Talk:Political correctness/Archive7

message: I'm an old guy who has thought quite a bit about things such as this. I remember when colored was a polite term, and I knew a man who was born in 1902 who spoke of "darkies" with the same innocence.  This article, as a collaberative work of many hands and minds is a phenomonon.  It is balanced, yet it provides a good overview. It will never express some of the cogent fine points that are on this talk section.  This is, and can only be, PC 101. It does show the lack of a single mind that is pulling together all of the threads with a single point of view.  That is, I believe, just one of the inherent characteristics of this Wiki process. 
The advanced courses, and advanced permutations on this subject rightly belong in individual essays (blogs)  Everyone who had a hand in this project should be immensly proud. Individually and as group, something has been produced that is intelligent, fair and reasonably comprehesive.  
Is it acceptable for an idividual to use this section to refer to their own essays, or blogs, on this subject
67.22.135.217 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is for discussion of editing the article. It's not supposed to be further information on the subject, nor is it to be a link collection. No one is going to be upset if you reference an outside source in the discussion, but you shouldn't post essays or links to essays that aren't on topic, and the topic is not political correctness, it's Wikipedia's article on political correctness.--Prosfilaes 23:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh View

message: The article states:
People with religious beliefs are often referred to euphemistically as "people of faith", by analogy to "people of color". 
Is there any citable basis for the claim that this expression comes from this analogy? Or that it is anything like a neologism? I doubt this on both counts. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "People of faith" 

message: Recently added to the list: "Terrorist became militant." Given that political correctness is generally alleged to be a change in speech since about 1970, this seems to me to be wrong. The word "terrorist" has gained not lost currency since that time. If anything, there has been a tendency to use the word terrorist in a context where, in the 1960s, one would have used militant, guerrilla or insurgent. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the horrors of 9/11, Americans are afraid of the "T word" and some P.C. activists feel the term is racist against persons of Middle-Eastern descent (P.C. speak for Arab people). When airport security checkpoints frisk every 80-year old white Irish women for big shoes, that's a form of political correctness. If the FBI, CIA and US Marshal are told not to "racial profile" Arab-Americans, east Indian Americans and Iranian Americans, that is anyone of certain appearance, again to be P.C. And to wiretap every U.S. citizens' phone calls or E-mails or library records, there you go this is P.C. Are we safer than 5 years ago? I doubt it, we're still in the war against terror and we're scared of taking away some peoples' rights (what a bunch of crap) when in fact the government is more intrusive on everyone than ever before. + 207.200.116.6 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, we know what happens when people are labeled and stigmatized, whether it's Jews in Nazi Germany or "cockroach" Tootsie's in Rwanda. Perhaps we should round up Arabs and place them in concentration camps like the Japanese in WWII? Rather than create division, let's treat editors with differing viewpoints with enough respect to frame their positions in a manner they would not find objectionable. Otherwise you're just trolling the talk page. MoodyGroove 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist 

message: This is getting out of hand.. people are adding any old euphemism to the lists even if they're not PC in nature... heart attack -> cardiovascular event as a consequence of political correctness? Give me a break... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, George Carlin has a rant on political correctness that I think a lot of these may have come from... someone with a large collection of his stand up routines may want to have a look-see. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know the terms "poor", "low income" and "ghetto" are considered not P.C. as these mean persons without much money or trapped in an economically bad posiiton. I hear of terms like "financially challenged", "economically disadvantaged" and "socioeconomically deprived". People are afraid to insult, offend or embarass those with little money, including a rich developed land like the U.S. seems to ignored them for so long. Money is a touchy subject to many people, like politics and religion, because there is power and privilege to anyone with full access to money, especially to someone who's rich.
Besides, "ghetto" means an urban district where most residents are Black or minorities, and also to mean an impoverished community or a section of town. However, the term originally came from an European Jewish enclave in the 1800s created by legal and social restrictions on where Jews can live. Since the 1950s the U.S. media gave the term for black areas, Hispanic "barrios", trailer parks, Indian reservations and ethnic neighborhoods, anywhere people are isolated or lived apart in poverty and disadvantage. Today, they use other terms like "inner city" or "racially diverse" instead of what the P.C. rules find "ghetto" is insulting, offensive and disparaging.+ 207.200.116.6 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC vs Euphemism 

message: Can somebody verify and cite the statement in the article on Target Corporation banning the word Christmas, and the attempted boycotts as well as sales?  It is worded as if the author doesn't understand much about Target Corporation (Target Inc.?) and might be a hoax.  I work for Target Stores and my managers used the phrase "Merry Christmas" in 2005, so I have reason to believe that part of the statement is not true.  I am marking this statement as .  68.226.61.4 08:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly untrue. Looks like someone already removed the statement, anyway. - YorkBW 14:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious--statement on Target Corp needs verified 

message: Political correctness is a philosophy of racial hatred directed against the white man and all things English. This is the only definition anyone needs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.21 (talk • contribs) .
*Yeah, deep. AndyJones 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The article discusses how for most Americans, the term "Asian" is used to refer to "East Asian" peoples (which is correct).  It then adds:
: "In British usage, the term "Asian" refers to people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."
Does this mean that, in British English, "Asian" only refers to those from the Indian subcontinent, or also includes those from the Indian subcontient (putting the British usage more in-line with the objecct geographical definition)?  This  line should be updated to be clearer; e.g. one of:
*  "In British usage, the term "Asian" refers exclusively to people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."
*  "In British usage, the term "Asian" also includes people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."
I would say it generally goes with the exclusive category. We tend to refer to East Asians as "Oriential" or "Chinese" (irregardless of where they are from....because we're (as a whole) ignorant like that.) Asian can be used, but I don't think it is used a lot with regards to East Asians. Slizor 14:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, nowadays many British Hindus don't like being lumped together indiscriminately with British Muslims... AnonMoos 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think most Brits use "Chinese" to cover all Oriental peoples, in fact even the correct term Oriental has fallen out of popular use. We tend to differentiate between nations and group them together as "Far Eastern", as in "from the Far East". 'Asian' does tend to group people from the Subcontainent and the term 'Desi' is virtually unknown here. Also, it would be laughable for a Brit to hear Indians referred to exclusively as "Hindus". Caucasian is a very odd term which seems originally to have covered most of Eurasia and it was apparently the Americans who began restricting its use as a method of excluding Indians from early immigration policy. --JamesTheNumberless 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British use of the term "Asian"

