Talk:Political correctness

---

Untitled

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

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

Former Featured Article Nominee

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

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

False Accusations

This section is completely subjective and biased and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.168.183 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)

What's subjective or biased about it? It cites reliable sources for everything it says. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It suggests that the news story about Baa Baa Black Sheep is untrue but the basis of the story that the words were changed IS true. "They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc." The whole point is that the words of the song were changed to make it meaningless. Black and white sheep exist. Pink and blue sheep dont. Black sheep are due to a genetic process of recessive traits and black wool is hard to sell. This is the meaning of the rhyme. The black sheep has "three bags full" because no one wants them. The idiom is thus deemed potentially racist - as meaning that black sheep are genetically inferior to white sheep. The words have been changed in a futile attempt to obscure this fact with the result that the rhyme has become meaningless. Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea the article is bang on the money. There were guidelines set out by Birmingham City Council stating the song should not be sung in schools. Where is the "false accusation" here? There was a policy to change the words and someone implemented a policy to change the words. The whole article is a patchwork of such retroactive after the fact denial and discontinuity by people who just can't cope with the fact that PC is a censorship agenda. It has no other purpose. And I disbelieve the statement in this article that the words were either pejorative and/or an in-joke. I remember the 1980s when comedy became "politically correct" and the words were about then and very real and not meant as a joke as they are and continue to be today. Utter biased rubbish. The worst of wikipediaAnthonyEMiller (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AnthonyEMiller, the main council at the centre of the 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' story was Hackney, where the nursery itself also did variants of the rhyme, it was never banned nor were the variants done to avoid racism - should a private nursery not be allowed to do this? Birmingham supposedly DID give an instruction that it not be taught, based on a single school inspector, which it immediately withdrew, in part because black parents themselves found the logic ridiculous. The 'Birmingham' BBC article gives a completely different origin of the rhyme and I suspect no one knows for sure if it actually ever meant anything. To complain about a censorship agenda while simultaneously decrying a private nursery for varying the words, for whatever reason (to teach children colours?), is a tad inconsistent don't you think?

What is the censorship agenda of PC? Which words are you 'not allowed to use', which you think you should be able to use? Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sapir-whorf

The Sapir-whorf connection is one of the weaker ones concerning the impact of language and can be traced to a multitude of more respected sources ranging from Hegel to Nietzsche to Heidegger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.64.217.8 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Pejorative?

Absolutely ridic to see this is the first sentence! Should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eomurchadha (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How did this article devolve?

Looking at the 2004 Featured Article version, it was once a readable article, although needing work in my opinion. The major missing piece would appear to be a dictionary definition in the lead. And I don't understand how the history of the term became divorced from a history of its usage.

So why not begin again with the Oxford English Dictionary?

"The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

This does not sound like a pejorative to me. PC can be "taken to extreme" (See National Association of the Deaf), but this does not mean the term is now synonymous with the "leftist language police", it is only conservatives who think so and use the term to attack liberal positions that some language does continue to "exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". However it is difficult to determine whether conservatives are saying that all liberal arguments are groundless because no insult is intended (or one can always find at least one liberal to be insulted by anything); or are they saying that anyone should be able to use any language whether it is insulting to others or not (also know as verbal harassment or bullying). Perhaps no one has a handle on the current meaning because there is no consensus among those that continue to use it.

I do not have the time to improve this article, my only interest is due to the term being used by many to argue about the topics of article that I do edit.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so it doesn't make sense for an article to lead with a dictionary definition... and the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article, which indicates, overall, that the term has never had any significant non-pejorative meaning (and that its usage in the modern day was mostly forced into the public discourse specifically to serve as a pejorative political attack.) If you want the lead to say that it wasn't always pejorative, or that it has significant non-pejorative usage today, you need to find usable secondary sources stating that -- pointing at a dictionary definition and then saying "this doesn't look pejorative to me" is original research, after all. Beyond that, the core problem with the article has always been poor sourcing; the 2004 version passed FA when standards were much lower; it had terrible sourcing and would never pass FA today. So we need to focus on removing badly-sourced or poorly-sourced sections, and on finding high-quality sources to build the rest of the article around. An additional problem is that (because the term is very popular among talking heads) the article is full of people dropping random examples, opinion-pieces, essays and so forth into it; this is part of the reason many sections of it have ended up so incoherent. So it's important to think about how to arrange the aspects worth covering, and to remove the bits that seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one controversy or opinion-piece. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

FriendlyFred, apart from our use of 'pejorative' (which I broadly agree with Aquillion about), and our using 'seen as excessively' rather than 'often considered as taken to extremes', our opening is inline with the OED definition already, isn't it?Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ... ps the only change which might make sense is to change 'IS a pejorative' to 'ordinarily used as a pejorative', there are enough examples of non-pejorative usage, to claim that the term is not inherently pejorative.Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is an article about the origin, meaning and usage of a term. A dictionary entry, particularly a descriptive definition, is a summary of the current usage of the term found by lexicographers. How is this OR? The WP is not a dictionary guideline states that an article begins with a definition of a topic and expands upon it. What better start than the dictionary?

• I came here to find out what the term means, but have had to drill down to the sources to do so. Perhaps I am just saying the article is poorly organized and the content does not appear to match what I have been reading in those sources. The article by Andrews (1996) is very helpful, contrasting Cultural Sensitivity (CS) and PC. While some may continue to use PC in the non-pejorative sense to refer to the implementation of CS with regard to language, that usage may now be in the minority, as per one of the more recent articles NPR. Conservatives have largely taken over the term to frame any discussion of Cultural Sensitivity as "just PC", often meaning "a few over-sensitive individuals have had their feelings hurt, but they have suffered no harm, or insufficient harm to infringe upon the right of free expression". What term can liberals now use to continue to discuss the words used by the majority or individuals in a position of power to insult or marginalize minorities?FriendlyFred (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what was meant was that concluding from a dictionary definition alone that a word was not pejorative was OR. I read 'your link', the author is complaining that the term has been 'hijacked', they are asking 'what is wrong with being political and being 'correct' in one's politics?', but fundamentally the piece is confirming that the term is ordinarily used in order to be dismissive or derogatory. A similar point is made by Polly Toynbee in our article.Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what I was seeking to clarify. The term PC no longer seems useful in conveying facts, if it ever was. It is like "tax relief" another term that conservatives use to frame the discussion of taxation as if it is always a burden unfairly imposed by the government, rather than an obligation citizens agree to share in order to maintain the common good. Political Correctness now frames another common good, civility in public discourse, as the unfair imposition of rules by "bleeding heart liberals". The moderate position, that sometimes objections to language are justified, and sometimes not, is hard to articulate given this polarization. The origins and prior meanings of PC are too prominent. I cannot know from reading the article which is the most common current meaning of the term, which is the only thing that interests me. Perhaps that is because there is none, and the term is a moving target. If there is no consensus in the real world how can there be one on WP? The only alternative is to attribute each statement to the author of its source, but in the absence of a RS that presents a NPOV, the cataloging of opinions tends toward SYNTH within sections with no overall sense.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think 'moving target' is exactly it, in the UK examples of what I have seen described as PC language include, the word 'gay', (actually originally a 'code word' used by gay people themselves, the word came out of the closet!), 'Collateral damage' (actually a military euphemism), 'cosmetically/intellectually etc. challenged' (actually 'mock PC' insults) etc. etc. etc. I think the most common modern use is derogatory, though I'm not sure it ever had much 'serious' use. The first use I came upon ('80s) was self-mockery (using 'significant other' instead of same/other/no sex, wife/husband/partner/lover/boy-girlfriend/whatever you call yourselves).Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

By definition things that are politically correct are things that mainstream media support, so since wikipedia relies on mainstream media citations nothing challenging any specific politically correct belief can get into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The above is incorrect on both counts: (1) PC is an element in the right-left culture wars, with many points of view on both sides in the mainstream media and (2) the best citations are academic analyses of these mainstream discussions.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

FriendlyFred, sorry the cn tag was my response to a vague, PoV, IP, comment. Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A talk page is for free discussion, thus the only meaningful response to nonsense is rebuttal, not the tags that would be used in an article.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide view banner ?

Is the 'worldwide view' banner still necessary? Examples are mainly UK/US but is there a distinct view outside these two which the article is not reflecting?Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Extremely biased/one-sided

The section on the '90's is jaw-dropping. Specific criticisms and specific important, well-known cases go completely unmentioned. Every criticism is attributed to "conservatives" and the "right-wing" and "reactionaries"...many of whom, we are then told, *ad hominem*, were former communists... However, in fact, PC was not a liberal movement, but--at least according to many liberals--a movement of the radical left. *Certainly it was opposed by many liberals.* One would at least expect some discussion of some of the flagship cases that gave content to the rhetoric of PC, and which generated the widespread anti-PC sentiment that were largely responsible for generating pushback against the movement--e.g. the infamous Penn "water buffaloes" case, the faculty response in the Duke Lacrosse case, the battles over speech codes at many different universities, the restriction of free speech to "free speech zones," the Antioch sex policy, the infamous 'niggardly' cases...one could go on and on...and on and on...but *none* of this is discussed here. How can a section on PC in the '90's not have a single such example?

Most of the section focuses on the *term* 'political correctness' rather than the phenomenon, about half the section is spent in thinly-veiled criticism of the "conservatives" who opposed the view, and the only discussion of semi-substantive points is the "liberal" response to these criticism--where the criticisms (never actual articulated) of "conservatives" are characterized without argument as attempts to prop up discrimination. Perhaps "poisoning the well" should re-direct here? The final unsubstantiated accusations of the section--e.g. that the term is "an empty right-wing smear"--seem plausible after reading a section in which every item is cherry-picked to support that very point.

Honestly, this is one of the most biased entries I've ever seen on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.138 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make additions, please provide reliable sources for the things you want to add! But I don't feel that the article is improved by trying to give it an exhaustive list of everything that anyone has ever claimed to be political correctness. As it is, there's a risk that the things you're talking about could fall into original research or synthesis -- that is, if you want to imply that there's a formal "PC movement" (rather than it just being a pejorative term people use to attack each other in politics), you need reliable sources saying so explicitly, not just a string of events that you feel represent it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:134.126.47.138, I don't know the cases which you refer to as I'm UK. Many notorious cases in the UK during that period turned out to be fiction or were very falsely reported, or only called 'PC' by critics. There were numerous 'urban myths' in the UK about local govt's supposed policies in the '90s. But as Aquillion says, we need RSs rather than your or my recollection/interpretion of what was/was not 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) … … … Water buffalo incident, Duke lacrosse case, Antioch College, these are some of the events I think you are referring to, in terms of WP coverage, only Water buffalo incident, mentions PC as a factor. Personally, I don't see why notable incidents which were widely blamed on PC could not be a section, just as we have the 'false accusations' section.Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of structure and coherence

I became involved with this article only because of a quibble over the lead. Looking it over though, there is an overall lack of structure and coherence, quite a lot seems off-topic and possibly OR (eg explaining scientific methodology or linguistic ideas in order to make a simple point about overlap with PC), section titles bear little relationship to content and aren't very informative nor do they progress coherently. Thoughts? Ideas? Strategy? Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree. I think the best thing to do would be to focus primarily on it as a term, with sections for its history, who uses it and how, and the broad things people say about it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed/amended some off topic and saw you did the same, I don't yet see how to organise / section title what is left. History section is probably most the most coherent at present. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Initially I also though that defining the term would be the best starting place, but I now see, after reading some of the sources cited, that the "moving target" nature of the term precludes this. From reading several of the chapters in "Beyond PC" (Aufderheide (Ed.), 1992), there needs to be a focus on the history:

1. The first use was very limited, but planted the seed for later usage: some socialists used it to describe American communists that continued to "toe the party line" after Stalin's 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler. This was an act that the socialists, many of them Jewish, could not support, nor think of Russia as a true example of a Socialist government. One faction of the left was mocking another, but not in the global sense; there remained much agreement between the two groups in America in the 40s and early 50s. (Then came McCarthy and no one could admit to being any kind of leftist.)
2. In the 1970s, some activists used the term to describe social and political change in the "correct" direction. Again, the term was used in discussion between different factions of the movement regarding priorities and tactics. However there was no real agreement on what the term meant, it was almost always in the context of a particular person's using it, whether that usage was positive, mocking/ironic, or negative.
3. Before any consensus on a positive meaning could be reached (although the OED definition implies that it emerged, could they be wrong?) the opponents of social change took it up as a pejorative to describe the excesses of liberals, more than implying that they were all leftists. In the 80's and early 90's this was mainly confined to academia to describe many issues, not only language but all topics regarding racism and sexism. In this Dinesh D'Souza's book "Illiberal Education" defined the term, and the liberal response did not reclaim it, but defended the underlying social processes being criticized.
4. There are few references to current usage, but the term seems to have moved into popular culture with only the entirely negative meaning while being abandoned in academia. All I want to do is to be able to explain something like this.FriendlyFred (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think most of this is in the history section.Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that the historical progression should be used to organize the entire article, limiting the History section to possible origins and beginning Modern usage with the 1970s. The subsection on the 1990s in the former covers the same material as the subsection on Education in the latter. The politicization of science likely began in the 90s also, but has become more prominent more recently.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Vindictive protectiveness

