individuals. Proponents of the PC movement assert that in an academic setting, students who are members of the dominant society - white, male and conservative - should be sensitized to race and gender issues. Achieving cultural diversity in the student population and in the faculty should be a university's primary objective. Thus, the classroom and campus environment should be sanitized and free from speech, attitudes, ideas and conduct that are racist, sexist and homophobic. The basic objective of the PC movement are (1) the demand for greater diversity among students and faculty members; and (2) the need for speech codes to thwart racist, sexist and homophobic language, ideas and attitudes that offend sensitive students. Opponents of the PC movement dismiss it as an attack by liberals on traditionally protected speech and expressive conduct. Foes of the PC movement label it "thought control" and consider it threat to the traditional academic curriculum which focuses on Western civilization and the achievements of whites in our society. Many in this camp believe that the PC movement stifles creative ideas because the movement wants everyone to agree and think alike.
- In this article, we will use the term PC in its current public denotation, accepted by supporters and opponents alike--a symbol for programs, initiatives, and attitudes designed to improve the public representation of and interaction with certain social groups, in particular minorities and women. But we do not subscribe to any of the derogatory or self-critical connotations attached to the term by either side of the debate. Many of the issues we will discuss are also labeled "multiculturalism," but we do not consider the term synonymous with PC. Multiculturalism is a part of the PC debate, but not its entirety.
- In medium, but not in message, there is a middle ground of respectable investigative journalism. Richard Bernstein is representative, in his pieces in the New York Times (Bernstein, 1990), and then a book, Dictatorship of Virtue (Bernstein, 1994).
- But if the advocates of the Western Canon don’t like some strains in late 20th century intellectual life and educational thought, if they are nostalgic for the thought and schools of thought of times past, this does not give them an automatic right to impose their own exclusionary version of political correctness.
- Meanwhile, in other places within the cultural establishment, political correctness has simply become common sense, and for the most pragmatic of reasons.
- I'll be adding more. Note that the article itself contains a handful but I won't be adding them here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to place this here (I meant it to be the first) because its block quote messes up the rest of the comment for some reason:
- Political Correctness Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes Cited by 16.
- political correctness – ‘the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize or insult certain racial, cultural, or other groups’ (Oxford dictionary p. 774,)
- – ‘used by neo-conservatives to invalidate the left and present the left as “witch hunters” to cover up their own hegemonic family values’ (anonymous student, Study 1)
- – ‘don’t say or write (or think I suppose) anything that could be considered offensive by any definable group except white males’ (anonymous faculty member, Study 2)
- --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a study which even got to the university's paper: New Study Examines Political Correctness at American Colleges
- Going over the above, some of these only mention the term in passing or provide a cursory definition, without really going into detail on the term (eg. the psychology studies.) Of the ones that do go into depth on it, they mostly seem to support the idea that it's pejorative in nature; Ruitenberg describes the way the term has changed in meaning and notes that "...my interest was raised especially by the mention of speech codes and political correctness as examples of indoctrination", specifically citing Herbert Kohl's analysis (which covers its change to a pejorative). Sparrow explicitly states that "The rhetoric of political correctness is a right-wing discourse used to silence dissenting political viewpoints." Likewise, The Rhetoric of Political Correctness" in the US Media explicitly states that the normal definition of the term is derogatory or self-critical; they say that they do not subscribe to that normal definition (as in, they are not using it), but they acknowledge it explicitly. Cope and Kalantzis present the term as a pejorative used by opponents of multiculturalism, saying that "It’s hard to believe that multiculturalism really spells the end of the American Way of Life and Western civilisation as we know it. It’s hard to see how such a diverse range of voices speaking against the alleged menace of Political Correctness (PC), could ever form a united front. Nor is it clear how PC itself, elevated to the status of a movement by giving it an acronym, could ever be a united enemy." Most of your sources, in other words, support both the idea that it's pejorative and the basic history that its modern usage was primarily driven by conservative attacks on multiculturalism and similar opposing viewpoints. Seriously, most of the sources you have here broadly support my preferred version, and my summary of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- They obviously do not in any way support pejorative. Your Ruitenberg bit doesn't state anything like that. Your vague link is that she quotes some other bit by Kohl who defines it pejorative somewhere else, not in the quoted bit. That's it? Sparrow bit is about rhetoric. The US media source does not state that it's typically derogatory or self-ironical, the opposite. They describe those as the fringe uses. Do you have anything to say about the actual, long statements about its definition? It seems like you're picking a few weak ones from the pack and targeting a small portion of their entirety to attack. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Here, have some more: Political correctness as an academic discipline Cited by 3.
- For the last two years I have taught an 8-months senior undergraduate course on Political Correctness in the Psychology Department at King’s College of the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario: PSY 383E: Psychology and Ideology - the Study of Political Correctness.
Political correctness and Bequemlichkeitstrieb Cited by 2.
The Challenge of Political Correctness in the Translation of Sensitive Texts
The concept of “political correctness”, initially used by the American legal system in the late 1700s, has slowly turned into a global linguistic effort meant to promote more tolerant human relationships. The concept was quickly adopted by many cultures...
Diverse Orthodoxy: Political Correctness in America's Universities, The
The only court that has attempted to define political correctness referred to the definition in Random House Webster's College Dictionary which defines the term as [m]arked by a progressive orthodoxy on issues involving race, gender, sexual affinity or ecology.