message: Some of the examples are either jokes or no politically correct at all.  
So I am going to go and delete some, I will then list them here with reasoning.  --harrismw 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Physically challenged or mentally challenged is certainly PC for words like "retarded." And in my opinion, this is an example of how PC can be a good thing. The truth is that certain types of behavior should be stigmatized. But again, political correctness can go too far, or applied selectively. For example, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action" in March of 1965, was he being a racist? When the Brooklyn Museum of Art used NEA funds to display a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with cow dung, where was the outrage on the left? The bottom line is, whites and Christians are not perceived to be a historically oppressed minority. Would anyone argue with that? MoodyGroove 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: [...] where no one has gone before: Since you're asking: it seems not to include all intelligent aliens in that they mostly only go where other intelligent aliens have gone before. The line seems to be intended to mean, where no human has gone before. (I agree that it's only quasi-relevant, though.) Ruakh 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I get it, but I still do not think it is need in the article.  harrismw 03:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you said that you didn't get it ("How does it not include 'all intelligent aliens'?"), so I thought I'd explain. I wasn't saying it was needed in the article. Ruakh 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, some aliens may exist in a plurality, like either a beehive or a man o war, wherein either the individual is an indistinguishable part of a larger collective, or it is made up of one. Hypothetical politacal correctness. Chris Griswold 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples are ridicules  

message: I do not think that any of these are terms that are politcally correct or that the alternative were politically incorrect.  Rather these are all attempts by companies to make a job or an action sound better then what it might actually be.  That is they are euphemisms.
None of these terms are used to reduce prejeduce against people in the community.  As such I am removing them all.  harrismw 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CrazyInSane, it would help if you discussed things on the talk page instead of making edit comments like "rv Prosfilaes, yes the examples do showcase PCness" which are person and add absolutely nothing to the discussion. These terms, Shop Assistants or Shelf Stackers, aren't about minority groups, nor are they offensive. Their replacements, Sales Associates and Sandwich Artists, are merely attempts to tell minimum wage workers that they are associates or artists so they feel better about the job. That's not PC; that's simple eupherism.--Prosfilaes 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my edit summary on my reversion, not all PC-related terms need to be about a "minority" or be an "offensive word". CrazyInSane 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Christmas being replaced with holiday is about minorities, the non-Christian minorities that feel that pressing Christmas on them is offensive and want recognization for their holidays. Why are these words politically correct?--Prosfilaes 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your assuming that the term "holiday" is enforced by non-Christian minorities, but this is wrong. There is actually an organization dubbed "Jews for Christmas", which is pro-Christmas and against the euphemisms. It is commercial retailers that are so damn greedy that they want EVERYONES money at Christmas, that use these euphemisms and have now got everyone using them. It's still political correctness. And as for "Sales associates", this is PC because it takes meaning from what the original term meant, the original term was more specific to what job the person had. "Christmas" to "holiday" does the same, its like calling a "spoon" an "object", it has no point. "Sandwich artists" is also simply an unneccesary euphemism and attempt at not degrading the employees of Subway (i.e. Political correctness). CrazyInSane 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what if there's an organization called "Jews for Christmas"? There's also an organization called "Jews for Jesus"; neither of them can speak for the Jewish people as a whole, nor in any way the world of non-Christian people. I see no evidence that it is done by commericial retailers for more money, whereas I do see evidence, such as various court cases, that the drive for the holiday season was done to stop exclusively supporting Christianity. Not every example of euphemism or changing of words should be listed in this article. It had nothing to do with degrading the employess of Subway; it has to do with selling them on being artists instead of cheap labor.--Prosfilaes 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia encourages that all known information about a certain subject be added to its appropriate article, in contrary to your statement about the unneccesity of adding these euphemisms. Also, someone who makes a sandwich is simply a "sandwich maker", as is Santa Claus a "toy maker", he's not a "Artiste of the objects that children find amusing to interact with". Broadening terms for simple effect is completely ridiculous, thus a euphemism is an example of political correctness at its best. CrazyInSane 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know where you get the idea that all known information should be added. That makes Wikipedia articles lists of worthless triva that obscures important information (which is sadly common). There is nothing political about calling someone a sandwich artist, which makes using the word PC very questionable. Euphemism is not always or even frequently political correctness; they're two distinct concepts.--Prosfilaes 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that not all euphemisms constitute true political correctness (or true attempts at political correctness), but I think the article should note that "P.C." is sometimes used as a catch-all phrase that includes all euphemisms, nicer-sounding job titles, etc., with an example of each type. (While we're at it, we should mention — assuming we can find a good source — that this catch-all use is particularly common in straw-man attacks on attempts at inoffensive terminology.) A comprehensive list would, of course, be completely ridiculous; but then, I don't even think a comprehensive list of genuine examples is really appropriate here, either. Ruakh 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the phrase political correctness has suffered from semantic drift and have slightly differing meanings to different people, it may be time to consider spliting the page into political correctness (social) and political correctness (linguisitics).  This would solve attempts to ursurp the words by activists and allow wikipedia to better explain political correctness.  The art of removing negativity in communications need not be motivated by social causes. aCute 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commerce-related 