Added a summary of a new article in the Atlantic. Much more could be said, and the article contains many references that could be used.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the article isn't really about political correctness. In fact, the only section that mentions political correctness is here: "The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being." In other words, the authors briefly allude to their previous opinions on political correctness, but only to say that they believe trigger warnings are different (and even worse, which is saying something, coming from the president of FIRE.) I'd be cautious about relying on the one paragraph in there that mentions political correctness to source anything for this article, both because their main concern in that essay isn't political correctness, and because, well, one of them is the president of FIRE, whose views we already cover in the previous paragraph. Given that, I'm not sure it's a useful source for this article -- it would be more appropriate in an article on trigger warnings (or the section in Trauma trigger, anyway, since it lacks its own article.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a basic problem with the article: is it about the specific term "political correctness" or about an underlying social phenomena, the limiting of speech or behavior because it is continues the marginalization of a historically disadvantaged group? The current lack of focus is due to the former, including anything that anyone in the media has called "PC" even when it does not meet the criteria of the underlying phenomena. A backlash because the Dixie Chicks expressed a liberal view? Fringe science is not welcome in academia? Since when are country singers and white conservatives an historically disadvantaged group? I think the Vindictive protectiveness article has more to do with the underlying phenomena. It is proposing everyone as a potential member of a disadvantaged group, since everyone potentially has a "trigger" that might be activated.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with 'an underlying social phenomena', is that WE are then subjectively determining what is/is not PC. I also think that while the 'underlying social phenomena', may be (have been?) real, the use of the term PC to describe such actions, is largely confined to critics (a feminist decrying a certain word, attitude or practice is probably not going to use the term 'PC', she is going to be more exact and forceful in her objection). To that extent, the article has to be about the use of a term. I suggested above that it is possible to include 'notable examples' of incidents criticised as being 'PC', though the danger there is that we will end up with every trivial use of the term.Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt was on MSNBC Aug. 11 to discuss the Atlantic article under the show title "How political correctness is impacting colleges". That is a difficulty with the term, it is so ingrained in the public mind that even saying "this is not PC, but something new" frames the discussion and Haidt does not try to reframe it.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical canon

Aquillion, re. your quote: it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. Is this missing from the article? The (here only implied) accusation that 'gender studies' etc and changes to the mainstream curriculum were an 'attack' on academic values. At the moment, we largely concentrate on 'social' aspects.Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to use that specific quote as a basis for anything in the article, since it's just an aside in an essay about something else. My general feeling (again, given that one of the authors is the president of FIRE, which has a clear position on this topic that we already touch on) is that that paragraph is mostly a rhetorical device where they're referencing what they see as a past political conflict they were involved in in a 'reasonable' tone as part of a rhetorical flourish so they can say that they feel that trigger warnings are even worse. I do think that part of the difficulty in writing the article is that Greg Lukianoff might describe gender studies or the push for more diverse viewpoints as part of some unified push for "political correctness", but I don't think any of the people actually teaching within those fields generally would (and they would probably give different reasons than him for it.) We could try and find sources discussing that from various perspectives more directly, but again, I'm reluctant to rely on this one because here it's just mentioned in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't be deciding what is PC and what isn't, we should only use sources which mention PC. When writing about "notable examples", I agree with Pincrete that we should be careful not to just mention everything we can find. To do that we should make sure it's discussed in several reliable independent sources. And to reply to FriendlyFred, if our sources all mention political correctness we should be ok. Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I have not done as much work on this article is that the term has devolved into a rhetorical device. I don't see where there is any current sources that analyze all of the uses from a NPOV (As the Aufderheide book did in the 90s), which would be a basis for selecting and categorizing content from the current century. In the absence of such a source we are doing OR in selecting what is "really PC" or not; and including all the mentions of the term implying such a categorization is SYNTH. FriendlyFred (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, just to clarify, I wasn't intending to use your quote, I was 'leaving a marker' as an aspect of the subject currently missing. I am hampered because I have no access to any libraries of any kind (expat), only online resources. It is almost inevitable, that it is the accusers who will define actions as 'PC', since the term is almost always dismissive, at best. Nonetheless I think overall balance is achievable. Hypothetically, "when institution X added controversial subject, to its curriculum commentator Y observed "Blah blah blah". Institution X replied by pointing out etc."Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment section

Adding the Seinfeld content meant deciding where to place it. Certainly not notable enough to go directly under the "Modern usage" section and not directly related to the other existing sub-sections. Certainly there is more to say about PC in entertainment.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Foucault

The item bothered me, so I looked at the cited source and found it to be a published interview rather than something written by Foucault. It is also in French.

I read a little French but would not rely upon it for anything technical.

Basically, the term is used relative to its origin regarding the leftist "party line", thus the move to the prior section.

The cited question and answer in its entirety, according to Google translate:

How would you define your attitude to the action and politics?

The French left has lived on the myth of a holy ignorance. What changes is the idea that a political thought can not be politically correct only if it is scientifically rigorous. And to that extent, I think all the effort is being done in a group of communist intellectuals to reassess the concepts of Marx finally to resume at the root, to analyze, to define the use that we can and must do, it seems to me that all this effort is an effort to both political and scientific. And the idea that it is turning away from politics than to devote himself, as we do now, to strictly theoretical and speculative activities, I think this idea is completely false. This is not because we turn away from the policy we are dealing with theoretical problems so narrow and so meticulous, it is because we now realize that any form of political action can only be articulated the most closely on a rigorous theoretical reflection.

The Original:

Comment pourrait-on définir votre attitude à l'égard de l'action et de la politique ?

La gauche française a vécu sur le mythe d'une ignorance sacrée. Ce qui change, c'est l'idée qu'une pensée politique ne peut être politiquement correcte que si elle est scientifiquement rigoureuse. Et, dans cette mesure, je pense que tout l'effort qui est fait actuellement dans un groupe d'intellectuels communistes pour réévaluer les concepts de Marx, enfin pour les reprendre à la racine, pour les analyser, pour définir l'usage que l'on peut et qu'on doit en faire, il me semble que tout cet effort est un effort à la fois politique et scientifique. Et l'idée que c'est se détourner de la politique que de se vouer, comme nous le faisons maintenant, à des activités proprement théoriques et spéculatives, je crois que cette idée est complètement fausse. Ce n'est pas parce que nous nous détournons de la politique que nous nous occupons de problèmes théoriques si étroits et si méticuleux, c'est parce qu'on se rend compte maintenant que toute forme d'action politique ne peut que s'articuler de la manière la plus étroite sur une réflexion théorique rigoureuse.

Not sure whether this adds anything, though its function was to serve as a 'bridge'. The (unintended?) consequence of that 'bridging', was to imply that Foucault said it and shortly therafter 'the US left' were parroting it. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seinfield redux

We should only include his comments if we include other comments on what he said, eg [1] and [2] by Dean Obeidallah. There's more of course. Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel that devoting an entire section to it is WP:RECENTISM that grants WP:UNDUE weight to his opinion. If we had a larger section with a wider variety of sources on other aspects, maybe he could get one sentence or so, but as it is it feels like an entire section is being devoted purely to his opinion -- it's hard to imagine that, a year or so from now, his comments will still be worth covering. Adding other people commenting on his comments would help a bit in terms of balance, but it would mean we're focusing even more attention on his personal opinions, which seems like a mistake. I mean, that's a risk throughout the article, but this section in particular was nothing but his opinion and reactions to it. Being well-known as a comedian doesn't make his comments automatically important or relevant here, at least not to the extent of devoting a whole section to them like this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion, that this is UNDUE and off-topic. This is pretty much a 'throw-away' remark by an individual on a talk-show. If we rephrased the sentence 'well known middle-aged comic believes that 20 year old college kids are too PC, because they don't laugh at his jokes anymore', it would give a better idea of the real weight of the remark. Including the criticism would improve matters, but is the page about Seinfeld? Comedy? Generational differences? Changes in what is acceptable humour? Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well - personally I don't think this should be in the article at all. In the long history and use of this term, this little episode/comment is pretty insignificant. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, the two responses to Seinfeld, discuss 'how things have changed' as well as him, I could see the potential for that as a worthwhile section, however the focus would need to move away from JS himself and critics to the broader issues, if the material supports such a section. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

This article is officially at the bottom of Wikipedia. I came here to learn about political correctness and I find an article constantly fighting to convince people that "it's not a bad thing", "people just don't understand it," and "It doesn't even exist." It reads like a definition that is followed by 10 pages of rebuttal from people who identify so much with liberalism they have to protect it to protect themselves.

You have cherry-picked your sources so hard you struggle wildly to even present a readable page.

All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for smearing the Wikipedia project with this filth. Wikipedia is better than this. YOU are better than this.

73.190.174.12 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations and constructive suggestions, it's always nice to be appreciated.Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Pt. 2 (left-wing affiliation attribution)

This article does seem to be managed by those it criticizes. It's constantly mentioned Dinesh D'Souza, referred to as simply an "author" by the article itself, is right-wing and conservative. When a left-wing author, who is associated with a left-wing party, is quoted; his political view isn't to be mentioned because it's completely unrelated? They undo any such mention. My god. Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason D'Souza is identified as conservative and right-wing is twofold: First, his politics are highlighted in all of the sources that discuss his role in this topic. Second, maybe more importantly, he's primarily notable as a conservative political commentator (for conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and so on.) In a situation like that, we have to follow what the sources say on the topic and highlight why what he says matters. The people you added 'left-wing' to, though, are primarily notable as academics; their politics aren't really the focus of the things written about them, nor is it really what makes their opinions significant. (This isn't to say that they don't have politics, but highlighting them absent a source focusing on them in this context is a WP:NPOV and WP:OR violation for the same reason eg. it would be wrong to quote Richard Alley as "left-wing climatologist Richard Alley" or the like.) We do use 'liberal' and 'left-wing' as identifiers in other parts of the article where they're properly-sourced as relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Very likewise Polly Toynbee and Will Hutton are both associated with the Labour Party. Toynbee even stood for Social Democratic Party as a candidate. These are the only two I added political affiliations to. Toynbee is even more political than D'Souza, Hutton only comparable. Richard Alley is not associated with the left wing nor the Labour Party. Isn't that just a straw man? Picking the most non-political person ever and then acting like I'm treating them as political. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, SDP was about as centrist/liberal as you can get, it even merged with the Liberal party eventually, but I am fairly sure Toynbee was never a candidate. SDP was formed precisely because the Labour party had become too left-wing for some people. I think you would find it very hard to find sources in the UK that described either as 'left-wing'. Social democrat (not capitals), would probably be accurate for both.Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On her article it says she strongly criticized the merging with the Liberal party, and because of that left SDP and rejoined Labour. Her article also states she's urging the Labour party to be even more left-wing, which means she's to the left from the Labour party. In addition she did gather 9351 votes in the 1983 election, standing for SDP. However she did not get elected, as she finished third. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo &, to the left of what? There are people in all the parties urging them to be more left, more right, more centre all the time. But anyway this is OR, and synth. Is Toynbee generally described as 'left-wing' by most RS? I doubt it, 'Left of centre', 'social democrat', 'liberal', (all without caps) perhaps. The paper she mainly writes for (Guardian) is broadly 'left of centre' but has no permanent political loyalty. Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How in the world is that OR? I literally simply visited her Wikipedia page and all of that was there. Her article's not even that big. And Labour is "left from centre", as it's described centre-left. Then we take into account she's urging them to be more left, as stated in the very header of her article. Where does that leave her? Not even left of centre is enough. Her article also has the following description of her: Toynbee has been described as "the queen of leftist journalists." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't use a Wikipedia page as a source. Even if you could, the issue isn't "she has been described as liberal in some reliable source"; the issue is "does that label matter for this topic?" For example, D'Souza is a Christian (as it says on his article, and as is covered by many reliable sources), but we don't describe him as a Christian here, because no sources have highlighted that as relevant to the topic. All sources that discuss D'Souza in relation to this topic, though, make it clear that his conservative politics are central to his involvement. You would need something similar for the other labels you want to add; we can't, ourselves, take an academic and decide that in this situation they are speaking "as a liberal" or "as a conservative", but we can rely on the numerous sources about D'Souza's position in this particular case. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page has already listed the sources, which means I'm referring to them. And she hasn't been described "liberal" (which is you watering down her stance), she's described "leftist" by a fairly neutral Wikipedia article. And why bring up religion? The article constantly refers to right-wing writers. It has 11 mentions of "right-wing"! That's just with the wing alone, many more referring to simply "right" (harder to count from unrelated rights). Toynbee is considerably more politically active "wing" than D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We still can't use a Wikipedia page as a source, regardless of how you feel about it. If you want, you can go to the other sources you're referring to and we can discuss those, but the key point is whether they're relevant to what we're quoting her for here -- we need sources on that specifically, which you haven't provided. You've asserted that it's relevant; you've argued that it's relevant based on your own personal readings of 'leftist' and 'liberal' and her position and the article as a whole, but all of that is WP:OR. What you need to provide are something similar to the numerous sources we have that put D'Souza's publication in the context of a larger conservative broadside against what he sees as a liberal bias in higher education. You are arguing, implicitly, that Toynbee et all are part of a left-wing response to that, but to imply that in the article, you need sources saying so specifically. It should not be hard to find them, if it is as obvious as you're saying. --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait then, I'll just paste them here. Also, in that case I request each instance of right-wing to be dropped from the article. It shall only be applied when you find an academic source that describes the person in question to be right-wing. Any news article won't do since they won't do for Polly Toynbee either, it seems. The subsection "Right-wing political correctness" shall also be retitled "Other instances of political correctness." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of pasting these to the right, I'll paste them to the left here where there's more space. I can add more but here's a few:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/13634/defender_of_the_commonweal

Polly Toynbee, The Guardian’s voice of leftist dissent

https://web.archive.org/web/20150412233434/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/polly-toynbee-reborn-as-a-lady-of-the-right-425833.html

Polly Toynbee, the queen of leftist journalists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0319h3b

queen of leftist journalists

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100225278/revealed-how-i-posed-as-a-left-wing-nutjob-on-the-guardians-comment-is-free-and-got-away-with-it/

Journalist posits Polly as strongly left-wing.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1480/polly_always_sees_red_toynbee_s_rewriting_of_history

Polly is again described as strongy leftist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1325052/The-irony-welfare-better-hard-working-families.html

Polly is again described as strongly leftist.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quote straight from her:

http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/230562/toynbee-and-hutton-on-fairness-and-the-left.thtml

left-wing people are more intelligent, and just generally better people

She also seemingly describes The Guardian as left-wing press.