Lori Davis, of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's Women's Studies Programs, defines Political Correctness in a way that seems to support diversity and "respect for the lives and values in a complex, pluralistic world." The focus, she says, is "respect for others through...words and actions." The term Political Correctness has implications for both more expression and less. Advocates of diversity and multiculturalism call for increased awareness and sensitivity and a broadening of education and experience. When efforts to ma-elate respect, fairness and civility lead to sanctions against speech that does not conform to these prescriptions, civil libertarians argue that expression is chilled. Most often discussed within the college setting, PC exists in the public schools as well, as the definition above suggests.
The Epistemology of Political Correctness
On university and college campuses today there is a movement popularly known as "political correctness." Although difficult to define precisely, I think it is fair to say that political correctness refers to a web of interconnected, though not mutually dependent, ideological beliefs that have challenged the traditional nature of the university as well as traditional curriculum, standards of excellence, and views about justice, truth, and the objectivity of knowlege; while simultaneously accentuating our cultural, gender, class, and racial differences in the name of campus diversity.
Researchers in the field of communication have created many methods of defining and studying “political correctness.” This section of the literature review will specify four definitions provided in previous research studies that are particularly relevant. This section will also provide information on previous methodologies for studying political correctness. According Bailey and Burgoon (1992), political correctness is an area that, until recently, had yet to have a consensual definition among communications researchers. Bailey and Burgoon (1992) stated that political correctness is a way of exhibiting competent communication. Andrews (1996) wrote that political correctness is the practice of using sensitive language in the public and social contexts, especially in naming, in order to prevent offensive language. According to Feldstein (1997), political correctness was originally brought upon by the suppression of women and minorities, and political correctness now serves to correct offensive language so that the United States can function as a more holistic society. Ayim (1998) explicitly stated that the realm of political correctness encompasses areas including: “policies governing fair language practices, affirmative action in hiring practices, legislation dealing with sexual and racial harassment, and greater inclusion of women and people of Colour in the curriculum” (p. 446).
“politically correct” has come to be used to characterize curriculum revisions, campus speech codes, harassment policies, affirmative action in college admissions and hiring, the use of new descriptors for minorities (e.g., African American, Native American, learning disabled), new NORMS for interacting with women and racial or cultural minorities (e.g., avoiding genteel “ladies first” policies), and generally, to any change in language, policy, social behavior, and cultural representation that is aimed at avoiding or correcting a narrowly Eurocentric world view and the long-standing subordination of some social groups. Originating in debates over the content of higher education, the terms “politically correct” or “PC” are now routinely used outside of the academy.
That's not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for political correctness scale
Here's a study whose basis is Loury's theory as well.
Political correctness: Contributing to social distress?
In their stimulus article, "Political correctness and multiculturalism: Who supports PC?," Kelly and Rubal-Lopez (1996) address many dimensions of political correctness (PC) including attempts at definition. They start with a general definition of PC as "movements aimed at addressing legitimate concerns about tolerance and equality." They then discuss politicized distortions of the original definition by the far left and far right, and eventually conclude with a definition influenced by Fish (1994) that suggest that PC is the "process of making judgments from the vantage point of a particular ideology," ... something everyone does whether they know it or not.
I'm having issues with some sources because "Wiley Online Library" is down for maintenance. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Surely the answer to the original question is that it depends on your personal POV. On the whole I think it is primarily pejorative. It is sometimes used by those on the right as a simple way to dismiss any sort of left-wing or centre-left ideology or theory on the basis that attaching the letters "PC" immediately labels the subject as something worthy of contempt by those of a similar view. It is also used by those who seek justification for their own prejudices by claiming that those who disagree with them are simply "politically correct".
On the other hand, it can be used in a more positive fashion as short-hand for something that is outdated and uncomfortable to watch or read. For example "that cartoon was a bit un-PC", i.e. a recognition that views expressed are considered wrong by the observer. In this context I think it is often easier to attach the "PC" label than to be more blunt and call it "racist" or "sexist" or whatever (or alternatively saying "un-PC" may just be quicker if the subject is racist and sexist and homophobic and.....) Frinton100 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- A very good analysis. Thanks. As for the sources above, the first oneI checked, "A Study of the Use of Politically Correct Language on the Campus of A U. S. Midwestern University" is a student paper. Useless on its own, we don't know of Calhoun is being represented correctly or the context. When the first source I check fails WP:RS it doesn't encourage me to look further. Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Frinton100, I basically agree with your analysis, your use example is one of the few offered that is neither clearly critical, nor clearly ironic, though there is still a hint of self-mocking irony in the use. Of course the problem with each of our anecdotal encounters with the term is that they are inherently un-sourcable. Ironic usage is extensively documented, even from the first days that the term entered the 'free world' (it was previously used in USSR and among Chinese communists with a literal meaning, ie, the 'official line'). It is impossible to characterise the permutations of use without going into OR, (despite knowing that the term has 'morphed' into such multiple shorthand uses), since they are simply not documented. I repeat a previous argument, that our only option is to give appropriate weight to the various 'public forum' uses that are documented and to not imply that these are the sole uses. Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- No offense to Frinton, but how is it "very good analysis" when it doesn't source its claims, as meanwhile anything even close to OR I ever put out is attacked savagely as WP:OR? This talk page has ten accusations of WP:OR before this, probably a similar amount of just OR without the WP. And because my fourth source (why fourth?) was a student paper and I didn't notice that: all of my sources are thus discounted... I mean I added 19 quotes. 19. And around 25 links. I'll add more when Wiley Library comes back on. The article also doesn't even mention the other use. How about at least mentioning it can be used pejoratively and non-pejoratively? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re;Frinton100's remarks, there is a difference between articulting a viewpoint on talk, and entering text in the article. Frinton100 I take to be recording his personal experience of the term, his is a comment, not a ivote, which one would expect to be based on policy and on an evaluation of the sources and arguments. He is also saying something that no one disputes, namely that the term is not ALWAYS pejorative, especially in private discourse.