message: Although I am very anti-PC, I would like to see some pro-PC arguments on this entry. Almost the entire article bashes political correctness, and little is done to say why and how this happened. If anyone who supports political correctness or knows more about political correctness could add to this article, that would be great. (^'-')^ Covington 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be tricky, because there aren't very many pro-PC people out there.  The term, as noted in the article, is primarily used as a slur; for instance, rules that a university describes as anti-harassment measures might be called political correctness by critics.  There are exceptions, but in general its use is analogous to Dominionism in that respect; the term was primarily popularized as a way of grouping together and attacking what was perceived as political correctness, rather than as something people used to describe themselves. Therefore, the response of most people you would call "Pro-PC" to your question would be to say that the term 'politically correct' is either without merit, or does not apply to them.  --Aquillion 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add:  If you are looking for an alternative view on political correctness, you might try glancing at the discussions immediately above here.  The general gist of the opposition view there seems to be that political correctness stems more from a general, across-the-spectrum desire for votes and profits than anything else.  Their argument is this: As the global marketplace widened and 24-hour news cycles developed, many commentators, advertisers, publishers, and politicians shifted towards becoming as bland and inoffensive as possible to avoid the slightest chance of driving away potential customers, and that the backlash against this shift was merely exploited by American conservatives, rather than representing a true political divide. --Aquillion 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, Aquillion. Let's put all this in the article as background of how PC came to be. (^'-')^ Covington 04:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View Issue 

message: In most colleges and workplaces, they forbid any flirting, certain 'sexual' language and even gone as far to ban inter-office romance. It's because the fear of men prowl on innocent women brought on anti-harassment policies and made what used to be flirting is avoided in most public situations. Strange isn't it for heterosexual men to become scared of asking women out, as long they don't use threatening or intimidating language, but homosexual men are basically liberated to ask each other out...and of course, heterosexual women can flirt with no real limitations. Sexual harassment wasn't a national issue until the early 1990's, esp. after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case was on national TV brought further attention to what is sexual harassment. The thing is we don't touch each other without permission, don't make public displays of sexual/romantic affection, and certainly don't force each other into sex without permission (some forms of "sexual harassment" are illegal in state and federal law, other acts can fall into categories of "rape" and "sexual assault"). Obviously it's wrong to force women to be subservent under male superiors (or the other way around, but it's rare compared to how some men mistreat female coworkers, even today with anti-discrimination laws.) Why is it to be P-C is to treat women "equally" when in fact by nature and most likely in the office, a man is more likely to fall in love with someone he knows or likes or gets along with. You're too busy to be fooling around and you're a gentleman not to harm her in any way, then again someone will say this is "sexual harassment" or a "sex crime" when in fact it's really not. + 207.200.116.6 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "sexual harassment?" 

message: This has been brought up before, but I think it's time to finally do something about it. I feel the list of examples has overwhelmed the article.  It makes up half of the article text, and seems to have no criteria for inclusion.  On top of this, the determination of whether or not a particular term represents politicial correctness is often a matter of personal POV, as witnessed by the constant debates over list entries on this talk page.  A few key examples of political correctness worked into the article's text could be helpful to describing what it is; attempting to list every example of political correctness everywhere isn't. Therefore, I suggest that it be spun off onto its own page, e.g. List of examples of political correctness, which could be linked to from here for those who are interested.  --Aquillion 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I just moved the list to List of examples of political correctness, adding a brief explanatory header and . It probably needs a bit more cleanup and someone might want a more detailed header, but anyway, it's a start. --Aquillion 09:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list 

message: Long ago, I was in Texas when a Preacher mentioned that, "Political Correctness is a tool of The Devil!" Martial Law 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Texan Preacher

message: Ok...don't get shocked if I use the term in an examplatory manner not directed at anyone: Nigger. There, I typed a word that I never bother to use and I never disliked black people or other races. I blame the O.J. Simposn trial in 1994-95, when the media frenzy over Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman was asked if he ever used the "N word" in his career? I believe this is when most Americans (esp. white people) started to emotionally oppose the "N word" as the worst thing in American english, but it wasn't like that before 1994. I thought this had to do with the Civil rights movement when black Americans objected to the very disparaging term (I agree here) and when a list of black comedians stopped using the slur in comedy routines. As long we aren't sure if "people of color", "black people" and "African Americans" are proper or prefered by the group, I don't see why the "N word" continues to be said by members of that group (i.e. rap songs, hip-hop and self-humor) while any white person never utters the word (whether around a black person or not, other white people will get disturbed, esp. if they are liberal). It made me think when terms like "Negro" (sometimes without the capital 'N') and "Colored" became racial hateful words, before it was frequently used and was socially acceptable. But those terms have to do with historic racism and the "jim crow" segregation laws in the Southern U.S., and after all the notorious "N word" originates from the Latin/spanish term for "black". that was butchered up in English. If society isn't shocked to hear other vulgar, obscene or profane terms, like "bitch", "damn", "shit" and the "F word"... how come you can't say any ethnic, religious, classist, sexist or racial slur in the same way? Our morality has changed, in fact it got screwed up along the way by the P.C. social codes. If we want to fight racism and hatred, doing away with the "N word" is way off the target to the problem. + 207.200.116.6 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "wasn't like that before 1994". When I was in primary school in the mid-70s (in England), a group of boys (self included) were doing "eenie-meenie-minie-mo", which featured the word "nigger" (there, I said it too). We were told not to say that word, and to say "squirrel" instead. Strangely, this was in a school with no black pupils, no black staff, and in a 100% white town. 30 years later, I still say squirrel.Totnesmartin 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tort D'Jour: Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe, Lawsuits Like This Have Got to Go: Two women have filed a discrimination lawsuit against Southwest Airlines because a young flight attendant exhorted passengers to be seated by saying "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a seat, we gotta go." The plaintiffs said they suffered "severe emotional distress" because they were "unable to escape the airplane, which was... poisoned with racism." The plaintiffs say the modern-day next line of the rhyme, "catch a tiger by the toe," once was sung with a reference to the "n-word," making a mere mention of the song a coded reference to a minority group. Southwest now may expect calls from Jacques Chirac and from PETA. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, both "Frenchman" and "chicken" each once were sung where we now sing "tiger." That's not all. Tinkers, spiders, beggars, sailors, young men and various other persons and animals historically have been mentioned in the spot now graced with "tiger." The case goes to trial in federal court in September 2003. Sources: Sisters Suing Southwest Over 'Racist Rhyme,' AP, 2/10/03, "Rhyme Doesn't Fly on Southwest: Airline Sued Over Nursery Rhyme," John Stossel, Commentary for ABC News, April 12, 2003, Interview with Melanie Jones of Southwest Airlines on April 29, 2003, Oxford Book of Nursery Rhymes Accessed Feb 3, 2007.MoodyGroove 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the N word is so bad 