She also talks about Will Hutton, the other person I added the centre-left note about:

Will Hutton is a perfect example of just the kind of intelligent, independent-minded left-wing commentator that costs Labour votes according to Toynbee.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The question isn't whether people have described her as leftist; the question is whether people have described her as leftist in this context. "Someone called her leftist once, therefore we must slap that as an identifier in front of everything she says" is inappropriate. You need sources specifically stating that her views on this subject are part of that view, in the same way that eg. you would need sources relating them to her race, religion, or gender before you could add that as a disclaimer. Meanwhile, for the 'conservative' identifiers you're talking about, the sources are already in the article. See eg. Wilson, John. 1995. The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on High Education. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press (especially the "Conservative Correctness", since you asked for a cite for the 'right-wing political correctness' section). Or, for D'Souza's role and the importance his conservative politics played in it, see D. Charles Whitney and Ellen Wartella (1992). "Media Coverage of the "Political Correctness" Debate". These are respectable academic sources by historians and scholars who have carefully analyzed the subject of political correctness as a term, traced its history, and go into depth on the politics involved; whereas most of the sources you listed above are links to blogs, tabloids, and opinion pieces, none of them touching on this topic, which you are using to try and argue via WP:SYNTH that Toynbee's politics are relevant here. I'm not denying that people have described Toynbee as left-wing; my point, as I've said several times, is that in order to use that as a qualifier to her quotes here, you need a source relating it to that quote specifically. You seem to believe that if someone is identified as left-wing anywhere, that this means we must use that as a disclaimer to anything they say everywhere; but this is not true. Most people do not get such identifiers. D'Souza gets one in this case solely because there is overwhelming coverage that his role in this subject was part of a larger conservative push against what they saw as left-wing bias in academia. If you want to argue that Toynbee et all are part of some liberal pushback, that's fine, but you need sources for that specifically -- you cannot simply post a bunch of opinion pieces and blogs arguing that she's left-wing in general, and take it as a given that anything anyone who is left-wing does or says is defined by that label. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you go through the sources, they describe her left-wing in this particular context as well. I think you simply didn't bother going through the links. I'll state again: the article has 11 mentions of right-wing without need of sources or context. You now provided one which talks about "conservative correctness." That's not the same thing, is it. Especially right after your speech about context. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any academic sources in your list describing her position on this subject as left-wing. I see one quote, in an opinion piece, that mentions the term at all, in passing, and without reference to her views on its history. I don't see any discussing the essay she's quoted for here (whereas we have numerous academic sources discussing D'Souza's positions as they relate directly to Illiberal Education and his efforts to push this term in particular.) Virtually all of the sources you provided are either opinion-pieces, blogs, tabloids, or all three; none of them are usable for statements of fact (such has someone's political position.) I provided an academic source that goes into extensive depth, which you dismissed based on (I guess?) its section heading. Here are some more if you want, covering various aspects you've objected to: Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education, Ellen Messer-Davidow. Debra L. Schultz, To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the 'Political Correctness' Debates in Higher Education. Paul Lauter, 'Political Correctness' and the Attack on American Colleges". James Axtell, The Pleasures of Academe: A Celebration & Defense of Higher Education. Valerie L. Scatamburlo, Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness. These are all high-quality sources by respectable experts in the field going into depth on this subject in particular; your sources are blogs, tabloids, and opinion-pieces by talking heads focusing on unrelated subjects. Most of the sources you provided fail the standard that WP:RS places on making statements of fact about a living person, and none of them focus on this subject the way the ones I've listed do. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a book which talks about both Polly Toynbee and Will Hutton as leftists on the matter of political correctness: https://books.google.com/books?id=H5i7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT32

The book was published by Imprint Academic: http://www.imprint.co.uk/, "A peer-reviewed journal which examines issues in plain English." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You're confused, I think? It was published in Andrews UK Limited, at least according to Google Books. That's a self-publishing service which offers print-on-demand. Imprint Academic is likewise a self-publishing service; it specializes in peer-reviewed journals (that is to say, it publishes some, in addition to stuff like the thing you linked), but that doesn't mean that everything published through them was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Either way, anyone can publish anything they please through either service; the book you're linking wasn't peer-reviewed or even approved by a conventional publisher. Things published via self-publishing services don't pass WP:RS and can't be cited here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It was first published through Imprint Academic. Apparently there are two publishers. And like I wrote, you require me to find some sort of an academic book only published by the most highest authority clearly stating that yes, Polly Toynbee is left-wing in the particular context of political correctness. Near a dozen newspapers and articles and a book as close to full academic as you can get aren't enough. Meanwhile you throw random sources out which don't even mention the words right-wing. And that's just fine in your view. Everything's as it should be. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A self-published source and a bunch of WP:NEWSBLOGs and opinion pieces (most of which make no mention of political correctness) isn't enough, no! The sources I cited are all high-quality, all go into depth on the subject, and several of them do mention 'right-wing'. (Scatamburlo even has 'The New Right' in the title, if you don't want to read the papers themselves!) --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Does he attribute it to D'Souza? Is there such a quote to be had? I posted some new sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-0jqaa-73mgC&pg=PA161

"Open University Press"

left-wing Guardian newspaper columnist Polly Toynbee

https://books.google.com/books?id=e8WoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA170

British liberal-left journalist Polly Toynbee

https://books.google.com/books?id=bx9h0XuYSlUC&pg=PA119

prominent left-wing journalist Polly Toynbee

https://books.google.com/books?id=0MIoXxnwmAUC

left-wing social-policy commentator Polly Toynbee

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Some less academical ones:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8-AKAQAAMAAJ

The above one is a lot less academic but goes into great detail about Polly and her, quote: "leftist" political correctness.

https://books.google.com/books?id=q0gKAQAAMAAJ

Polly Toynbee, a left-wing British journalist for the Guardian

https://books.google.com/books?id=-SpLAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA107

Toynbee, in particular, has made her mark as a commentator; her op-ed pieces in the Guardian, penetrating, provocative and polemical, are always worth reading. She is the standard-bearer for a particular kind of leftwing politics: aggressively feminist, militantly atheist, conspicuously compassionate towards favoured victim groups, she gives voice to an important constituency within the broader left.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think all of these books and sources have established that she's commonly referred to as a left-wing journalist. Among were a few attributing the same to Will Hutton. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from Aquillon's point about relevance, (why not describe her as conspicuously compassionate?) many of your quotes say 'leftist' which means 'left-leaning', and the last one says 'within the broader left', ie 'left of centre'. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of them also describe her left-wing. And according to dictionary definitions, leftist either means a member of the left i.e. a left-winger or leaning like you say; which then coupled with the many that call her left-wing and the fact that she stood in the elections for a left-wing party would mean she's most likely being referred to as the former as in left-wing by those you pointed out only talking about leftist. Also, the last one called her a standard-bearer for an aggressively social-values version of "leftwing" (note the leftwing that comes before your broader left), which is the one most often blamed of and related to political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the whole world can be divided into left or right, but it isn't very subtle or precise. No one in the UK would define the SDP as 'left-wing', it was formed and supported by people who, yes believed in 'social justice policies' but who strongly opposed the Labour party at that time for being unrealistically left-wing. It was almost the epitome of slightly-left-of-centre. But why is her political affiliation relevant to her remarks, which are mainly about people who want to use derogatory language such as 'Paki(Pakistani), spastic, or queer (faggot) '. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

But she was later disillusioned with SDP as they joined with the Liberal Party, and she joined with Labour once again. And she has apparently changed over time, as now she's urging Labour to be more left. Left has two meanings these days, both economical and social. She most likely represents both. Her contextual view is of the social left. Her description of criticism of political correctness also reeks of a straw man, which picks the heaviest insults people get punished for instead of the slightest. Few contest punishments for the heaviest insults, yet she describes absolutely everyone using the term PC to be these kind. Her motivation is of course to elevate even the slightest perceived affronts to be heavily punishable. One such recent case comes to mind, when Alexander Carter-Silk messaged a woman on LinkedIn that her profile photo is stunning. Whether that is sexism can be argued about. To Polly Toynbee, it most likely can't be argued about. Her motivation is most likely to force her will that cases like this can't be argued about. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt if she is NOW urging Labour to be more left-wing, under Blair, Brown, Milliband perhaps, especially over 'social-welfare' issues (not economic, she has never to my knowledge advocated state-ownership or increased union powers, or leaving EU and NATO, all of which are defining characteristics of 'the left' in UK). However this does not answer the question why is it relevant ? Hers is a very caustic characterisation of why people object to 'PC language', sure. That isn't a particularly right-left issue. I'm ignoring your speculations about what PT possibly thinks about hypothetical situations. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I just explained. You didn't bother reading but the first two sentences? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What did you explain? Why it is relevant? Most of what I see is speculation about what she probably believes/what she would probably think or do. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained why it's a left-right issue. Obviously you only read the first two and last two sentences. Left has two meanings these days, both economical and social. She does seem to represent both. Many of her opponents cry foul of her economical in addition to social leftism in the above sources. But her contextual view is of the social left. Also, if left and right are only economical, why does the article refer to the right-wing with and without the dash 13 times, and to the "right" 4 times? If it means fiscally conservative, what does that have to do with political correctness? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

btw. This is the 'left-wing party' that Toynbee was a candidate for, its core policies are described as having been Centrism and Social liberalism. At the same time there was a much more strongly 'left' Labour party. But none of this is anyway relevant to her views on PC-ness. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, she has possibly changed her stance like I've written many times. She's now encouraging Labour to be even more left. Secondly, we don't know why she changed to SDP at the time. Maybe it's because SDP had a stronger push of social liberalism. She changed with her husband, so that might be it. Or maybe it's because she might've not been as economically left as today. And most of all, the centrist description of SDP might be from their final years, just before the actual merger, when they ceased to exist. Perhaps before that they were centre-left. But all in all, she stands very much deep in the left now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And why would you push this into another subsection? I didn't make the "Left Wingers" section as you edited it to look like (I wouldn't make a section with such name in any case), I responded to the Congratulations subsection. That's where it all began. The opening is only a few lines long. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked into the other sections and I noticed that quite many accused the article of being written by political correctness pushers and being biased. Who do I see responding to all of them? You and Aquillion. You vaguely, casually shoot down all of their points, which seem valid enough. Even then most likely most wishes of change are shot down at the editing section, like I once were multiple times. You are practicing systematic control of the article to fit your lopsided view. This article has little to no views of those editors who would accuse someone of political correctness, but it's mostly been written by those who deny political correctness exists and who think anyone using it is an extreme right-winger or alike (you seemed to hold the opinion that anyone using the term automatically also uses strong racial epithets). Even adding a note that a quote comes from a notably left-wing politically correct person — with the article already FULL of similar remarks (17 mentions of the right) for anyone vaguely right-wing — takes an eternity to fight through. Have you ever considered what kind of an editor a centrist would be on a hotly politically contested article? He would note party affiliations for all. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the sub-section title, since the subject clearly ISN'T 'congratulations, if you want to change it to something else, please do so.