- Re:How about at least mentioning it can be used pejoratively and non-pejoratively?, primarily/most commonly/ordinarily MEANS 'not always', it was originally inserted by me months ago. However we cannot single out 'non-pej' use since that use is not extensively explored in the article (nor in sources?). 'Non-pej' use would need to be in the article and there would then be a case for reflecting that in the lead. Apart from historical (pre1990-ish) and ironic use, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive no-critical use? Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- The numerous OR accusations before have happened towards articulations on the talk page. And he didn't state "not always" but primarily. And primarily wasn't inserted months ago but two weeks ago. It used to be ordinarily but then Aquillion (not you as you used it in the second sentence) changed it to the stronger primarily. And non-pejorative IS extensively explored in the article and the sources if you bothered to read the article further than the lead — in addition to those I've added 25 (minus one student paper to 24) here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- 'Ordinarily' was months ago, inserted by me, it was recently changed to 'primarily', as used in a source you provided (I believe). Accusations about OR on talk (by me), are specifically in relation to text that you claimed SHOULD BE in the article, Frinton100 does not even begin to suggest his personal experience should be in the article. I did not say that he used either 'always' or 'primarily', I pointed out that - whichever he used - the clear inference of either (or similar variants) is 'not always'. 'Most people like bananas', clearly infers that some do not!
- The numerous OR accusations before have happened towards articulations on the talk page. And he didn't state "not always" but primarily. And primarily wasn't inserted months ago but two weeks ago. It used to be ordinarily but then Aquillion (not you as you used it in the second sentence) changed it to the stronger primarily. And non-pejorative IS extensively explored in the article and the sources if you bothered to read the article further than the lead — in addition to those I've added 25 (minus one student paper to 24) here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re:How about at least mentioning it can be used pejoratively and non-pejoratively?, primarily/most commonly/ordinarily MEANS 'not always', it was originally inserted by me months ago. However we cannot single out 'non-pej' use since that use is not extensively explored in the article (nor in sources?). 'Non-pej' use would need to be in the article and there would then be a case for reflecting that in the lead. Apart from historical (pre1990-ish) and ironic use, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive no-critical use? Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at 5 or 6 of your sources, we cannot proceed on the basis of your/my/anyone's personal evaluation of whether the primary source is USING the term pejoratively, but, for what it's worth, the psychology professor clearly blames 'PC' for forcing an inadequate student on him, how is that not derogatory? Some souces say: we do not subscribe to any of the derogatory or self-critical connotations attached to the term by either side of the debate., how do you NOT subscribe to derogatory connotations that don't exist? Similarly, In Australia, political correctness has some currency in the conservative attack on multiculturalism.
- You have successfully persuaded me of something which is almost self-evident, namely that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory. Friendly piece of advice, NO editors coming to this RfC are going to wade through 25 sources, especially if the first two or three are 'crap', students studies, opinion pieces, OR based on primary sources, dictionaries, the personal opinions of 'drop in' editors on talk, or that clearly contradict the central claim of your RfC, that the derogatory use should not be given substantial coverage in the article and lead. We can have a legitimate discussion about what weight should be given to 'pejorative', but wall-papering the talk page with 1000 block quotes, isn't going to persuade anyone of anything, except your wish to WP:bludgeon your own PoV. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which source? I don't think you have shown any like that. And I didn't accuse anyone. That must have been your guilt talking. And I never "claimed my personal opinion" should be in the article; I claimed that personal opinions shouldn't. Because as it stands it's very poorly sourced that it's primarily. We have a couple dubious sources which claim it is only and not primarily which is contrary to what all editors have claimed as they have all said it's not only, right? And you keep talking about primary sources but there are no "primary sources." It seems like you're using Helbert Kohl as your primary source. Why isn't Glenn Loury your primary source? Because he has an opinion you disagree with? You just proved his other quote right. By psychology professor you must mean the one who taught a class on Political Correctness. He defined PC as an ideology. He doesn't use it as a pejorative. Are liberalism and conservatism pejoratives as well? By some sources you mean the one which seemed to find such usage fringe. Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't subscribe to fringe theories. They go with the same logic. They stick with the more neutral definition as certain kind of neutrally-described behavior and ideology.
- You have successfully persuaded me of something which is almost self-evident, namely that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory. Friendly piece of advice, NO editors coming to this RfC are going to wade through 25 sources, especially if the first two or three are 'crap', students studies, opinion pieces, OR based on primary sources, dictionaries, the personal opinions of 'drop in' editors on talk, or that clearly contradict the central claim of your RfC, that the derogatory use should not be given substantial coverage in the article and lead. We can have a legitimate discussion about what weight should be given to 'pejorative', but wall-papering the talk page with 1000 block quotes, isn't going to persuade anyone of anything, except your wish to WP:bludgeon your own PoV. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- And you haven't convinced me in the slightest that it's primarily pejorarative when it's witnessed by my own eyes and ears being used on the TV non-pejoratively all the time (like on Late Show with Colbert last Monday). In an imaginary scenario of instructing a foreign student which things aren't okay I'd say what things aren't politically correct. And the editors should care to wade through sources. And the first two especially aren't crap. The Morris model is based on the Loury definition of political correctness. I used the Morris link before the Loury quote as an argumentative tool to point out the notability of the Loury paper. Loury defined the concept excellently. He's very notable, cited, trustworthy. He should be the primary source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Magoo, this is from a source YOU supplied (further up the page) :- »PC« is primarily a negative term for the ideals and actions of others. Designating an attempt to fight social discrimination by changing everyday speech and behaviour, and to enforce such change through public pressure on individuals as well as legal or other institutional sanctions to regulate group conduct, it implies that these measures are petty, rigid, humourless, intolerant, even totalitarian in impulse. Politically correct is then a judgment disguised as description; deflecting attention from the substance or value of the reforms in question, it expresses a dismissive attitude to those who advocate change. The latter in turn may reclaim the phrase as an ironic self-description.