message: With the power to penalize contributors by blocking access for a single reversion wiki’s are more often than not representative of system administrators’ beliefs and opinions than those of contributors who lack equal power. -- PCE 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal power 

message: I added Barry Glassner's "Culture of Fear" to the subsection, "Skeptical of claims about political correctness". You can find the relevant here, about halfway down the page beginning with "The Power of calling someone 'P.C.'" and almost to the end of the page, ending with the paragraph, "Conservative politicians had whipped up popular support for such cuts in the first place by—you guessed it—portraying the public agencies as hotbeds of political correctness."
Although Glassner discusses political correctness as a movement rather than specifically a matter of language, but I think George H. W. Bush's commencement speech about those who "declare certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits" belongs in the article somewhere, since it marks a significant moment where the President took a stand on political correctness, indicating the influences behind the anti-PC movement and how "PC" became part of popular debate. 
Also, in the section I pointed to, Glassner takes a very skeptical view of both the alleged harmfulness and pervasiveness of political correctness, and it's worthy of inclusion in he article. But I'm not sure whether to start a new section/subsection on the criticism of the criticism, and I thought I'd leave it up to the users who have worked on this article already. Ytny 07:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glassner's ''Culture of Fear'', Bush's 1991 commencement speech

message: This isn't a serious post, just want to say I find the  of Political Correctness sort of amusing...ok, I'm done. Yanksox 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: Should the article discuss the distinction?
'Politic' (adj.) means characterised by policy, prudence and judiciousness (among other things).  The meaning of 'political' (adj.) is limited to affairs of governement, politics and politicians.  So, the respective adverbs 'politicly' and 'politically' actually have distinct meanings.
So, if I refer to a mentally ill person as crazy, wouldn't that be politicly incorrect rather than politically incorrect?  What's the connection with government, politics or politicians in this example?
There could be a connection with Identity Politics (which has a political element), but that connection isn't always there.  And, I don't think that's actually the connection many people have in mind when they're referring to an expression as being politically incorrect.  Many people have in mind the polite connotation rather than the political connotation.
And what about 'politic correctness' vs 'political correctness'?....
Canberran 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politicly vs Politically; Politic vs Political

message: Please do not remove the tags at the header of the article until we can come up with consensus on whether or not it is neutral and/or represents a world wide view. Thank you. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: I live in California, where it's the epicenter of the Politically correct movement (some say it goes to the Northeast U.S.) and because of the left-wing political fringe, many people in Cal. are sick and tired of the whole P.C. thing. It gone out of style a decade ago, despite how much the P.C. cause changed words, phrases, gestures, attitudes and our minds. So what a little word or image, not meant to dehumanize or degrade a group of people: be it race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, occupation, region and ethnicity, is not PC? It's like the P-C crowd in California want us to "stop racism" against blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. and soon they say oops...we should say "people of color, people from the other side of the fence or the other side of the ocean". What a bunch of silly language to me. It's like we can't say "muslim" or "Jew", but "person of another religion", or don't say "disabled" or "handicapped", or we should be "extra tolerant" to "people who desire the same sex" as in homosexual (don't say homo!). What's wrong with this country? No wonder the religious patriotic "turn back the clock" right gained such a foothold in our American culture, politics and morality, despite I oppose their political side of things. And if it's offensive to them, so be it. I got the right to criticize people not as groups, but as individuals or for what they do. Can we judge people by their character? Yeah. Then you will hurt somebody's feelings. Whatever. We may know racism, prejudice, discrimination, bigotry and intolerance of people because of who they are or belong to or they appear...is wrong. But it don't make sense to me to "politically correct" everything or everybody, when most of us been tired of it after 15,20 or 30 years. Civil rights, democracy and justice is one thing, but this thing on "words hurt people" is pure B.S.+ 207.200.116.6 07:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homosexuals don't "desire the opposite sex" as you say. They desire their own sex. That's why they're called 'homosexuals', from 'homo' meaning 'same'. A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex as them. This really is basic stuff. Ericatom 21:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Homo doesn't mean same. Homo is latin for man, Homeo is greek for the same. Homosexual is no a hetroradacloid; It means attracted to men, not homeosexual, attracted to the same [sex]. Englishnerd 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Someone changed it, so I want to report it to wikipedia. It's wrong to change or delete other people's posts. I think they do that as a joke to make me look stupid. Whoever is caught shall be blocked until its' the last day on earth. Oh wait..."stupid" is not P.C. and some people get upset over the term. I think you refer them as "intellectually challenged".   + 207.200.116.6 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you've changed it back so my post looks like nonsense! Now that's two of us talking nonsense under this heading. Ericatom 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Avoiding terms that offend and upset people is good manners. If you feel the need to choose words that offend people, when there are alternatives you are aware of that they are happy with, then you are a rude, boorish, insensitive pig, as I noted earlier. Why would you call someone 'a homo' if you knew they didn't like the term? I hope you wouldn't call someone a 'blackie', or any of a number of terms. The only reason you'd use them, surely, is to offend. Skittle 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to know what's got Mr 207.200.116.6's back up so badly. (I assume it's a 'Mr' - see his above 'contribution' to the debate on sexual harrassment.) His ill-informed and prejudiced rants are dotted around this talk page, ignoring the instruction to start all new topics at the end, and bear no relation to anything else anyone's been talking about. And for someone who writes at such painful length - presumably in his first language, correct me if I'm wrong - for a potential audience of millions around the world, his grammar and style are atrocious. If anybody should be "blocked until its' [sic] the last day on earth," it's him. Ericatom 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Further to the above: I've just checked the history of the 'opposite sex' quote discussed above... and nobody changed it. 207.200.116.6 wrote it, I pointed out it didn't make sense, 207.200.116.6 changed it and then 207.200.116.6 pretended someone had messed with his post! If people who change other people's posts should be blocked, what should be done to people who lie about it happening to them, 207.200.116.6? Change it back, please. Your retrospective amendment makes me look a fool. Ericatom 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to the user who can't tell his Greek from his Latin. Homo is indeed Latin for man however homosexual is partly derived from the greek word hómoios meaning similar. This word gives us both prefixes homo and homeo which are essentially the same and oppose the prefix hetero. Hence we get the greek etymology for the words homogenous, heterogenous, homosexual and heterosexual. homosexual means sexually oriented towards the same type and hetero towards the opposite type. What is also quite erroneous in the previous user's comment is that homo in Latin actually refers to Mankind, not male. So in a latin sense we're all homosexual (except those of us who like sheep) but both gay men and gay women are homosexual. Tut, my old classics master would give you such a spanking! --JamesTheNumberless 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair cop. I don't know my Greek from my Latin. But that guy was really annoying me and then, when I used sarcasm to point out that he wasn't thinking about what he was writing, he pretended someone had edited his contribution when he knew they hadn't. Ericatom 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Tut tut, surely you mean "person-kind" ;-). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adzze (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC is BS 