You change it to a straw man to make me look bad. And my line starts out of nowhere like that of a madman's. You're such a handful. But, to appease concensus, I shall let it be but with a new title that really explains what the section is about. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT. Perhaps PT's cat told her to join the SDP, perhaps SDP was secretly an anarcho-syndicalist organisation waiting to show its true face. I'm sorry this speculation is a waste of both our times. As far as I can see the only party affiliation noted in the article is 'Australian Labor leader Mark Latham'. D'Souza is described as 'conservative author Dinesh D'Souza' and elsewhere as a 'right-wing libertarian'. In Michel Foucault it is implied that he is Marxist, since his Marxism is relevant to what he is saying, but I could see no one else whose politics were characterised.

Her article is full of attributions of her party support to Labour. She's active all around, calling for more political correctness and calling the Labour to be more left. SDP can be disregarded. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Even adding a note that a quote comes from a notably left-wing politically correct person … … who is the notably left-wing politically correct person, and noted by whom as being 'politically correct'?

Her article itself has a quotation which calls her "the high priestess of our paranoid, mollycoddled, risk-averse, airbagged, booster-seated culture of political correctness." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: This article has little to no views of those editors who would accuse someone of political correctness, but it's mostly been written by those who deny political correctness exists … firstly WP isn't a blog to put the views of those editors who would accuse someone of political correctness …

Secondly, in the modern usage, the term is almost always derogatory, it is almost always being used by 'critics'. Almost no organisation or individual, ever says 'I/we are doing this to be more politically correct',(except humourously) the term is almost always used to 'belittle' the language or policy being introduced. So yes, PC does NOT exist except in the perception of critics, as a blanket term to describe various tendencies of which they disapprove. The tendencies may be real (efforts to make language or policies less sexist, racist etc. etc.), some of those tendencies and policies may be TERRIBLE ideas, or badly implemented. Others may be ideas that most civilised humans would welcome (like racial epithets being no longer acceptable), but either way, the idea that there is a single 'mindset' behind all these tendencies that is called 'political correctness', that idea exists almost SOLELY in the minds of critics. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

According to you. Again, the talk page has had plenty of opinions against that. You shoot them all down, utilizing one or two sources at best. If they have any sources of their own, you question of the source's validity on whatever vulnerability you can find. Your own sources, even though always shoddy at best, are never to be questioned. And I never brought up any single mindset so I don't understand where you're going with that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete's Bradley correct. As for Steve Moxon (whistleblower), there's no chance we'd use him as a reliable source except in his article for his own opinions. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, sorry I don't understand your comment.Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Pincrete, I'm referring to the author of the Imprint Academic book[3] mentioned above. See also[4] Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've allowed myself to get side-tracked about this. Aquillon's point seems the pertinent one, are Toynbee and Hutton's political views widely seen as relevant to their views on PC? The second point is simply that we AREN"T in general identifying individual's political allegiances in the article. No one would deny that both Toynbee and Hutton are 'on the left' (mainly on social rather than economic issues in the case of Toynbee), but why would we include it, rather than their professions, or any of the other characteristics for which they are known. 'Left-winger' is crude and uninformative rather than wrong. Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems you have taken the matter into your own hands without concensus, so I properly undid your edit until we find concensus. I also added a source to the page itself this time to appease you. Firstly, it's not "left-winger" but left-wing. Secondly, I have to yet again point out the article has 13 mentions of right-wing with and without dash and 4 mentions of the right. D'Souza himself is called "right-wing" in the header of the article. You seem to have little interest in these facts. You seem to ignore them every time I mention them. I have also provided an academic source (not the Imprint one) of Polly being called a left-wing columnist. Very many near-academic sources also describe her as left-wing. Two, while talking about Polly, also happened to attribute the very same to Mr. Hutton. In light of these facts, how can you still disagree? On a personal note, I'm interested: why are you so vehemontly interested in removing Polly Toynbee's political affiliation in a hotly-contested political article? I hope to continue our discussion amiably. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Going by the people who have weighed in on this specific topic, I do sort of see a consensus against your changes -- in fact, you seem to be the only one advocating them. In any case, since you're making a claim about a living person, and since you're suggesting a change to an article, the burden is on you to get consensus to include it. Regarding your specific points, though: We have many sources in the article that D'Souza's politics are relevant to this specific topic, and specifically to the publications we're discussing. There's no similarly high-quality sources stating that Toynbee and Hutton's political views are relevant here. The issue isn't whether you can prove people have said they're left-wing or the like; the issue is that it violates WP:NPOV to always qualify someone's statements with their politics, religion, or some other identifier. You need some specific reason to do so, and your sources and arguments here haven't provided that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Whom? Aquillion gave up after I posted the sources. There's only you, who ignores the sources. I have yet to see any sources that call D'Souza right-wing especially. I asked for one, didn't get it. The IP who began Congratulations is obviously on my side, like many others on the talk page making similar sections. And I provided the academic source — which especially states left-wing — which you are again ignoring. The reason for noting is that the article has, like I've mentioned what four times now: 13 mentions of right-wing with and without the dash and 4 mentions of the right. This is a political article. Political affiliations are noted. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I added a Stanford University source for Will Hutton. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I added two more for Will Hutton, I believe this settles it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I now notice Aquillion has returned after long being gone after the sources were posted. I looked into the history of Pincrete and Aquillion and found out they know each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#Propose_widening_the_topic_area_of_.22Racism_in_....22_articles_through_moves_to_.22Racism_and_prejudice_in_....22_or_.22Discrimination_and_racism_in.22_titles

It's not a coincidence they find each other on the same side, again. They have a history of editing articles like this from the same viewpoint. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a book where Will Hutton describes himself as left-wing(!): https://books.google.com/books?id=01fXBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT80 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I found a Maastricht University assistant professor and academic affairs vice-dean describing Polly Toynbee as left-wing, added to sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Teun J. Dekker is currently Assistant Professor of Political Philosophy and Vice-Dean of Academic Affairs at University College Maastricht – Maastricht University. He has held visiting research positions at Amherst College and Yale University. He has had articles published in Inquiry, Ethics and Economics, The Journal of Value Inquiry, The Canadian Philosophical Review, Imprints, and Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

IF Aquillion and I have ever edited the same page before (other than this), I am unaware of it (your link leads nowhere). HOWEVER the implication of your remark is DEEPLY OFFENSIVE, (shouting intended). Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It was archived just now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=684196961 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, Yes, I and Aquillion, once took a similar position on a very vaguely phrased proposal, (the only other editor, to comment also thought the proposal unclear ... to save you looking, I believe I may have come across his/her name elsewhere as well).

FYI, DougWeller once threatened to block me and we have had more cordial interactions as well. Fyddlestix and I have occasionally 'met' I think (though I can't remember where). This is proof of editors 'acting in consort' is it? Because such accusations are taken VERY seriously on WP, and are regarded as bad faith unless the person has pretty strong proof. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You could probably find 1000 sources which mention PT and WH as some variation of 'left-of-centre', very few people would dispute that, but L-o-C isn't quite the same as left-winger and isn't very exact. Anyway, what is the relevance? Many/most sources would describe her as feminist, many as atheist, what is the relevance to this topic of choosing one of these? It simply isn't true as you claim that rightwingers are identified in the article, the one partial exception is d'Souza described as 'right-wing libertarian' ie his libertarianism is of the right-wing variety. More left-wingers are identified than r-wingers, but ONLY where it is immediately relevant to who they are/what they are saying. John McCain is a lifelong member of the more right-wing US party, shall I add 'right-winger' to every mention of him or would this simply be crude and silly? Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have provided 5 academical (and one from the person itself) sources which specifically state left-wing and not "left of center". The relevance is once again that there are already 13 mentions of right-wing with and without dash and 4 mentions of the right; and this is a hotly-contested political article and political affiliations are to be mentioned. I have also yet to see a source stating that D'Souza is specifically right-wing and not something else, which I have already asked two times. At least three other people are called righters. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article, this argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. Yes, the term "right wing" appears in the article a number of times - but it's not applied to specific people to qualify their opinion (with the one exception of D'sousa) in the same way that you're arguing that we should tag everyone on the left as "left-wing." I do not support the changes that you are advocating. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing here is that the sources make it very clearly that "political correctness" is a term that is primarily used by people on the right - we can hardly write this article without using the term "right wing," because all of the sources make it abundantly clear that people on the right are the ones who have seized on the term and given it its currency. The article is written to reflect what reliable sources say about the subject - as any good wikipedia article should be. Not saying the article's perfect - but your attempt to bring "balance" to the article does not appear to have the same kind of foundation in reliable sources, and your attempt to use sources that describe these people as "left wing" in other contexts to qualify their opinions appears to me to be very misguided. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, being on the right is applied to other people as well. Foremost, like you wrote, the right is mentioned so constantly and anyone using the term is alluded to being on the right. And Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Patrick Bunahan are stated to be righters - a source being used is a journalist on a website called "mach2". That's really trustworthy. Secondly, could you provide a source PROVING it's only used by the right? For I can find any any number of sources of people on the left using the term to match any number of sources you find of people claiming it's only used by the right. Another section above is also of this matter. FriendlyFred tried to argue that it's not just being used by the right. Pincrete and Aquillion ganged up on him without using any sources. Their method of attack was that Fred didn't have enough sources. Well, I do. Can you refute these points? Thirdly, you three are the gang controlling this article. If we count in you as well, pretty much no one edits this article but you three. You gang up on any lone editors. But the creator of the Congratulations convo supports my view, and so does the creator of the "Extremely biased/one-sided" section who especially talks of how biased the 90s section — which the whole process is about — is. Well, that should be fixed now, after mentions of the political affiliations of the JOURNALISTS being quoted as if their word was the word of god. If we go back on the talk page history, we'll find even more supporting my view. Who's shooting them down? Pincrete and Aquillion. Without sources, just mostly attacking the viewpoints they come across as being without sources. Like I wrote, well, I've got 6 unrefuted sources. I have yet to see any calling D'Souza right-wing, too. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I also find it extremely odd that both Aquillion and Pincrete became active on the article on May 20 2015 and May 24 2015 respectively. No edits from before. I think they obviously work in unison and organized elsewhere to gang up on this article. Like I pointed out earlier, they have had contact from at least March. They didn't meet here. They also seem to appear in unison to happenings (June 11 being notable), which could be explained with them both watchlisting the page; but it could be by one contacting the other. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you had the good sense to remove the above post once for which I thanked you, please do so again. This article is on my watchlist as it is on other editors'. Unless you have some proofs for your assertion above, your 'suspicions' constitute an unfounded and very offensive personal attack.

We can all argue till we are blue in the face about WHO uses the term PC, but all the evidence is that the term (since about 1990), has almost entirely been used by critics of certain policies, most, of those critics are socially or politically conservative. When I first became involved with this article, I was surprised to find that to be true. It does not matter tuppence whether I, you, Fred, Aquillion or anyone thinks that is true. WP is not a blog.

I've removed the description of Coulter and Bill O'Reilly as unnec. 'Bunahan' is described as 'conservative' as is 'd'Souza', not as 'right-wing', the equiv. term for Toynbee/Hutton would be 'liberal' or 'social democrat'. If descriptions of people are wrong or unnec or unsourced, the answer is to remedy them not 'pepper' the whole article with irrelevant characterisations in order to create a spurious neutrality.Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we yet found concensus for removing political affiliations, which is an entirely different subject altogether. Maybe a new section for that. I think it's most necessary to explain affiliations on a hotly-debated political article and I'll explain why. Also, Buchanan was prefaced with right-wing earlier in the segment, but yes, it's not in the same sentence. I also noticed you didn't remove the right-wing for D'Souza, even though I have asked what four times for a source stating that he is exactly that. But wait a bit, I'll explain the earlier. Also, do you have a source for stating that most of the critics are conservative? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a source for saying that 'mostly the term PC is critical, mostly used by social or political conservatives' (others may have who know the academic studies better). By analogy I wouldn't have a source for the assertion that 'Yankee Imperialists' is usually a critical term, or, more extremely, that students in the '70s who described Nixon as 'fascist' or Kissinger as 'a Nazi' were being critical. In all cases it is obvious that the usage is critical. For every instance that the term PC is used positively, there are twenty where the term is used to discredit or denigrate the policy or practice being discussed. Since the policies, language or practices being so discredited are usually seen as being liberal or left-wing, the criticisms usually come from those antagonistic to liberal or left-wing policies or ways of thinking. These are not necessarily politically right-wing, but they are more frequently 'conservative' in the broader social sense.

If PC isn't ordinarily a critical term, usually opposing change? What is it? I'm partly responsible for the opening (definition) sentence of the article, you say above that the article has been 'mostly been written by those who deny political correctness exists'. Well I deny it exists EXCEPT as a blanket 'term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society'. If you say PC DOES exist other than as an ordinarily critical (or ironic) term, perhaps you could tell us what it is? You said previously it isn't a 'mindset' then what is it ? Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing political affiliations

User Pincrete suggested that we remove right-wing and left-wing from the article. Should this be done?

I say no, and I'll explain in a little a bit. But you can throw in your opinion while I gather up sources.

WP:RS states the most defining guideline opposing the removal of mentioned biases:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

WP:NPOV states: "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." The political affiliations are in their way identification and explanation.