- Nobody said you accused anyone, I was pointing out the difference between OR-ish observations on talk and using such OR to justify insertion of text in the article.
- I cannot see how you can think blaming 'PC' for forcing an inadequate student on the Prof. is not derogatory, but regardless, it's irrelevant since it would be pure OR of a primary source for us to deduce that it was/was not, (since when anyhow do psychology professors teach philosophy?). The advice was friendly, no editors are going to wade through 25 sources. WP operates on goodwill, what I often do when going to a RfC is randomly pick 4 or 5 sources, if they patently don't adequately support the assertion of the RfC, if the assertion is vague, muddled or otherwise unclear, I leave a note and leave. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- 23 days ago and Doug decreed that source unusable because it was so messy. Because of that we don't have the additional text about Bush in the article. In addition, the source states that the usage is changing and provides examples of non-pejorative use. And you did plainly write "by me" when accusing me of accusing. And again, I don't see any "blaming" but he does criticize the ideology. He goes to lengths to describing what kind of ideology it is and what are the tenets. When he criticizes it like this, it's obviously not being used as a simple pejorative. And editors don't have to wade through sources because I provided the key bits in short quotes... And RfCs shouldn't assert anything but ask a question. And your logic works for me because if I randomly picked 5 sources (the only ones I found in my search to disagree with me were the ones already in the article) then they'd prove your assertion wrong. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- 'by me' when signed by Pincrete, refers to Pincrete! I was acknowledging that I have accused YOU of OR in terms of text that you think SHOULD BE in the article. The reason 'Bush' is not more fully covered is not lack of sources, but because nobody else thought it important beyond a mention in history. As far as I can see, Doug W did not veto the source, merely the particular piece of text in the source, I don't know if it is RS. We are not going to agree about the Psych Prof but that is immaterial since it is clearly OR of a primary source to characterise it AT ALL. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- That exactly was the point. And he specifically stated that it was confusing and obscure. Of the importance he only specified not leadworthy. Nothing like you present it as. And it's hilarious how you accuse me of OR for having characterized the source AFTER you just did it — and I used the source's own constantly-repeated word: "ideology." It's also hilarious how you demand to see non-pejorative uses and state that there are none in the article but when I add them you add "Relevant?" tags. That's just... How can one have good faith after getting harassed like that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point with a determination which is bordering on the perverse. Regardless of whether you, I, Jimmy Wales think a particular primary source is using the term in a +,-, or = manner, that is our subjective assessment, it proves nothing except your/my/JW's opinion. At other points you extol 'phrases.org' as RS, the man who writes the definitions, and started the site, has a degree in computer science, he does not even have experience in any word-related discipline. The site is a harmless place to go to find a general explanation of a phrase, but hardly RS for WP. Doug said the text used was muddled, in your use and in the source, that is not a general observation about the source itself, simply that/those paragraphs. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- How am I missing the point when I just wrote you missed the point: that by writing "by me" you specified you when I had specified no one? You feel no obligation to apologize for a false accusation and instead you brush it aside because now — after you noticed you made a mistake — it's no longer the point? And I said nothing about the Phrases website's RS factor but nevertheless the articles there are well-sourced.