message: I hope no one minds if I interrupt for a public service announcement:  If you're here to suggest a way this article could be improved, welcome!  Your input is appreciated.  If you're here to rant about how much you hate not being allowed to say "blind" instead of "optically challenged" that really doesn't help anyone make a better Wikipedia.  There are tons of forums out there you can go on to rant to your heart's content, but this page is already full over with the same argument.  I’m purely speaking as someone who just had to read it all. --Zagsa 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Man

message: Political correctness is currently a somewhat hot topic in NZ among the right. The main right party (National) who are in opposition even have a political correctness eradictor spokesperson or perhaps I should say spokesman. Although to me anyway, it appears they do use the term rather losely to apply to anything that they find a bit silly and/or that they can try an use against the government. For example, when a man was told to move (and someone in the air crew sillily confessed it was because he was sitting next to an unaccompanied child) this somehow became an issue of political correctness gone mad even though it seems to me to more be an issue of discrimination and generally silly behaviour. Indeed political correctness would seem to be the opposite. My point being that some of the examples they pick out may indeed be silly behaviour such as this incident but how exactly they are issues of political correctness is beyond me. In any case, I think this article needs to mention this but obviously given my perception, it's probably best I myself stay clear from adding it. Nil Einne 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the article can mention that 'PC' is used - particularly on the right - to include issues that are really instances of bureaucracy and euphemism.--Jack Upland 22:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC in NZ 

message: I'm afraid that the article at Political correctness doesn't address the phenomenom of people getting dressed down for words they didn't know were going to be found to be racially offensive.  For instance, PC doesn't mention the 'niggardly' episode.  And the "water buffalo" 'investigation' blows my mind.  So... where is the article that describes the mine field that is English, and points to all the words you shouldn't use?  Shenme 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope to God that we never create such a list like this on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, Cberlet? It sounds fascinating to me. The misunderstanding with regard to the word 'niggardly' almost ruined a man's life. We should look at both sides of the issue (at least that's what I'm trying to do). MoodyGroove 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia (in)famous for lists, so ... 

message: As a long-retired participant in the wiki-embarrassment that is this article, it occurred to me as I was skimming this site that there's significant overlap in what we're lately calling Weasel words and that which some people call "politically correct." The difference is that the first term is generally mocking anyone speaking indirectly, while the other is largely manufactured for use against liberal politics.
My proposal is that this article become a (much shorter) history of term "politically correct," how it is used, what it means to whom, where it came from, where it's going (out of fashion?). Take out all so-called examples, or at least the ones laking any evidence (still waiting on that "differently abled" smoking gun). And up top there's a big fat link to 'Weasel words', which does not take political sides and must continue to do so. Nathan 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an interesting approach.  I would support such an edit.--Cberlet 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then again, there's an endless supply of people who devote their lives [to] spreading these "examples." (Timely comment below.)  They're passionate about it, and not likely to go away. Maybe a stalemate, with a warning sign, is the best to be hoped for. But I would link to Weasel words, just as related concept to ponder, were I crazy enough to log an edit to this page. Nathan 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, far more people are going to look up 'political correctness' than 'weasel words'. And as the article indicates, the anti-PC discourse is far more important as an intellectual current than what it purports to be attacking.--Jack Upland 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just call these "weasel words" and move on? 