And WP:NPOV: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." is applied when proper sources are found. The task at hand is to thus find proper sources to describe Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly as right-wing commentators. If concensus is found, I'll start adding such sources to the article.

On WP:RS it is stated that "The reliability of a source depends on context." Political affiliation adds to the context. It's not reliable if you leave out the context from plain view.

WP:RS also states "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Without the political affiliation of the author taken into question, the quotes become unreliable.

In WP:IS Wikipedia is defined as "an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints."

At WP:V, questionable sources are brought up. In there is especially mentioned sources that "have an apparent conflict of interest". Red flags should be brought up when "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest." In the case at hand the two commentators are used to reflect the American public's opinion at the time of the Dixie Chicks, even though their political affiliation is most related to the matter at hand. Leaving out the political affiliation, one gets the image that commentators all around were calling the Dixie Chicks treasonous. Even recognizable commentator names will no longer be recognizable by most in 10 years, which isn't that far way. Do you remember any similar commentators from before? I sure don't.

If we are to remove mentions to the right-wing, then the two comments by Will Hutton and Polly Toynbee should be removed entirely, because they're just about that. In addition, the two's comments are given undue weight due to their size in their article, in my opinion; like stated in WP:NPOV: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. " Referring to the earlier WP:V, the two aren't talking about themselves: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves." And that "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." And in WP:NPOV, it is stated that "Avoid stating opinions as facts." even though the two journalists opinion was presented in factual fashion. Maybe the two's opinions should be moved to the bottoms as they are not even from the 90s, and WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." On WP:RS it is encouraged not to use sources "which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

I also found it odd that it was not applied to D'Souza in the header of the article. In WP:V, it is stated that "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." You can't adhere this without applying it to D'Souza. In addition, the article has few mentions of the left if the two referring to the journalists are removed, yet many more referring to the right. Many of the "right" and "right-wing" words should be changed to something else to better reflect neutrality. But I am not pro this, as removing all such mentions would neutralize the article entirely.

In my suggestion we should apply the WP:NPOV statement "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." in this article rather than removing all mentions of political affiliation. I'll continue adding and editing this post. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I have never suggested any such thing as you start this post with, so please don't invent things I haven't said. I and others have SAID, not suggested, that political affiliations should not be stated unless it is reliably sourced that those affiliations are relevant to the subject. We give the simplest, but most accurate and brief description of who someone is, we don't describe Toynbee as feminist, socialist, atheist, former political candidate etc., we don't mention d'Souza's national origins, his christianity, nor a host of other things about him that have no bearing on the subject. Almost no one in the article's politics are identified unless they are clearly relevant to describing who they are or what they are saying. I don't know d'Souza well (I'm UK), therefore I don't know if the description of him is accurate and balanced (and sourced). I do know that describing Hutton or Toynbee as 'left-wingers' ALONE, and describing the SDP as 'a left-wing party', is crude in the extreme (they are all left-wing to the same extent that 45% of populace are 'left-wing', 45% are 'right-wing', that isn't a very helpful or accurate descriptor).Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, sorry for misunderstanding you then, but that's what you seem to suggest once again with: "political affiliations should not be stated unless it is reliably sourced that those affiliations are relevant to the subject"; for this is a political article, aren't the political biases of commentators on the matter are very much related? Then why are you suggesting we remove all of them? And you say you give descriptions, but I believe before Will Hutton and Polly Toynbee had no descriptions? And you think one word more is too much information, when it's very much related to the matter at hand? And why bring up unrelated facts about D'Souza when it's mentioned that he's right-wing which is very much related? "Mentioning his national origins" sounds like a straw man. And I've provided 6 sources describing Polly and Will as left-wing journalists and authors, one of which is Will describing himself as left-wing. SDP isn't mentioned. Do you want me to edit in the sources for Ann Coutere and Bill O'Reilly? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care either way about Coulter etc. It is fairly obvious from context that their criticisms came from a 'patriotic' base, I think it likely that, whilst conservative critics may have been more vocal at the time of the Iraq invasion, I doubt if these were the only critics. The sentence is anyway only 'setting the scene' for the response that 'there are also right-wing limits on what can be said'. This aspect, in fact the whole section, is mainly US I think, and I have no opinion or knowledge. We don't bother to identify the Australian Labor leader's political viewpoint because it is self-evident, as is Foucault's Marxism. What I am arguing against is needlessly characterising people, and doing so crudely. We don't describe d'Souza as a 'right-winger', we do briefly, and (I hope) accurately, and sourced say what his political position is, which in this instance is very relevant to the WHY he has been criticised by left-wing commentators (which is the whole sentence in the lead).

I don't think this article is very good, the only parts of it which I am responsible for are the opening sentence (which I tidied) and a few copy-edits later. Part of the difficulty is that PC (more so than other political terms), means whatever the user thinks it means, and is used to explain 100 different phenomena, 'lumping them together', as though they were the same thing, or part of the same agenda. I'm afraid it is simply a fact that it is very rare for the term to be used other than by critics (an example of positive use is in the first source of Doug Weller above, but even here 'PC' is being used 'in quotes') and because it is almost always NEW measures or policies that are being criticised, the critics are most commonly those who don't like change (ie social or political or educational conservatives). When was the last time you read an article, heard an interview, read a book that said "this is a wonderfully original and inventive, and politically correct idea/policy"? It doesn't happen, all the adjectives that normally accompany PC are critical or ironic.Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't describe d'Souza as a 'right-winger'

What? But the article does so in the summarization bit at the beginning? And if you don't care about the Ann's and Bill O'Reilly's description, why would you then edit it? I don't understand the logic? Is it okay to change back or not if you don't care? And the Labour leader has his political party given, how much more political description can you get? And to be frank I have no idea who Foucault is or about his marxism as you put it. I don't think he's a very household name. Maybe he's more known in philosophy circles. I mostly know what you'd expect: the medieval and antique philosophers. But the point about Ann and O'Reilly being right-wing is that the section is called right-wing political correctness. If you leave out the right-wing and let it just be "some US commentators", it sounds like the political field doesn't matter even though it does in context. Without the right-wing bit the sentence is broken? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't say right-winger, it says 'conservative author Dinesh D'Souza used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, opposition to hate speech, and changes to the content of school and university curriculums'. You yourself say right-left can mean many things, economic, social etc, In this context d'Souza was criticising social and educational trends, which he saw as 'left-wing inspired', he was defending more traditional values in opposition to those changes. a)that's a fairly good definition of 'conservative' b) all sources identify him as such. I have no idea what d'Souza's political affiliation IS. It is quite possible for someone to be economically very left-wing, but socially very traditionalist. In this context it is his social conservatism which is relevant, not who he votes for. The point I was making about the Labor leader, is that this is simply the most efficient way to describe WHO he is, his profession, and it simply isn't true that we characterise all the right-wingers, but not the left-wingers, which you claim.

It really wouldn't matter much whether Coulter etc. as individuals were right/left. The point being made by the paragraph is that there are other forms of 'social censorship', other than left-wing ones. But as I said I have little involvement with that part of the article, apart from having heavily edited overlong accounts of the Dixie Chicks and Freedom Fries incidents, both of which are fairly peripheral to the main use of the term PC. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Read just below that? And the point being made by the famous paragraph is right-wing cencorship, and it breaks the point of the sentence if one doesn't point out the affiliation of the commentators. So if it doesn't matter to you, can I edit it back? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that we have multiple citations discussing d'Souza's positions (and the different ways similar actions are interpreted based on liberal vs. conservative political views.) The fact that he was writing from a conservative position is not normally something we would highlight, but in this case the fact that it's central to the article's coverage of his role in the controversy means we need to mention it; likewise, the paragraph on right-wing political correctness is specifically focused on sources talking about those political labels. The "left-wing" labels you want to add to the article aren't underlined as relevant in the same way; all you've managed to come up with are unrelated sources indicating that someone has called them left-wing at some point, which isn't sufficient to label them that everywhere they appear like this. And looking over the talk page, it doesn't seem like your arguments are convincing anyone else -- you appear to be the only editor here who supports the changes, while multiple people have objected. I mean, we can keep talking as long as you have new arguments, but at this point it feels like you're just saying the same things over and over and not convincing anyone; at a certain point, you have to accept that you're not convincing people and move on. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WOW. You kept all right-wing mentions but removed the left-wing ones. You removed 5 academic (and one self-given by the person himself) sources for the left-wing ones and left the right-wing ones without sources but a journalist's blog. There's obviously no concensus for this because you even undid Pincrete's removal of the ring-wing mention. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we keep all mentions from all sides. If Pincrete agrees, I can find proper sources for Ann and Bill being right-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted back to the last stable version, which a reasonable thing to do when there's a dispute and no clear consensus. The sources you've provided don't support your assertion that the politics of the people in question are directly relevant to the topic at hand; otherwise, you could use those sources (which only show that the descriptor is accurate, not that it's relevant) to attach their identity as a disclaimer to everything they say everywhere. Normally, we only attach political descriptors like that when the person's politics is the crux of the topic -- this is the case in the 'right wing ideology' section or for discussion of d'Souza, but it isn't the case for the descriptors you keep adding. And I remain totally opposed to labeling Hutton or Toynbee; you have completely failed to provide any justification whatsoever for highlighting their politics. We could discuss removing some of the others where they are less relevant, but I think it's clear that the labels for Hutton or Toynbee have been clearly rejected -- you remain the only one who has ever indicated any support whatsoever for them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you returned bits not even removed by me. You also didn't revert to anything but you added things that weren't there originally. Also, why does the article have 17 mentions of the right side of politics if the sides of the politics have nothing to do with this political article? And how in the world is ideology central to D'Souza but not to people criticizing not him but anyone who uses the term political correctness? How in the world do you find one just but not the other? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I support Aquilions revert - the sources were only there to support the left wing label, which there's no consensus to include. So really they only thing worth debating here is if Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly should be described as right wing. Personally I think they should be, although maybe we could entertain "conservative" as a possible compromise? Def don't support "keeping all labels" - for reasons we've discussed ad nauseum. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the slightest bit surprising the gang of three support removal of any bias mentioned of left-wing sources, but want to keep any bias mentioned of right-wingers. I've already shown how the creator of Congratulations and Extremely biased/one-sided agree with me, only they're lone editors who get attacked instantly by Aquillion and Pincrete when they wanted to change the 1990s section. Refer to Wikipedia guideline mentioned earlier: --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Your quote says 'should consider', it does not sat 'should include'. We don't as you repeatedly have said identify every right-winger. IF the description of d'Souza was simply 'right-winger', I might agree with you, but it isn't. IF - in your opinion - the description of d'Souza is crude, biased or not supported by sources, suggest a better, but working through the article attaching political labels to everyone is not an answer. Especially since the quote from Toynbee itself strongly implies that she is clearly NOT a right-winger, just as the Foucault quote makes it obvious he is Marxist.

I have already said that I am neutral about ex/including the descriptions of Coulter etc. and happy for those who know the US better to decide the right descriptors. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think "should consider" is enough? And yes, you do identify multiple people as right-wingers and refer to the right 17 times in the article. And the descriptions of Polly and Hutton aren't just their political affiliations, but their political affiliation plus their profession. Before I even edited their professions weren't even mentioned. They weren't there originally. Yet you're completely fine with keeping added "labeling" like that — because it doesn't point out their bias. And labeling people in a political article is an answer, like shown by the Wikipedia guideline. You don't get to make the rules, Wikipedia does. And your point about Toynbee's quote implying her affiliation falls moot because so would the the right-wingers, yet they are still mentioned to be right-wingers. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The important thing is that labeling be clearly relevant to why we're quoting them. Their careers (and, I just realized, their nationality, since they're being quoted in the context of the part of the section that focuses on the use of the term in Britain) are important because they establish their expertise. Their politics are something that most of the people here, at least, don't feel is as important, at least not to the point of highlighting it like that -- I suspect that the issue might be that you attach more weight and significance to things like "center-left" as labels. --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just counted the number of times 'the right' or 'right-wing' are used, about 5 were within quotes and the total I made 16 (ignoring headings and 'the rights' and other meanings), 'the left/left wing' are used about 14 times, 'liberal' and 'conservative' are both used about the same number of times as each other (same criteria in every case, ignore 'liberal' meaning 'generous'). Very few individuals are identified by their political position, the usages are generally 'left wing/right wing critics said etc.' There simply is no significant imbalance in identifying groups or individuals, especially as this article is mainly about a term used by conservatives to criticise mainly left/liberal initiatives. D'Souza is characterised as 'conservative' and it would make nonsense of the sentence to NOT identify that he was criticising what he saw as liberal/left-wing initiatives from a conservative viewpoint.