- You are missing the point with a determination which is bordering on the perverse. Regardless of whether you, I, Jimmy Wales think a particular primary source is using the term in a +,-, or = manner, that is our subjective assessment, it proves nothing except your/my/JW's opinion. At other points you extol 'phrases.org' as RS, the man who writes the definitions, and started the site, has a degree in computer science, he does not even have experience in any word-related discipline. The site is a harmless place to go to find a general explanation of a phrase, but hardly RS for WP. Doug said the text used was muddled, in your use and in the source, that is not a general observation about the source itself, simply that/those paragraphs. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- That exactly was the point. And he specifically stated that it was confusing and obscure. Of the importance he only specified not leadworthy. Nothing like you present it as. And it's hilarious how you accuse me of OR for having characterized the source AFTER you just did it — and I used the source's own constantly-repeated word: "ideology." It's also hilarious how you demand to see non-pejorative uses and state that there are none in the article but when I add them you add "Relevant?" tags. That's just... How can one have good faith after getting harassed like that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- 'by me' when signed by Pincrete, refers to Pincrete! I was acknowledging that I have accused YOU of OR in terms of text that you think SHOULD BE in the article. The reason 'Bush' is not more fully covered is not lack of sources, but because nobody else thought it important beyond a mention in history. As far as I can see, Doug W did not veto the source, merely the particular piece of text in the source, I don't know if it is RS. We are not going to agree about the Psych Prof but that is immaterial since it is clearly OR of a primary source to characterise it AT ALL. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- 23 days ago and Doug decreed that source unusable because it was so messy. Because of that we don't have the additional text about Bush in the article. In addition, the source states that the usage is changing and provides examples of non-pejorative use. And you did plainly write "by me" when accusing me of accusing. And again, I don't see any "blaming" but he does criticize the ideology. He goes to lengths to describing what kind of ideology it is and what are the tenets. When he criticizes it like this, it's obviously not being used as a simple pejorative. And editors don't have to wade through sources because I provided the key bits in short quotes... And RfCs shouldn't assert anything but ask a question. And your logic works for me because if I randomly picked 5 sources (the only ones I found in my search to disagree with me were the ones already in the article) then they'd prove your assertion wrong. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot see how you can think blaming 'PC' for forcing an inadequate student on the Prof. is not derogatory, but regardless, it's irrelevant since it would be pure OR of a primary source for us to deduce that it was/was not, (since when anyhow do psychology professors teach philosophy?). The advice was friendly, no editors are going to wade through 25 sources. WP operates on goodwill, what I often do when going to a RfC is randomly pick 4 or 5 sources, if they patently don't adequately support the assertion of the RfC, if the assertion is vague, muddled or otherwise unclear, I leave a note and leave. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- While no reference work is able to claim its content is 100% definitive, every effort has been made to include here only information that is verifiable as correct. The content is researched to published reference book standards. The sources used in the research are twofold, either primary sources or trusted references. The primary sources include newspaper cuttings, books, films, photographic archives etc. The trusted reference sources are those that themselves derive from primary sources and have sufficient reputation to be considered reliable. These include, The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, The Historical Dictionary of American Slang, First Edition, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th Edition, Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang, 8th Edition. In addition to these are numerous reference works and databases which, although not in themselves definitive, provide a rich source of stimulation; for example, Cotgrave's A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, Hotten's Slang Dictionary and many others.
- And his field is computational linguistics, as in processing of natural language by computers. And you're really stretching it with the muddleness of the Bush source there. The source is muddled at many parts but apparently at some parts where you prefer: it's not muddled. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Phrases.org is not RS, at its best it would achieve dictionary status, but it doesn't have the kind of oversight required for that even. I apologise to myself for any offence to me, for having pointed out to you that exploratory OR in discussion is sometimes inevitable on talk, but quite different from OR used to justify insertion into the article. I have no idea whether the 'Bush' source is muddled throughout nor whether it RS, nor whether it has anything useful. I was simply pointing out that Doug W objected to that particular text, and your use of it not the source itself. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I haven't claimed so. And since you mentioned "dictionary status," I went to look and found that Wikipedia does accept dictionaries as even primary sources. In that case we could use the large number of dictionary definitions I presented earlier. And you still don't get the accusation bit: again, you accused me of accusing you, even though I didn't specify anything further than "accusations have been made." And he didn't specify anything but "original text." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- A primary source to a historian etc. is GOLD, they are the raw product of his/her trade. Primary sources on WP are to be treated with extreme caution, especially if the use of them involves even the smallest amount of subjective interpretation by editors. A dictionary is not the 'last word' on the use of a term, which is fundamentally what this article is about, if it were WP could 'shut up shop' and simply redirect to Websters etc. Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Herbert Kohl isn't a historian. In fact he was likely there to drive forward political correctness in education as he's a proponent of progressive alternative education. He must have been one of the ones to target Bloom before the term was even used in this context. It's obviously in his interest to pretend there was never any push by any movement to change education. Mind you his bit was published in a journal about literature for children. Debra Schultz similarly isn't a historian but works in women's studies. Her only link to study of history is that she taught women's history, in women's studies — and is only one of many women's studies matters she taught. Cannie Stark specializes in psychology of women and sexism in research. Judging by these merits, even any dictionary is a better source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- My wording was 'historian etc.', ie anyone making an academic study of past use. I was not commenting on Kohl or Schultz, but on your remarks above about primary sources. A dictionary definition is not going to override a study of the use of a term. A dictionarydefinition provides minimal info for the purposes of understanding, even then, some dictionaries describe the term as 'derogatory'. We are going round in circles here, no one doubts that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory, however the most studied (most used?) use of the term IS derogatory. You are asking us to ignore that obvious fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just because it's a study doesn't mean it's a viable source, like with the student papers. In that case a dictionary would override. And there was one dictionary which described it so and only in American usage. The most studied use of the term is the simple definition which say 95% of dictionaries adhere to. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- My wording was 'historian etc.', ie anyone making an academic study of past use. I was not commenting on Kohl or Schultz, but on your remarks above about primary sources. A dictionary definition is not going to override a study of the use of a term. A dictionarydefinition provides minimal info for the purposes of understanding, even then, some dictionaries describe the term as 'derogatory'. We are going round in circles here, no one doubts that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory, however the most studied (most used?) use of the term IS derogatory. You are asking us to ignore that obvious fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Herbert Kohl isn't a historian. In fact he was likely there to drive forward political correctness in education as he's a proponent of progressive alternative education. He must have been one of the ones to target Bloom before the term was even used in this context. It's obviously in his interest to pretend there was never any push by any movement to change education. Mind you his bit was published in a journal about literature for children. Debra Schultz similarly isn't a historian but works in women's studies. Her only link to study of history is that she taught women's history, in women's studies — and is only one of many women's studies matters she taught. Cannie Stark specializes in psychology of women and sexism in research. Judging by these merits, even any dictionary is a better source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- A primary source to a historian etc. is GOLD, they are the raw product of his/her trade. Primary sources on WP are to be treated with extreme caution, especially if the use of them involves even the smallest amount of subjective interpretation by editors. A dictionary is not the 'last word' on the use of a term, which is fundamentally what this article is about, if it were WP could 'shut up shop' and simply redirect to Websters etc. Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I haven't claimed so. And since you mentioned "dictionary status," I went to look and found that Wikipedia does accept dictionaries as even primary sources. In that case we could use the large number of dictionary definitions I presented earlier. And you still don't get the accusation bit: again, you accused me of accusing you, even though I didn't specify anything further than "accusations have been made." And he didn't specify anything but "original text." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Phrases.org is not RS, at its best it would achieve dictionary status, but it doesn't have the kind of oversight required for that even. I apologise to myself for any offence to me, for having pointed out to you that exploratory OR in discussion is sometimes inevitable on talk, but quite different from OR used to justify insertion into the article. I have no idea whether the 'Bush' source is muddled throughout nor whether it RS, nor whether it has anything useful. I was simply pointing out that Doug W objected to that particular text, and your use of it not the source itself. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Primarily Pejorative Mr Magoo's bludgeoning of this discussion (and this talk page more generally) and his everything-but-the-kitchen sink style "sourcing" of his arguments notwithstanding, the most reliable sources on this subject are crystal clear: that the terms "PC," "politically correct," and "political correctness" are most often used in a pejorative sense. For those who doubt, just read the forward and introduction to this recent collection of academic, peer-reviewed articles on the subject. As they demonstrate, there is a broad, widespread consensus about this among scholars and other authoritative writers - the random, found-via-google links that Magoo has thrown up (and often misrepresented) above does absolutely nothing to rebut this basic truth. That so much time and effort has been spent arguing about this (Mr. Magoo has made just under one thousand edits to this talk page since his first edit here on September 30) frankly boggles my mind. What a waste of time and energy for all concerned... Fyddlestix (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, according to which sources? There are three-four questionable and obviously biased sources from such esteemed journals as "The Lion and the Unicorn." The one you provided now is non-academic and doesn't pass RS, like you always point out of my sources. I've used search engines for academic sources. Most of my edits before were also tiny one letter edits because I hadn't gotten the hang of it yet. I also noticed you removed my text and closed some off and put your vote here to the bottom even though this is the comments section. You could have shortened a lot of other stuff as well but you decided on my quotes instead. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? The book is published by Routledge and written by a well-known academic. It is 100% RS. Also, no text was removed: I merely hatted your over-use of barely-relevant block quotations from a large number of low-quality sources, per WP:REFACTOR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- You did remove text and hatted very relevant quotations and not the overburdening walls of unrelated arguings. And I apologize for mistaking it for non-academic, but I read about the author and he's prominently on the left, and he states the following to be "ironic" usage:
- Huh? The book is published by Routledge and written by a well-known academic. It is 100% RS. Also, no text was removed: I merely hatted your over-use of barely-relevant block quotations from a large number of low-quality sources, per WP:REFACTOR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Politically Correct is an idea that emerges from the well meaning attempt in social movements to bring the unsatisfactory present into line with the utopian future . . . Politically correct behaviour, including invisible language and ideas as well as observable action, is that which adheres to a movement’s morality and hastens its goals . . . the ideology of political correctness emerges in all sorts of movements, applying to behaviour, social institutions, and systems of thought and value. (Dimen 1984, quoted in Richer and Weir 1995: 57)
- I don't see an ounce of irony in that. I think it's plainly describing it as an ideology. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since you removed a message of mine where I wrote I'll be adding from the online library, I'll do that now. I had almost forgotten about it before you removed the message for some reason.
- Here is David Morrice in the journal Politics:
- In this paper I offer consideration of what I take to be some of the errors of political correctness. My critique is likely to provoke in some the response that I attack a straw man (or should that be person of straw?). Political correctness, I have heard it said, is a figment of the imagination of its opponents; an invention of the right, in their attempt to ridicule and attack liberalism and the left, which has been nurtured by the media. Others, who do not simply deny the reality of the phenomenon of political correctness, argue that it is misunderstood by its critics. [...] I believe political correctness is real and non-ironic, although often preposterous. It exists as the language, values, attitudes, policies and practices of a movement which is perhaps most evident in North America, and particularly in higher education, although it can be identified elsewhere.
- I need to reboot though because I'm having a hard time clicking on hyperlinks for some reason. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I found some more stuff but I'll put them in the green folder. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
More sources
|
|---|
|
Rethinking political correctness Cited 60 times:
Elizabeth Frazer calls it a proper political phenomenon in Politics:
Arye L. Hillman in Public Choice:
Molefi Asante in link Issue Journal of Communication Journal of Communication Volume 42, Issue 2
Here the following matters are talked about:
`She' and `He': Politically Correct Pronouns Cited by 23 other papers and uses the term clearly positively. Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction Playing the Political Correctness Game Again posivitely, cited by 134. The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views Used positively here as well, don't be fooled by the name. Cited by 109. To Be PC or Not to Be? A Social Psychological Inquiry into Political Correctness Positive, 22 citations. Posivitely and defines it, Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming. Cited by 24.