message: The article seems to be lacking, and would benefit from some contemporary examples of political correctness, including both "good" and "bad" examples. Currently there are really only two or three generic examples while I think that a (small) list of current PC language would be fitting. One example that specifically comes to mind is the issue from a few years ago when Los Angeles officials declared the long-standing use of "master" and "slave" in computer terminology "offensive". It's this which personifies the dispute about PC in my opinion, because the contested terms describe the relationship between computer hardware perfectly; however, because some people choose to associate them with specific historical events (to which they are not tied in any way), the terms suddenly become unacceptable.  (Note: this is all my opinion, and should it cause you mental duress in any fashion, well golly, I'll get in my time machine, go back in time, and stop myself from typing it so that you'll have never been offended. You can come with, but safety is not guarenteed as I've only done it once before. YMMV.) --Nick, 65.100.221.52 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many examples of 'PC' stupidity - more than actual cases, in my opinion! - and an article like this cannot provide an exhaustive list. I agree there should be illustrative examples, but not every instance that every individual has a gripe about.--Jack Upland 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "undocumented worker" is perhaps the most relevant contemporary example, and I think you can learn a lot about PC by examining it. MoodyGroove 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Examples? 

message: The warning label at the top of the page reflects a postmodern bias and thus should be removed because it presumes that truth is subject. That's a debateable subject. I say the warning label should be dropped as NPOV violation.
--68.45.161.241 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem. A viewpoint isn't erroneous just because you apprehend it to be an "American" viewpoint (whatever that means). What about the article seems erroneous to you? The unsigned user makes a valid point. The very use of the term "worldwide view" presupposes the nonexistence of truth that transcends nationality. That point, as the unsigned user indicates, is debatable. Let's talk specifics here, please. Or the label should be removed. MoodyGroove 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ad hominem (again). "Europe has become hopelessly PC" is a sweeping generalization, and not helpful to this discussion page. MoodyGroove 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At least have the guts to sign your contributions if all you're going to do is inflame passions. MoodyGroove 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is not that 'PC' is not an issue outside of America but that the examples and people cited in the article are predominantly American. And I'd have to say you're contradictory on NPOV - first you talk about 'NPOV violations' and now you say that the rule is meaningless. Finally, I can't see how you think the article ignores the right-wing point of view.--Jack Upland 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's true that PC is not an issue outside of America (and I have strong doubts) then why quarrel with how how Americans define it? MoodyGroove 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postmodern bias

message: Columnist Randy Cassingham ("This is True") recently defined political correctness as follows:
:Political Correctness: a system of thinking where it's OK to offend someone right in front of you by enforcing a made-up rule to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.
The particular case Cassingham was referring to was that of Heather Edwards, a 5-year-old English girl whose passport application was rejected ... because the photo of her that her mother submitted showed her in a sleeveless dress, which might be deemed offensive if she visited a Muslim country. --FOo 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a page for endless complaints about 'PC'!--Jack Upland 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Could it be because of quarrelsome people like you? Who don't even have the guts to sign their inflammatory comments? Please stop the personal attacks on this talk page. Some of us actually want to improve this article! MoodyGroove 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New definition 

message: "The concept typically refers to the English language, but is not exclusive to it." I would say that the pre-comma part of the sentence is untrue, and that the concept of political correctness is now one that is spoken of so often in so many languages (for example, in French they use politiquement correct to talk about the exact same thing, and they use the phrase just as much as English-speakers) that we can't really say that PC is primarily about English. So I would remove the sentence, unless anyone can propose a workable modification. Andrew Levine 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "refers to the English language?" 

message: The article currently gives the definition:
"Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language that is calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. The concept is not exclusive to the English language. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct."
I'm not sure this is the best definition, as I often see the term PC being used to describe attitudes and policies, not just language and texts.
I think a better definition would be something like:
"Political Correctness is a somewhat imprecise term, with different meanings or shades of meaning to different people.  In general though, it is refers to an attempt to force people (either by legislation or social pressure) to adopt (or abandon) certain attitudes, modes of thought, or use of language, typically by insisting on the use (or prohibition) of certain words or phrases, especially those that are (allegedly) offensive to certain groups of people.  
The term "Political Correctness" is usually used pejoratively, and almost always to refer to real or imagined left-wing or liberal policies.  However, given the above definition, the term could theoretically be used to describe any such attempt to enforce a particular mode of thought, regardless of the political position of the enforcer."
I'll wait a while before altering the article, so that anyone who wishes to comment on my new definition can do so.
:Please do not alter the article. The article has to be based on published material, not your opinion. Thanks.--Cberlet 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not your place, or anyone's, to ask people not to edit Wikipedia articles. A more useful thing to say would be to invite contributions, provided that they are cited from verifiable sources. This leaves it up to the editor to locate such sources and provide them. --FOo 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet, the article certainly DOES need to be altered to conform to the more accurate definition outlined above. It is a logical, indeed necessary, edit.Carthago delenda est 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote *yeah* on the edit you're proposing. This article also needs some other detailed cleanup, such as a bit more balance towards neutrality, as opposed to a carciature, regarding the legitimate complaints about political correctness put forth by not just those on the political right, but those on the political *anywhere* outside of Academic Institutions and the offices of special interest groups.Carthago delenda est 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the basic idea presented. However, I would remove "to force people (either by legislation or social pressure)" because PC is not primarily about forcing or encouraging people to speak/think a certain way, but rather more commonly it's a voluntary choice made to use it. I also think that there are a couple too many parenthetical comments, and that "or liberal" should be removed because of the slipperiness of that term (since it is claimed by FDR/JFK American liberals like Schlesinger and self-proclaimed "classical liberals" i.e. libertarians; both these groups generally avoid overuse of PC). Andrew Levine 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have no problem with edits, despite User:Fubar Obfusco's  (FOo) patronizing lecture above, what I am saying is that with a controversial entry like this one, all edits need to be based on reputable published material. See WP:RS. --Cberlet 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we are discussing changing the lead to something that represents the published sources in a more complete and accurate way. Andrew Levine 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is like pulling teeth. What cites?  Name a book or journal article, or solid essay. Summarize it. Post the summary here on the discussion page. I happen to agree that the lead is too restrictive.  I have expanded the lead several times, only to have it reverted back.  To keep something in the lead, there has to be solid cites. There has to be a discussion here based on those cites. Otherwise this text entry turns into an edit war.--Cberlet 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of PC 