If you found 100 sources that said d'Souza was Christian or of Indian ancestry, we would be opposed to including the info, because it would be unnecessary characterisation. MOST of the sources on Toynbee/Hutton, give a more nuanced description than 'left-winger' anyway, but, regardless, the info is unnecessary. Why not characterise Toynbee as 'feminist' (at least as relevant to a discussion on PC?), no bad idea, it isn't useful or necessary to understanding her quote. What about atheist? Equally bad idea. As Aquillion says you simply seem to want to attach labels to people, that don't in any way aid understanding, and which anyway aren't very accurately informative. Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change from left-wing to left-affiliated. In addition, you are somehow completely distorting the amount of lefts and rights in the article. The article as per now has 11 lefts counted with CTRL+F (two will be added), and only two mentions of the left-wing. 3 of the mentions are in the origin paragraph where it's stated they began its use as part of the New Left. The article still has 17 mentions of the right of which 13 are of the right-wing with and without the dash. Yes, section titles are obviously to be counted. Also, liberal is used similarly 11 times where as conservative is used whopping 23 times. Those are "about the same" to you? It's so painfully obvious that this article was written and dictated according to the bias of one side. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a term used predominantly by social or political conservatives, for which one shorthand term is 'the right', 4 or 5 instances of 'the right' are within quotes. It might be meaningful to find a quote from d'S, or some other critic of PC, in which they use the term PC to criticise 'the left' as an exemplar of its use, but simply attaching labels to people for no reason is pointless.

btw, you accuse Aquillion and I of 'ganging up' on FriendlyFred, Fred's main point was that some aspects of 'PC' were positive, that (for example), changing negatively characterising terms for groups of people to more neutral terms was a good thing. Why was our article so negative, he wanted to know. Because for every instance of PC being used partly positively, there are innumerable using the term critically. Even the example he gave was mainly saying that the term had been 'hi-jacked' by critics. He nowhere says that the article is excessively pro-left or anti-right. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"The article is about a term used predominantly by social or political conservatives"; so the article should be only used to attack anyone who uses the term, without even noting the attacks come from the other major political camp and not some mysterious "majority" of academics like you keep claiming without proving or sourcing your claim in any way? Wow, your logic is impeccable. Or might you simply be utterly biased and corrupt? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• 'Affiliated' doesn't solve the underlying objections above, no. It's even worse, because it implies a tighter degree of rigid affiliation to some party or ideal that isn't really clear even from your sources. As far as your term-counting goes, it's important to remember that we're not supposed to force an artificial balance on an article; we cover things according to their weight in high-quality mainstream sources, academic literature and so on. The academic sources that talk about the origin and usage of this term generally focus more on its origins among conservatives; and sources among talking-heads and the like who use it tend to overwhelmingly be conservatives, so it's hardly a surprise that the term would come up so much. Beyond that, I think it would be easier to discuss this if you would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you here of acting out of ideological bias. Obviously we disagree on the subject, the sources, and how to present them most accurately, but you have to assume good faith that the differences represent honest disagreement, or we're never going to get anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article has plenty of mentions of right-wing affiliation, and I believe the "wing" addition is much worse. Affiliated is much kinder and solves your objections. And the only people opposing me are the two who pretty much control the article to fit their bias, easily proven by the talk page where many have raised their voices yet you shoot them down in a group, because groups beat loners. Your editing history proves you pretty much only edit political articles and to a left bias, never even to a neutral bias. Fyddle is the same but I believe he stumbled here on a chance and is possibly unrelated to you two friends. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, though, I don't see how the number of mentions of 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' is meaningful -- if anything, the large number of usages of 'right-wing' would indicate that the article spends a lot of time quoting right-wing voices and citing what they say; you've only identified two left-wing voices quoted at any length. Which, again, isn't something I think is really a problem, since my feeling is that among "talking heads" and the like, right-wing / conservative voices use the term a lot more often. Anyway, I've tried to assay a compromise by folding these two quotes into the paragraph above them about liberal responses (which is, in retrospect, probably what they were originally there for.) I still don't think that your phrasing on their politics is appropriate, but folding them into that clearly illustrates at least the general perspective they're being quoted here to illustrate, which is what matters, more than what people have said about them in other contexts. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think they're meaningful? Wow. And the article spends a lot of time quoting left-wing voices but doesn't atribute them to a left affiliation because you keep removing any such mentions. You also undid two editors' edits for no reason; changing back. You ought to be banned from editing this article. At least Pincrete isn't absolutely nuts. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I still don't see the meaning of counting the number of usages; it's not a metric that it makes sense to try and deliberately balance. We use the term "right-wing" and the like in the article many times because the sources specifically discuss that as part of the term's history; we don't, notice, describe eg. most of the people in the Education section as right-wing, even though most people would classify them that way, because in that case that's not the aspect of them that the sources focus on. I did just rearrange the section you're talking about here to place them under the list of examples of left-wing comments; but I don't feel that your "left-affiliated" wording is appropriate for the reasons I outlined above. Also, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; I know this article is on a hot-button subject, but it's not appropriate to call other editors 'nuts' or make sweeping claims of bias just because we disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You lied about the numbers, and now you don't think they don't mean anything. You provide no sources for right-wing, I provide 6 for left-wing and of one which is is the person calling himself left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

At least Pincrete isn't absolutely nuts. ? Damned by faint praise?

Mr. Magoo, I challenge you to write a meaningful brief summary of d'Souza's book (which is creditted with popularising the term PC in the US), WITHOUT mentioning that he was criticising trends in society and education, that he saw as being part of a left/liberal orthodoxy, and his opposition to those trends was rooted in more traditional, socially conservative, values. This is not done to 'label' or demonise him, it is simply a description of his book. A book by anyone MIGHT similarly need to be described such that the purpose and content of the book was clear. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for and why? I also don't think he mentions the left even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He mentions it several times, accusing someone of being a 'mouthpiece for left-wing ideas', accusing someone else of supporting 'left-wing' causes, and so on. He uses 'liberal' far more often (because it's a more common term in the US), but he does make it clear that he's targeting what he sees as a left-wing bias in academia. But beyond that, numerous reliable sources have said that D'Souza published the book for a right-wing think tank, as part of a larger push by numerous right-wing think tanks to advance that particular perspective. This is central to the term's history; numerous sources document it, and as far as I can tell no reliable sources dispute it. So we do have to cover it somehow. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Amongst 319 pages there are 9 lefts of the political kind, and 10 regular lefts where someone leaves something. The first one you mentioned is of a peasant Latin-American, where the person is criticizing Western society. Secondly, 6 out of the political lefts are quotes of someone else. Of the remaining three, the first is of the aforementioned peasant. Second is Dinesh listing the biases of different academics, and of which the left-one is quoted to be supporting "Go Left!". Third is the newspaper The Nation, which is stated to be left-wing yet putting to question Paul de Man's collaboration. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:What exactly are you asking for and why?, what I am asking for is how we should describe the book by D'Souza (which is credited in a number of sources with popularising the term PC and to some extent defining its usage, particularly in US). "D'Souza criticised some trends in education and society"? Not very informative, what trends and why? Were they not radical enough for him? Why did he think these trends were occurring? Please write a short meaningful, informative, single sentence summary of the ideas in his book (supported by sources) and of the criticisms he was making/solutions he was advocating, suitable for a lead. By your own rules, the sentence may not contain the words 'conservative', 'liberal', or any kind of wing. Unless you can do that, you are just 'carping for carping's sake', complaining about our description, but unable to suggest anything better. Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But those were your own rules? And it was about right and left and not about conservative/liberal? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the description of d'Souza as 'conservative author', I presume you have therefore now dropped your opposition. I don't object to the description of the 'broad sweep' of the book. You have just replaced that description with your own interpretation of the book, WP:OR, supported by the primary source (the book itself). I have raised the question below as to whether the description 'Right-wing libertarian' is appropriate for d'Souza. The term is mainly a US one, and I am unsure whether it is apt in his case, or supported by sources. Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I never talked about the conservative term? What has that got to do with anything? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually you did, on 04:53, 9 October 2015 and 23:48, 30 September 2015 (when you complained about 'conservative' being used more often than 'liberal'), though you do mostly refer to left/right. I'm ignoring you quoting. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first case I don't mention either word, and in the second it's my very first post on the talk page where I mention it alongside right-wing — and mostly because other sections like "Extremely biased/one-sided" had used that term more. Then from thereon I use the term right-wing about a hundred times on the talk page. So, I once mentioned conservative (and never liberal). And you think it's conservative I've been talking about? You must be reading Dinesh's book with the same glasses. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Right-wing libertarians?

Although this is related to the previous discussion, I thought it better to ask this question here. In the lead sentence 'conservatives and right-wing libertarians such as D'Souza, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.' is the meaning 'conservatives such as D'Souza, and right-wing libertarians, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism'? ie is D'Souza a 'right-wing libertarian' in this context? Conservative he certainly is. I don't know him well, but it isn't a description that leaps out as appropriate for his views here.

Second small point, but in UK English, that would probably be 'cultural war', I don't know about US usage.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: culture war, see Culture War - it has specific meaning in an American context. I'll have to do some research on D'Souza before I can say for sure how best to describe him. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two possible links Libertarian conservatism, which relates equally to economic and social principles, and Libertarianism, I won't add either until the sentence's meaning is clear. I should have checked Culture War, which is less used I think in UK, though the phenomenon is familiar. Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

IF there is any doubt about the aptness of the term for d'Souza, might I suggest 'conservatives such as D'Souza, and right-wing libertarians, pushed the term … as part of a broader culture war against liberalism'? . D'Souza is already mentioned in the previous sentence as the populariser of the term and his ideas are discussed in the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead changes!

A WP:LEAD has to reflect the content of the article; the recent rewrite generally didn't do that (cutting out things like the opposition to affirmative action, and adding a bunch of stuff that isn't in the article or, I think, even in its sources.) And some parts were awkwardly worded; I'm not entirely sure what "which prohibit such oppositions" or "...although those who use the term claim that the requirement of being 'politically correct' is used to divert attention from their actual arguments" means, but they don't seem to be reflected in the article or its sources, either. --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of these changes MIGHT be beneficial IF they are in the sources, however others I doubt very much if they are in the sources and are unclear eg "although those who use the term claim that the requirement of being "politically correct" is used to divert attention from their actual arguments." … … since it is fairly well established that 'those who use the term' are predominantly the critics themselves. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The article has bunch of stuff not properly sourced already and some silly opinions from journalists, all of which you have no issues with because they add to the hate of the term. The edits made the article more neutral and less obviously critical of the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is about reflecting the sources; if there are parts you feel are improperly sourced, go ahead and point them out, but we have to follow what reliable sources say, not your personal opinion on what's more neutral. My reading of the changes are that they amounted to one editor's personal opinions, without any sources to back them up. --Aquillion (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said several times, IF there is a suitable quote from d'Souza (or someone else), characterising what he/they say PC is, that might add to the article, but simply adding personal opinions (even worse, interspersing them in cited sentences, thus falsely implying that they are the view of the source). Is NOT acceptable. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for a source that specifically lines D'Souza as right-wing but haven't received one. The one used for Coulter and O'Reilly is some journalist's blog. I provided multiple academic sources for affiliations of Toynbee and Hutton, one of which is Hutton calling himself left-wing. The other editor edited fairly agreeable things to make the article also better describe D'Souza's view rather than carry a straw man claim that he's pro hate speech. Your edits are obviously not about the sources but about your bias. Reverted back. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