|
Comment 4 The Stephen Morris paper above has been cited 504 times. Glenn Loury 93 times. But of the pejorative sources: Herbert Kohl's paper has been cited 4 times. Cannie Stark 11 times. Again, why are we using these fringe sources as primary sources? Oh, and two of those Herbert citations came from the same Russian who cited it in 2014, probably having found it here on Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Morris is unequivocally using the term pejoratively, though, as I said above. To answer your question above -- you asked whether I felt that defining it as censorship meant they were using it pejoratively? The answer is, obviously, yes; "censorship" is itself generally a pejorative term, so someone who uses the term to say "my political opponents are advocating censorship" is using it pejoratively. There is (practically) almost nobody who identifies unironically as "politically correct"; there is no significant self-identified "political correctness movement" or anything of that nature. (If there were, it would have been easy for you to produce high-quality sources documenting its history in non-pejorative terms.) Academically, it is, for the most part, a term used by scholars on the right to lump their political opponents together and accuse them of various nefarious things. Depending on who you ask, this lumping is either an accurate identification of a problem in modern liberal thought, or a cynical attempt to silence their opponents by providing an easy way to dismiss advocacy of liberal viewpoints; but academically, there is no real dispute that the term is a pejorative. The few useful sources you've dug up are essentially people saying "this insult is accurate" (a perspective that we can and do cover when we go over the various core accusations of political correctness further down); they're not saying "this isn't an insult." I mean, it's a widely-used term that has been re-purposed multiple times and spread in a lot of strange ways, but the bulk of these sources still seem to support the idea that it is a pejorative. --Aquillion (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- But he's plainly not? Point out any such part? And censorship isn't pejorative? It's a concept? You could barely think of it sometimes being casually used as a pejorative, but even then only incredibly rarely like that and mostly used as the concept of censorship. I've also now provided what 8-9 sources which use the term political correctness positively. The movement isn't self-identified because that is against their interest. Their view is that for example history's been always like what they change the curriculum to and not simply switched from another version by the movement. And it is almost never used by academics as a simply pejorative but as a descriptor for the ideology, as proved by all the sources we have and none which prove otherwise. There is concensus on what the term is academically and that is what the dictionaries posit it as, not primarily pejorative. Your version of my "few" sources describing it as an insult is the most plain straw man of all time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Magoo, to anyone living in an established, liberal (in the original UK meaning) democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of belief are sacred rights and are enshrined in many constitutions. Censorship, directly violates those rights, how could the term censorship NOT be very critical when applied to political or social discussion? It is doubly so when it is framed in emotive, 'Orwellian' language. One of your sources claimed that the ultimate aim of 'PC' is to make certain speech or attitudes(?) illegal', Give us your poor, your huddled masses ... aching to be censored' , doesn't quite have the same appeal does it? I think we are inhabiting different linguistic planets if you do not see that 'censorship' is seen as a threat (outside a few areas such as pornography perhaps), to their most fundamental rights by most people and in invoking that fear, the user of the term is using the term pejoratively.
-
- An ideology requires adherents, they are usually the ones to discuss and define its core beliefs, critics then weigh in to point out the failings of the ideology. Stage one and two is missing here, because 'the ideology' is defined only by those who criticise it, or are at best semi-neutral to it. The very first NYT, Newsweek etc articles characterise the term as being used by conservative (non-political meaning) educators, to describe policies etc that they were angrily opposed to. Those articles do not record their more radical opponents using the term of themselves or their policies, it entered the public consciousness as a dismissive term.
- Why would we think that 30 word dictionary definitions should take precedence over 300 page studies? Why would we think that the absence of the word 'derogatory' in some sources proves anything, except what is obvious to anyone, namely that the term is not ALWAYS derogatory (nor is the word 'nigger', but so what?)? That obvious fact does not disprove that the term came to prominence as a derogatory term, used by critics, to characterise what they saw as left/liberal orthodoxy among their opponents.
- I echo Fyddlestix's comment 'What a waste of time and energy for all concerned.... There are significant improvements that could be made to the article in order that it give a more complete and rounded account, but this is simply wasting everyone's time and goodwill for no purpose apart from arguing-for-arguing's-sake and WP:bludgeon.Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- In the same way "free speech" is a compliment. It's not. It's a concept, in our case the concept of censoring. And which source was that? Sounds most like the Bush quote in the article. And like there is no actual group managing political correctness, there is also no actual group managing all of antiracism. It's more of a stance than a movement. The first articles do not state it is being used by conservatives. They state it's being used by both sides in academic debates. The dictionary definitions come from very reputable academic dictionaries, vetted by many academics and based on academic sources. The Kohl paper was in a journal about poetry for children and was cited 4 times and two times by the same Russian in 2014. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- But if the argument leads to a significant improvement like you mention, isn't it worth it? Hardly a waste of time, since the purpose here is to improve Wikipedia articles. That one word, "primarily," carries a lot of weight. With the evidence in front of us since this argument began, there is no doubt that "political correctness" is used both pejoratively and neutrally (complimentary less so). Determining the frequency of each looks to be an unattainable feat. Therefore, I believe it should be edited to read "... is a term often used as a pejorative..."Kerdooskis (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Kerdooskis, I don't think anyone connected with this article doubts that the term CAN be used in multiple ways. A recent right-ish US newspaper article was analyzing Trump's strategy and appeal to a section of the US electorate, finally concluding that his lack of 'PC', might be appealing to some, but wasn't a good idea in a president, that international diplomacy requires diplomacy! My assessment of that use is that it is a centrist-Republican using the term PC as a synonym for courtesy, tact and judgement on the international and domestic stage. Some other examples people have given on this RfC are also recognisable to me, some only exist in private discourse, or in humour, the term is also extensively used ironically. The trouble with all these uses is that we are dependent on our own judgements (ie we are engaged in OR) as to what extent the term is being used critically, ironically, or like the 'Trump' article, subverting the usual use of the term to make a point (that a measure of 'PC' might be a good thing).