message: I think we should have a small ;list of "political corrected" to use as an example of what they are so people can better understand it cause honestly im havin a hard time graspin onto the meaning. I would make a list myself but I dont think i know that many  more like I dont know that i know political corrected words.Angelofdeath275 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smal list of "political corrected" words 

message: It is not appropriate to delete from the lead claims cited and summarized lower in the text. Andrew Levine has provided links to the cites. I hope this stops the deletion of the sentence: "Some left-wing commentators have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." This is not a weasel word sentence. It is an accurate summary of cited material.--Cberlet 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is original research in violation of WP:NOR (for an editor on WP to draw conclusions on what the content of various sources mean.)  Find a reference that states this thought and reference it; then, this would not be original research.  Also, claiming "some" without any reference as to "whom" is content in violation of WP:WEASEL.  Have removed the original research content.  Yaf 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This interpretation of WP:NOR is absurd. A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way. To argue a lead cannot contain material cited below in the entry is just wrong--and it is wrong to delete the material in the lead when it is also properly cited to specific texts and quotes and references. WP:NOR therefore does not apply at all. Not even a little. Just plain wrong. --Cberlet 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The drawing of conclusions not quoted in verifiable sources is original research in violation of WP:NOR.  A summary should not make uncited and apparently bogus claims that attempts to tell a reader what something else means; instead, the verifiable quote taken from a verifiable source should draw the conclusions instead.  Have removed content (again) in violation of WP:NOR and that is also in violation of WP:WEASEL, with a claim of "Some" without identifying specifically "which".  Yaf 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does identify specifically which people. They are all named in the article (Glassner, Messer, Toynbee, Scatamburlo, Hutton, etc.) Their claims are cited. The sentence summarizes the conclusions that they all arrive at. A summary of viewpoints is what the lead of a controversial article is supposed to provide. Have you read all of the books and articles cited? What makes you think they are "bogus"? Would you feel better if the sentence had six or seven footnotes at the end of it? Andrew Levine 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs more than just a summarization though, without their actual arguments being presented, it is hard for readers to see if they have any merit. Intangible 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their arguments are elaborated on later in the text. The lead of an article is always supposed to provide just an overview, and the details come later. Andrew Levine 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So some of the references (we don't know which specific ones, but they are some of the ones listed somewhere later in the article) use the specific argument that, "political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender", but there is no quote whatsoever, from any of them, that actually makes this statement, or even uses the word strawman, and there is not any identification of which of the listed authors make or support this claim.  Instead a reader is supposed to "believe" that this is what the sources really meant, despite not one of them actually stating this???  This transposition of opinion for verifiable quotes or other verifiable proof constitutes original research in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V.  Yaf 04:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is a summary of the opinions cited. This is how we cite external sources on Wikipedia. In fact, this is how external sources are cited in books, studies, and academic papers. If you go browse recently promoted featured articles, you will see many examples of similar use. It is plain that you do not understand how WP:NOR or WP:V are applied in practice. I have worked on successfully promoting multiple featured articles (strict conformity to the WP:NOR and WP:V policies is required in them). I have a strong understanding of these policies. Would you prefer it if the references were converted to inline citations? Andrew Levine 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see to which section you are referring to, but it does not make mention of "straw man" invention. So the piece in the introduction is actually stronger than what those authors seem to claim, especially since prominent liberals have alleged its existence as well. Intangible 14:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  And, a stronger statement than what is contained in references constitutes original research in violation of WP:NOR. Yaf 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are leaving out a key part of the sentence: "Some left-wing commentators claim that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender". This complete sentence is a factual statement, supported by the sources cited. The sources that claim this are identified in the section labeled "Skeptical of claims about political correctness." The summary sentence that you keep removing from the lead represents their views accurately. Andrew Levine 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be factual, but it is not verifiable. "Some left-wing commentators claim that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender".   This is clearly POV material that represents original research, drawing a conclusion that apparently is not citeable, since it has not been cited.  Have removed it.  Yaf 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to second the "may be factual, but is not verifiable".  Unless you can point to a source, then it shouldn't be in here.  scot 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically what the sentence should be is "Some left-wing commentators claim, such as [insert author here], that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender" After the sentence, a reference should be supplied to an author which make this exact claim. Intangible 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to click on the link that says "Some left-wing commentators." It takes you down to the section that names all of them. Every one of them makes the argument that they are claimed to have made. Even if none of them used the exact two-word phrase "straw man" in their text (just as none of those cited in the previous sentence -- Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger -- used the exact phrase "allege and denounce" in their writings) the line is an accurate summary of their beliefs. As Cberlet said above, "A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way." This applies both sides of the debate.  Andrew Levine 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is surreal. "A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way." Enough already. Intangible, you are on probation for this type of aggressive interference. Back off. Yaf, how do you interpret the cited guideline? It appears to me that Andrew Levine is following the guideline appropriately.--Cberlet 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present form, "Some left-wing commentators (Messer-Davidow, Schultz, Glasser) have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." is still bordering on being original research, but this is a great improvement over the prior form without the parenthetical insertion of just "who" it is among left-wing commentators that argues this point.  Nonetheless, we still need to add appropriate references to this statement, to make it verifiable.  References with page numbers (of the form pp. xx-xxx or whatever), where these claims are made, would greatly improve the verifiability of the statement.  Without identifying just who it was that makes these claims, out of all the left-wingers, it was original research, with a touch of weasel-wording. Yaf 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiability in accordance with WP:V is not a waste of time, but is WP policy.  For summaries containing non-NPOV statements (which I believe this is, in this specific case) a verifiable citation is needed. Yaf 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of lead material cited and summarized lower in the text