D'Souza is described as a conservative in every source we use for him in this article. See eg. Wilson or Whitney and Wartella; it's something that is constantly highlighted in relation to Illiberal Education. Likewise, the fact that D'Souza opposed affirmative action is well-attested in those sources, not to mention his own book -- there's hardly anything controversial about saying that; he's one of the most famous opponents of affirmative action alive. Even if you object to that, that, you should focus on that aspect, not on other stuff. Regarding hate speech, I think you're misreading what it says. It says D'Souza accused his opponents of trying to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and opposition to hate speech; that is, it says that he accused them of using those as tools to advance multiculturalism. This is what the sources say, and it's what the article says. It doesn't accuse him of promoting hate speech. Beyond that, the other changes are still unsourced; we can argue back and forth about who has more bias all we want, but we need sources. The sources that we have don't support the altered lead, nor does it reflect what the rest of the article says. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But not right-wing, unlike my sources which specify Toynbee and Hutton as left-wing — and again, one of which is Hutton calling himself left-wing. And how in the world is affirmative action of all the things related? And how one can misread a direct statement of him opposing "opposition of hate speech", when his point is opposing overdone opposition of hate speech and not opposition of hate speech altogether? It's a clear straw man used to discredit him. Again, you have no sources for any of this except your few where he's described as conservative. Wow, that proves everything. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He's described as both a conservative and as part of a larger group of voices from right-wing think tanks weighing in on this subject (he's specifically highlighted as an example of that in Schultz, which traces his political history, his think tank, and the funding for his book in detail.) And, again, that's what the sources say, and more importantly it's what the article says -- leads have to reflect the article. I still think you're misreading the section in question, in particular: It says that D'Souza accused his opponents of trying to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and opposition to hate speech -- that is, he says that opposition to hate speech is just a tactic people use to advance multiculturalism. (My understanding is that he doesn't believe the term itself is meaningful.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you lie. It's described as a conservative think-thank by Schultz, not right-wing. You also just repeated yourself and did nothing to note my point about how "how one can misread a direct statement of him opposing "opposition of hate speech", when his point is opposing overdone opposition of hate speech and not opposition of hate speech altogether? It's a clear straw man used to discredit him." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In the lead: "Public perceptions of "political correctness" obscured connections between scholars attacking "p.c." and right-wing foundations, think-tanks and government officials." It's reasonable to parse the one foundation they go into further down as being an example of this. But, again, if your argument is that it should say "conservative" where it says "right-wing", suggest that change, don't use it as an argument for more sweeping changes to the entire article! That's a one-word difference (though I think the sources support both.) And I still think you're misreading that section; It says he "used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through..." What the section says is that (according to his argument) these things are tactics people use to advance multiculturalism, which he views as an evil thing; all sources (including his own book!) make it explicit that he is opposed to multiculturalism as a concept, specifically. The focus is not on "efforts to silence opposition to multiculturalism"; the focus is on efforts to advance multiculturalism, which d'Souza unequivocally opposes. That said, I'm not sure he actually talked about hate speech in the book himself, so the simplest solution might be to remove that item from the list. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The book mentions over a dozen different think-thanks and it especially lines D'Souza's as simply "conservative." And that mention's not "in the lead" but on page 7 and there's a description of conservative ideological atmosphere think-thanks before that. D'Souza's think-thank is mentioned once as a sidenote, way further, on page 33. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, now you removed the mention of speech entirely, instead of changing it. That completely ruins the point for all. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and why do you mention multiculturalism as part of Dinesh's book so much? He does use the term sporadically, but he mostly talks about "victim's revolution" — as in victimization. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the earlier straw man description of his view to that of just the "victim's revolution," a term which in its entirety is mentioned in his book a whopping 28 times — where as multiculturalism is mentioned 9 times and mostly as a sidenote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We have numerous secondary sources that highlight opposition to multiculturalism as the core of d'Souza's argument (and which generally support the summary in the lead.) Likewise, the fact that his argument was focused on what he saw as efforts to advance it through changes to school and university curriculums are well-sourced and covered extensively in the article. I'm just honestly confused that of all the parts of the article, this is the one you've chosen to object to; the fact that d'Souza is a fervent opponent of multiculturalism and that he was condemning it in his book just isn't remotely controversial. His own website's summary of the book calls the enemy he is writing "multicultural activism" -- he was to a great extent one of the people who coined the term 'multiculturalism' in its modern usage as a political epithet. Replacing all this with your own personal analysis based on word searches is original research. Beyond one quote in the right-wing section, the article doesn't currently talk about censorship, criticism, or the other stuff you replaced it with in the lead; maybe we can cover those, but we need sourced sections in the main article -- you can't just drop it in the lead with no sourcing; that violates the purpose of the lead, which is to summarize the article. Some of your additions are probably supportable, but if they are, then we need more sources on those aspects specifically so we can go into depth on them in the article; and if you want to change how we cover d'Souza's book, I suggest finding good secondary sources analyzing it to place alongside the sources already there. --Aquillion (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the sources being used and only one of them even mentions multiculturalism together with Dinesh. Most mentions simply talk about his complaints of censorship. One even mentions how he avoided the label of conservative at the time.

But it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education that brought the PC backlash to its peak. By having his book excerpted in the Atlantic Monthly, a liberal-moderate magazine, D'Souza consciously avoided the label of "conservative" writer. D'Souza even erased his right-wing past, omitting mention of his first book - a fawning biography of Jerry Falwell - and claiming that he was an editor at the notorious Darthmouth Review "long before the newspaper's most notorious showdowns."

Which goes against your common titling of him being plainly conservative at the time like you always claim. And in the only source that mentions him along with multiculturalism, out of the 8 times he's mentioned it's the sixth, on page 15. Even then it's not attributed directly to him, as it talks about conservative minorities opposing affirmative action and multicultural curriculum. This is an incredibly vague source due to all the points mentioned. Like I've written before, he uses the specific term "victim's revolution" 28 times in his book — which I think is a precursor term to victimization. That is the focus of his book. What you're painting is a straw man. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And most of all, he's given way too much focus in the introduction. This article originally didn't mention him, because pretty much no one knows about him. His "popularization" of the term is highly questionable. The sources provided to claim that he did only vaguely mention him. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, we can't use your personal analysis of the book to structure the article. We need to go by the sources, which overwhelmingly state that his book was central. If you have sources for other aspects of the term's history, or other attempts to analyze his book, go ahead and add them, but his centrality in the debate over political correctness (and the overarching position he's coming from) seems to me to be utterly uncontroversial among anyone who goes into any serious depth on the term's history. Regarding d'Souza's politics -- we can go into more detail if you want; I wouldn't mind quoting that source on how he "erased his right-wing past" prior to publication! But his political position (and the think-tanks backing his book and others like it) are very well-sourced and uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We've just gone through all of this below and you still live in your dream-haze world where your sources still refer to the 1992 political correctness book and not the 1991 one which doesn't mention the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on personal attacks

nb sub-section heading added retrospectivelyPincrete (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I don't want to weigh in on this one at present because I haven't yet read the evidence. However, I'm fed up with your accusations of conscious bias, of 'tag-team editing', of fellow editors being 'absolutely nuts' and now of another editor 'lying again'. I asked you to remove one of the accusations of 'editing in tandem', you had neither the good sense nor civility to do so, though your 'evidence' was non-existent. Apart from polluting the atmosphere, being very explicitly against WP policies, it's also boring. Can't you make your point without resorting to negatively characterising another editor? Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I proved how you two knew each other before this article and how you started editing this article only 4 days apart in May; and you want me to take my accusation of tag-team editing back? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you proved that Aquillon and I may once have left a comment on the same public noticeboard, (I don't even remember when or the subject). I probably 'know' at least 1000 editors to the same extent. I have no idea when Aquillon started editing this article. If you don't realise how utterly ridiculous these claims are, the behaviour noticeboard is over there, the 'puppet' noticeboard is over there - go and get laughed at if you wish. But in the meantime, the rest of us would rather edit without the abuse thanks. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Left a comment at the same place? That has happened multiple times, but that in that noticeboard case you especially noted Aquillion. Again, it's incredibly peculiar that the two who pretty much control the article now started editing the article 4 days apart in May. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is utterly offtopic, but for what it's worth, my first edit to this article was years ago, in 2006, not in May. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems so, and then a year later, but after that you held an 8 year pause of editing the article, only to burst back to fully control it May, Pincrete following 4 days later. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not pejorative in my part of the world

I think the four citations offered in the lead are biased, and they seem to be carefully selected to support a certain POV whereby the term is used predominantly in a pejorative sense. However, this is not true, at least in the UK. It can be used pejoratively like many terms, but the term in itself is neutral.

Do I have sources to support my claim? Well, that's kind-of asking to prove a negative. What I can offer is that the Cambridge dictionary, which would otherwise place a disapproving tag on a pejorative term, such as loose cannon, does not do that for politically correct. I can find plenty such neutral sources if required. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, dictionaries aren't considered good sources; see Wikipedia:DICTS for an explanation of why -- it's hard to determine the quality or whether it's a primary or secondary source. Academic papers are greatly preferred, especially for in-depth analysis. For what it's worth, though, note that it has a disapproving tag on the US usage... but any discussion of differences in usage between the US and the UK would require a better source than a dictionary, since analyzing the two definitions and doing our own comparison between them is original research. Personally, while they vary, several of the sources in the lead strike me as pretty high-quality (and as neutral as anyone is likely to get on this topic); Ruth Perry's section in Aufderheide's book is a detailed history of the word and its usage, while Whitney and Wartella's paper is an academic paper about it specifically, and so on. If you have other sources, go ahead, but they ought to be at least of that quality (ie. academic papers on the history of the term specifically.) Also, remember, leads have to reflect the article (so you can't just change the lead, you have to change the article to reflect it, so whatever sources you add, they should be good enough to support their own section in the text on that aspect of the term's usage. --Aquillion (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

87.115.6.46, in my experience in the UK, when the term is not wholly pejorative, it is usually ironic. It would be hard I think to find positive uses. … … ps the Camb online gives this as an example use 'We can't ​even use the word "​chairman"! It's just ​political ​correctness gone ​mad!' The example is complaining about PC language as an imposed 'orthodoxy' (and quoting a Daily Mail trope). … … pps, we say 'ordinarily pejorative', because, I agree to this extent, whilst the use is most commonly critical, the term is not inherently or necessarily negative. Though even friendly use, eg "totally visually impaired? You mean he's blind! God you're so PC!" is critical in that an EXCESS of euphemistic 'sensitivity' is being pointed out. Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that you stopped short of citing a perfect example of non-pejorative usage from the Cambridge dictionary, Some ​people ​think that "​fireman" is a ​sexist ​term, and ​prefer the politically correct ​term "​firefighter", preferring to cite the Daily Mail trope. However, even the DM trope is proof that the term itself is not pejorative. Would you say, "a loose cannon gone mad"? No, because that would be redundant, "loose cannon" is already pejorative in itself. "Politically correct", by contrast, requires a "gone mad" qualification to convey a disapproving meaning. I think this reference is pretty neutral and should be included:

[T]he use of, or even the definition of, 'political correctness' as seen by the liberal left is strongly disputed by those of other political views (and even by many liberals). Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative in that it portrays a political stance that they oppose as 'correct'.

87.115.6.46 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not usable as a source either, no. As far as I can tell, it's a personal website, which means it's a self-published source -- there's no indication that it has any of the editorial review or controls required by WP:RS. Again, what you need are sources of a quality comparable to what's already there -- eg. academic papers or high-quality books examining its history, not someone's opinions on their personal website about phrases. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

87.115.6.46, I quoted what I saw on your link (which ironically included the DM phrase, bit unimaginative of them I thought), but dictionary examples anyway aren't usually 'real speech', they are chosen to illustrate the meaning. 'Fireman' reads like an instance of that, wouldn't someone say 'Some ​people ​think that "​fireman" is a ​sexist ​term, and ​prefer "​firefighter" , or 'Some ​people ​think that "​firefighter" is more politically correct than "fireman"?, (though - in my experience - the second is more likely than the first to be critical or ironic).

Phrase.org would NOT be seen as a WP:RS, Aquillon above gives a brief summary of what would be RS, ideally an academic study of the history of the use of the word. It's very possible you are right that the term may be LESS critical in the UK than in the US, (I only know my own experience in ONE of those) but even 'phrases.org' says 'Some view the very term 'politically correct' to be pejorative'. So what are we discussing here? Always, ordinarily, often, sometimes, never? All the sources agree that it's neither always nor never.

We would need a fairly strong clear source to make the point that UK use was significantly different, (ie not your or my experience, nor your or my conclusions drawn from definitions, that's WP:OR) … … ps by your logic, "A slut who has gone completely off the rails", "slut" here cannot possibly be a pejorative, because if it were, it wouldn't need "gone completely off the rails", some disparaging terms fit together, others don't, it proves nothing. Your argument about the trope, might make sense on the day that it becomes normal for the DM (or anyone) to say, 'this idea isn't politically correct enough, however this other idea has just the right amount of PC' . They don't, because 'PC' and 'gone mad', 'gone too far', etc. belong with each other in the most common usage. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two (relatively recent), relatively positive articles about PC one from the Guardian and one from the US by Dean Obeidallah, but the Guardian one is very much putting PC in quotes (ie "what is called PC"). That doesn't change anything, Fat Cats is ordinarily a critical term, as is 'rogue capitalism', finding any of these terms SOMETIMES used positively, or self-mockingly doesn't alter the ordinarily critical use. Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... Hughes, Geoffrey (2011), Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-4443-6029-5 says here that what appears to be the first use in the UK (in 1975) called it "perverse and punishing 'correctness'". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's phrases.org.uk (plural, uk), and if you think that's not a RS, then you should remove the other reference to it from this article - not to mention all other WP articles.

Yes, we are essentially debating "ordinarily", which refers to current use, not historical. I ordinarily hear this phrase at work, the typical context being saying something that is "not politically correct", which is seen as "naughty but between us acceptable". This tells me that being politically correct is considered the opposite of naughty, and in conclusion the term is not ordinarily used pejoratively. There is no mention of this in the lede, which is exclusively describing pejorative and ironic use - much less prevalent nowadays in my experience. The source I offer reflects my experience, and it should be included to rebalance the lede. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are any refs to 'phrases.org' in the article. Nothing can be in the lead that ISN"T backed up by what is in the article. Will look at the 'book'. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are mistaken. CTRL+F, then type "phrases.org.uk".

If you don't think that's a RS, I invite you to go through this list as well and get all those refs removed.