- I am the person responsible for the ordinarily/primarily qualifier, the article previously said simply 'pejorative'. The balance of sources studying the use of the term (as opposed to simply using it) fairly unequivocally state that the term came into prominence/general use as a 'dismissive' term in the late '80's, early 90's. The neutral use is less recorded and positive use is not really recorded/studied at all, nor of course is private usage. I don't think that down-grading 'primarily' is any answer, nor do I believe that always/usually/often/sometimes is the underlying agenda of this RfC. The answer IMO is to state unequivocally the context and manner of use in which the term came to prominence (to criticise/characterise a range of changes in higher education, later in society in US, mainly local Govt. and 'social organisations' in UK), but to largely 'leave open' other or later uses, which we CANNOT record, since to do so would involve OR of primary sources. Later use, to the extent it is studied can be recorded, but I don't believe it is.
- The underlying agenda (in my assessment) of this RfC, is to change the article from 'PC' is the term used to criticise/characterise certain policies, to 'PC' is the motivating ideology behind those policies. To make that change would be to hand over the article to the critics of 'PC', who largely coined the term and gave it popular currency, precisely as a critical term to imply a collective 'mindset'. My comment about 'improvement' was because I think a fuller, more detailed, more nuanced account of how the term was used, WOULD improve, but this change would not have that effect IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The only reason you added ordinarily was because someone else had edited "sometimes" in first. Pejorative was also added in May by Aquillion 4 days before you started editing the article.
- If you want to talk about agenda, then look at Aquillion's edit history. He constantly removes — from similar articles — sourced paragraphs that hurt his whatever left-wing agenda. I also apologize for accusing you for I went through your edits and yours seem mostly neutral and fixing. You make a ton of tiny edits. His on the other hand are usually the likes of removing 1000 characters.
- And Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It posits both views in controversial issues (where there isn't an overwhelming majority). You don't get to choose whose views aren't to be included here. And even so, a person who coins the pejorative use wouldn't honor the term with anything other than pejorative connotation. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are 'weight' issues that could be addressed, but this is simply going round and round in ever more absurd circles. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just change "primarily" to "often" and move on.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Closing this RfC
Mr. Magoo and McBarker, as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it. I see no evidence above for general agreement for this edit. Nor do I see any evidence of 'a deal', as stated here. I myself suggested ANOTHER compromise, but no one seems to have taken that suggestion up. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your suggestion was that you were in favour of a more nuanced account. For two days you kept editing and this talk page as well so I took it you didn't care anymore. Mind you what is wrong with the swap again? People were suggesting a slight compromise rather than a trench war and this is it. It's a synonym, from the second sentence, with a less absolute view. The second sentence is more apt this way as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? The edit you inserted was not proposed/discussed by anyone. The only thing you achieve by these 'games', is ensuring that no one thinks you can be taken seriously about anything. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, your suggestion was that you were in favour of a more nuanced account. For two days you kept editing after my proposal and this talk page below as well so I took it you didn't care anymore. And I did withdraw but I guess I'll have to open it again. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? The edit you inserted was not proposed/discussed by anyone. The only thing you achieve by these 'games', is ensuring that no one thinks you can be taken seriously about anything. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? There was no discussion even of the edit you made, unilaterally deciding that you are entitled to assess the concensus of the RfC (ignoring numerous objectors) only alienates those - like myself - who were prepared to consider a more nuanced definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again with your straw men. No, I didn't do that. Likewise you seem to be entitled to have control over the article even when you ignore replies made to you on the talk page - while you're being active and not in any way away. When someone finally edits you come complaining to the talk page that there was no discussion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of "as the proposer, you cannot close this RfC yourself except by withdrawing it", was not clear? There was no discussion even of the edit you made, unilaterally deciding that you are entitled to assess the concensus of the RfC (ignoring numerous objectors) only alienates those - like myself - who were prepared to consider a more nuanced definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit reason,('as discussed') linked to the RfC closure, stated that 'a deal' had been done. This is clearly untrue, there is no discussion anywhere above of 'a deal', and a deal between you and ??? (who exactly?), would anyway need the agreement of others. You haven't got the answer you wanted from the RfC, so you unilaterally made a deal with yourself, which completely ignores both the RfC and the opinions of other editors. I do have other things to do apart from answering the 1000+ edits you have made on this talk page in the past weeks. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- There was discussion and the assumption was that there was a deal because you had wanted a more nuanced view and I had proposed one. I didn't know why you weren't replying to that proposal but I then asked that if there's no disagreement I'll edit it in and waited a day and then edited it. And I didn't get a completely reversal of pejorative but I did get people saying that primarily could be changed to a less absolute synonym, which is what I did. And the past few weeks I've done about what 200 edits here and even of those most are minor typo edits. And again, you reply to every single of my posts. Each of my posts here get a reply from you. Every single one. So why blame only me? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit reason,('as discussed') linked to the RfC closure, stated that 'a deal' had been done. This is clearly untrue, there is no discussion anywhere above of 'a deal', and a deal between you and ??? (who exactly?), would anyway need the agreement of others. You haven't got the answer you wanted from the RfC, so you unilaterally made a deal with yourself, which completely ignores both the RfC and the opinions of other editors. I do have other things to do apart from answering the 1000+ edits you have made on this talk page in the past weeks. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.