Sure, I don't oppose putting this stuff in the body as well as in the lead. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

phrases.org.uk ISN'T used in this article, it probably SHOULDN"T be in the other articles, but they are mostly, 'pardon my French', 'Bollocks', 'stiff upper lip' articles that are hardly contentious issues and maybe shouldn't have articles at all. Pincrete (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can take this to WP:RSN, perhaps (especially if we want to discuss dealing with it elsewhere.) But generally speaking, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Looking over its usage, most of the usages are stubs and other low-quality articles, which have had little attention, while its one use here was also cited to a properly-published source. And remember that the WP:RS requirements for controversial or decisive statements are higher; you're asking to use this source to rewrite a major portion of the lead. Naturally your sources for that are going to come under higher scrutiny. Finally, remember that your own personal experiences aren't necessarily useful (or typical), or your own parsing of the usage you're hearing might be different from the way an academic would parse or qualify them -- relying on them is WP:OR; we go by experts in the field in published sources whenever we can. If it is in common usage the way you describe, it should be easy to find higher-quality sources than phrases.org.uk going into detail on the history and nature of that usage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Carry on with your cherry picking. 87.115.6.46 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:87.115.6.46, sarcasm about another editor's motives (like the above) isn't very helpful. The use you are describing at work IS ironic, 'we have to pretend or perhaps we basically are non-sexist, non-racist etc. but it's fun to use 'naughty words' ... even if we wouldn't do it to someone who would really be offended' is that the meaning? We say 'correct', but really we mean 'boringly correct, prudishly correct'. But anyway your or my experience might be interesting, but wouldn't be a RS.

I read quite a bit of the book you linked to this AM, I see it's on the 'further reading', though I had never looked at it. It appears to be a very good source on the development and use of the term. Much of what it says we already have, it covers both US and UK, concentrating more on the UK. I don't think it contradicts what we have, sometimes it fleshes out or softens what we have, it may well make a case for saying that use is LESS inherently critical in the UK. He draws attention to (post 1990), no one being able to agree who actually uses the word, and what it means. He describes a 1995 book in which Sarah Dunant (in the intro) is saying that PC had already become a 'dirty word', and 'is an insult', Yasmin Alibi-Brown (sp??), says something like 'PC is a good thing' while Melanie Philips characterises it as something akin to Stalinism. (isn't that SD saying its now pejorative, Y A-B using it neutrally and MP using it as a pejorative?).

He draws some interesting distinctions between US-UK. He claims the word had become ironic in many uses by '85 (ie TOO serious, TOO correct). I'm writing all this following a 14 hour gap between reading cursorily and writing, but think the source is v. good and he quotes many others 'describing' or reacting to the term's use. Despite such a brief look, I think there could be enough material for a distinct 'UK' section, which probably record a distinct, but largely parallel story to the US one.Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Easy on the reverts please. I've blocked one editor - more reverts may lead to more blocks. This dispute may be a good candidate for WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how I get blocked yet Aquillion doesn't, when he's been doing the exact same as I have. You can see the multiple times he has reverted twice per day, stopping before the infamous three reverts. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

nb edit conflict with preceding section.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you are knowingly edit-warring. Three editors Aquillion,Fyddlestix, and myself have pointed out that there is no consensus for adding the 'left' labels [5], [6].

You also seem to misunderstand the need for consensus and the use of sources. No one needs consensus for what is already in the article, WP is predicated on the basis that what has been there for a while HAD the consent of editors, addition, removal or alteration needs consensus. If you are not happy with what is there and cannot persuade fellow editors to change it, WP:RfC or WP:DRN are open to you.

Regarding sources, the existence of a source is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. I could probably find sources that described d'Souza as an adulterous, Catholic, Indian-born divorcee, innumerable sources that described Hutton as a noted academic economist, Toynbee as an atheist, feminist award-winning journalist. Perhaps I could find sources for everybody's favourite food or the Dixie Chicks politics or average bust-size. We would not consider including any of these, because they would be irrelevant to understanding, which is the main purpose of describing people and what they are saying, not to 'label' them.

I was initially reluctant to revert your today edits, because I did not have the time to work through them to see which might be 'legit', however when I realised that you had replaced a well-supported description of d'Souza's book with your own interpretation of it, I had no hesitation. Strangely, we don't rely on editors or authors to write summaries of books, otherwise we'd soon have someone claiming that Mein Kampf is a book by a very nice man, that doesn't mention anti-semitism anywhere!Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I second the call for WP:DRN. I see a number of persuasive arguments on this talk page ignored or reverted, despite reasonable sourcing. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out multiple times the article vastly overlabels anything as conservative and right-wing. But you keep ignoring this. Your points about "favourite foods" and so is an obvious straw man. You once even yourself edited out one right-wing to appease, but then Aquillion edited it back. You accept it, because it leans towards your bias of labeling all of the right and removing all labelings of the left. It can't get more clear than this. I already wrote how nothing I will ever suggest will be accepted by you. I've pointed out how your sources don't have anything like what the article contains. And the change to the introduction wasn't originally mine, but I saw how biased it had been after the edits made it vastly more neutral. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove some of the right-wing labels, go ahead and point out which ones you think aren't well-supported or relevant. The one you've focused on (d'Souza) is extremely well-sourced in terms of both its applicability and its relevance, but we can discuss the best way to frame and describe it if you want. --Aquillion (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

All of them, if no left-affiliations are allowed either? The point was that both should be listed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

'Right' and 'left' (and 'liberal') are mostly used to denote broad groups. Individuals are identified only where context demands. When you 'counted' you omitted 'labor leader' and 'Marxism'. Simply counting isn't much of an indicator of neutrality, especially since the term PC is mainly used by critics, who are mostly social/political conservatives. You say higher above that you have never complained about 'conservatives', now you are again complaining of over-use of 'conservative'. I challenged you above to provide a BETTER brief description of d'Souza's book, which was sourced and imformative.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't count "libertarian" or "Republican" either. Both by counting and looking at the article, any conservative's or right-winger's affiliation is way more easily noted. I mean the Daily Mail is noted to be conservative twice, but The Observer's affiliation isn't noted! The most obvious missing affiliations are those of Toynbee and Hutton, latter of which described himself left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza is not the popularizer of the term

I just now realized that a lot of editors have mixed up two books of Dinesh D'Souza. He has two books titled Illiberal Education, with the political correctness one released in 1992. The 1991 book doesn't contain the term even once.

I have multiple sources which use the term in 1991, before he ever did:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html "Published: May 5, 1991"

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/political-correctness-and-the-suicide-of-the-intellect "June 26, 1991"

In fact, the popularizer of the term is most likely the 41st president of the United States, George H. W. Bush:

http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

The NY times article above also refers to this speech by the president.

The sources referring to Dinesh D'Souza talk about his 1991 book. In the main source used, Schultz, Debra L. (1993). "To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the 'Political Correctness' Debates in Higher Education," the book being referred to is:

Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Class on Campus (1991)

The 1992 book is 32 pages long and only seems to be based on a speech of his. I think this is the entirety of it: http://ashbrook.org/publications/illiberal-education/

Here are some other sources that used it in 1991 or before:

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1921&context=law_lawreview "January 1991 - Political Correctness and the American Law School - Steven C. Bahls"

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all "Published: October 28, 1990"

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the introduction to prove fit. I don't think anyone will question this edit when it was the president himself who popularized the term — a year before Dinesh D'Souza used the term. The 1990s section will also need major work done. As it stands it claims Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book had anything to do with the term, when again it doesn't mention it even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confused? d'Souza's own website, here, says that the book is about political correctness, and we have numerous sources (not just Schultz) saying that Illiberal Education: The politics of race and sex on campus was the book that ignited the debate. See Whitney and Wartella, say, which are quoted in the article. See also Phyllis Schafly explaining it here: "This is the original book that explained Political Correctness (P.C.) on college campuses. D'Souza shows how P.C. produces closed-mindedness and intolerance, which is to say an "illiberal education." He explains how Political Correctness opposes the teaching of Western Civilization. The P.C. advocates demand that professors give prime attention to race and gender issues, and abolish the classics of Western civilization." Are you relying on searching it in Google Books or Amazon Search Inside for words? That's unreliable (since they don't have the full text), and it's original research besides -- we need to go by what the sources say, and they overwhelmingly say that d'Souza's 1991 book is the source of the term and concept in its modern usage. Now, he wasn't the only person writing such books (the sources mention several others funded by the same or similar think tanks around the same time), so we could mention some of the others. But his is almost always highlighted as the most successful of them -- as the one that captured the popular imagination. --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What in the world does some website have to do with anything? That description was probably written in the last 5 years and by someone else than him? Again, the book doesn't mention the term. Your sources talk about the 1991 book with same title (different subtitle), and not about the 1992 "Illiberal Education: Political Correctness and the College Experience" one. None claim that he popularized the term. We haven't seen your Phyllis Schafly source before and it's an incredibly dubious random webpage, and likely confused by the titles of the two books as well; because again the 1991 book doesn't even mention Political Correctness. I can't believe you. All along you have been talking about two different books as one and adding references talking about two different books. You haven't even corrected any of the mistakes in the article about claims of the 1991 book. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to again point out the source stating journalists hadn't heard of the term before the president used it in his speech. If that isn't the most obvious case of popularization I don't know what is. The 1991 NY Times article states the term had been popularized in academic circles in the fall of 1990, a year before even the first book of Dinesh — which again doesn't use the term until the second version in 1992. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Magoo, you need to chill out just a bit here (when you find yourself bolding entire paragraphs, etc, that's a sign you need to step back and take a deep breath). Now: FWIW, I've been doing some reading, and I agree with you that the lede probably puts a bit too much emphasis on D'Souza as "popularizer" of political correctness during the early 1990s - there are other sources and other people that were using the term at around the same time. But your claim that he never mentioned it appears to be - if not wholly incorrect, then at least misleading. There are tons of very high quality sources that characterize his book as an "anti-PC" book. To argue that it's anything other than that is just silly. And again, please remember to assume good faith.

My 2 cents are that D'Souza still needs to be described as a popularizer of the term (he was) - but maybe not singled out as the only person to popularize it. this is the kind of source that the article should be relying on, and it makes clear that you're both somewhat "right" here - the term certainly became popular in the early 90s, and while D'Souza wasn't the only or even the first person to use the term, he clearly played an important role in that popularization. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Like written by the NY Times article, the term was seemingly popularized in the academic circles in the fall of 1990. They describe it as anti-PC, because that was the hot new word. As it happens, the book doesn't have the term. And you have no sources stating that he was even top 5 popularizer of the term. Going down this rabbit hole and finding out who popularized the term in the academic circles in 1990 you'll find the top culprits, let alone the president a bit later. Again, our first instance of Dinesh seemingly using it is from 1992. Dinesh can be mentioned as a minor sidenote in the 1990s. That's all he is. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your source states this article to one of the main popularizers of the term: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all

Last weekend, a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, Calif., was called " 'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," and it examined what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship.

In fact, this article is already used a source in the Wikipedia article, bizarrely enough. Have you simply ignored it all of this time? The writer of the article is RICHARD BERNSTEIN. He should be given the title of the popularizer. New York Times should be given the title of the popularizer. The Californian academics should be given the title of the popularizer. And most of all, the president, albeit almost a year later. All of these should be given the title of the popularizer before some random conservative who didn't even use the term until 1992. I'm not assuming good faith from any of you three. I believe all you simply want to color the term as some neonazi terminology, tie it with "multiculturalism" and such. It's been incredibly well proven how little Dinesh had to do with the term, yet you still insist he's important and that his "opposition against multiculturalism" absolutely has to be mentioned. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I went back in edit history and discovered that the one who added Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction of the article is none other than Aquillion himself on May 20 2015 when he returned to edit the article after an 8 year hiatus. 4 days later Pincrete came to edit the article as well and to support Aquillion's decision. After that they've controlled the article ever after. Aquillion isn't defending "the way the article was," but his own edit! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion is also the one who added pejorative to the introduction! This article is pretty much word-to-word his view on the matter! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflictPincrete (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is some curious logic here, we don't reject the evidence of an official US presidential website because 'Obama probably didn't type it'. All sources about the 'spread' of the term, credit d'Souza's book with a significant role in igniting debate, specifically in the US with concerns about 'illiberal policies' in education, (a UK study says much the same) which were characterised as 'PC'. Maybe there's a better term than 'popularize', though I don't see a problem, 'taking the term out to a broader public' is all it means. Maybe G Bush took it to an EVEN broader public, so what? GBush played no role in defining its use or meaning, before or after that quote. That info would at best be in the history, though I think it actually proves that the term was almost universally understood by the time of his quote and any ascription of a role of his would probably be OR. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is pretty much editor Aquillion's own word-for-word view on the matter

User:Aquillion returned to edit the article on May 20 2015 after 7-8 years of not editing it. He then added pejorative and a large bit about Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction. 4 days later on May 24 2015 User:Pincrete came to support Aquillion on editing the article. The two have controlled the article ever since. They have removed large amounts and added and modified it to their liking. Through their group power they have bullied any disagreers into submission.

Dinesh D'Souza obviously does not belong to the introduction. In order of importance in popularizing the term, he doesn't even rank at top 5. I believe User:Aquillion and User:Pincrete are trying to color the term Political Correctness as being directly linked to neonazi ideas like opposing multiculturalism, even though it enjoys massive mainstream usage in describing overdone sensibilities in any matter.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)