message: This dispute over citations has degraded a good lead statement to the point where it has become difficult to read.  Yaf appears to be misreading WP:V and WP:NOR.  The lead does no more than summarize points that are amply cited in the main body of the text.  This is acceptable and normal in Wikipedia articles.  Recommend removing the citation needed flag from the opening and the parenthetical mentions of specific authors.  Use author names in a more natural way if the introduction mentions them at all: the current presentation reads like an inept attempt at Harvard referencing. Durova 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In WP:RS, it is stated that "However, when writing in the summary style detailed referencing may only be necessary in the subarticle and not the summary."  The key words here are may only be necessary, not that they are only necessary in the subarticle.  The single line at issue, that claims that "Some left-wing commentators (Messer-Davidow, Schultz, Glasser) have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender."  seems to go into clear POV territory such that it deserves a reference citing just where this claim is actually made and by whom; otherwise, it appears to be original research with a clear non-NPOV agenda supporting left-wing, Democrat beliefs in the guise of being a statement of fact.  It is a statement of opinion of a few authors, and is not NPOV.  A footnote, or other reference, with an identification of just who is making the claim, and where it was made, is needed.  As it stands, it may be true, but it certainly is not verifiable by reading any of the discussion contained later in the article, but is (perhaps) mentioned in some of the numerous references listed later.  Summarizing points in a clearly left-wing, Democrat-biased opinion summary, rather than in a NPOV summary, is not a valid summary to allow to stand without a detailed reference of some form.  With a detailed reference, a reader can at least judge for himself/herself whether it is a believable statement of fact and a believable summary. Yaf 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yaf, I do think you're misreading the intent of these policies.  Several other editors have commented to the same effect.  WP:NPOV exists to ensure that articles don't take a position editorially on a controversial subject.  This article's introduction respects that policy by summarizing contrasting positions neutrally, both liberal and conservative.  The liberal position is adequately sourced later in the article.  It receives the same treatment as the conservative position.  What would violate WP:NPOV would be to demand additional citation for one political viewpoint and not the other - that would imply that one position has greater intrinsic validity. Durova 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added citations and removed original research content that suggested considerably more than what is actually contained in the cited references.  If someone can actually find any cited evidence to suggest that "Political Correctness"  is  actually considered a strawman invented to discredit progressive social change, then it can be added back in with appropropriate citations. Otherwise, this statement of fact is original research, by making claims that go beyond what the references actually say or contain, and this is not in line with Wikipedia policies. Citations must by neccessity support positions contained in the summary for the summary to be valid. Yaf 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yaf, the sentence does not make any claims that go beyond what the sources themselves write. It does not misrepresent any of their positions, nor does it expand upon them with new research. Why do you keep insisting otherwise? On the other hand, your rewording of the sentence, which I have reverted, does in fact misrepresent them; in fact, it completely reversed their meaning. Andrew Levine 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present new wording, with "meant" instead of "invented" is now NPOV.  The prior wording of implying that Political Correctness was invented  specifically to discredit progressive social change was POV, if not paranoid, and contained a meaning that was not contained anywhere in the references. I am OK with the present wording, and the references are now such that the statement is verifiable. Statement of fact looks good now, is NPOV, no longer contains Original Research, and is verifiable.  It is considerably improved over the original version. We are no longer misleading readers.  Yaf 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If all parties agree to this, then it can be removed from the RFC page and be considered a resolution. I think it is good the way it is. Consider my idea of removing the request from the RFC page.--Connor K. 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems we have reached a resolution. Andrew Levine 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC response 

message: My understanding of the term "herstory" is that its use does not arise from a feeling that the term "history" is un-PC for appearing to include a gendered pronoun. Rather, it's always struck me as an attempt at a simple play on words (albeit not a very clever one). So I don't think it falls under the purview of this article. Andrew Levine 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen the term "herstory" used to denigrate the achievements of men, rather to "celebrate" the achievements of women. Nobody intends for it to replace the word "history." Andrew Levine 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a bad pun based on a linguistic fallacy. For any example of so-called 'political correctness', there is a more accurate, less pejorative and more elegant term that will suffice. Ericatom 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's based on a linguistic fallacy at all, it's just a bad pun. Is there any evidence at all indicating that feminists are unaware of the true etymology of the word "history"? Andrew Levine 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herstory 

message: Is "politically correct" - in the modern sense - ever used in a positive sense - and to what extent can it be seen as a distorted form of courtesy? Jackiespeel 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It originated in the positive sense, and is still used that way, but people who take offence at the term tend to be the ones who control this article (i.e., the term "politically correct" is not politically correct enough for them).  And so many editors on all sides have adjusted the article to their liking that it makes little sense as a whole; it's become convoluted.  There is a war between the people who take the term to mean 'language/action intended to not offend,' and those who take it to mean 'an attempt to control language.'  The result comes across as 'non-existant, non-offensive language.'  Goodbye to the idea that Wikipedia articles necessarily improve with time -- this one's merely a lightning rod for people's opinions and expression of emotional needs, as opposed to an encyclopedia article.  And there's no point in trying to change that, because eventually someone will revert you.  Maybe try something like soy protein or Jack Eckerd instead. 24.68.180.163 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of comment is not only highly biased and POV, but also offers nothing constructive, while managing to be insulting to other editors.--Cberlet 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased against whom? Wulfilia 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politically correct and courtesy

message: Sorry I flamed in that debate. Reading all the arguments got to me. to make up, there's a sensible suggestion below. Totnesmartin 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I did in the flamewar 

message: Meanwhile, I think there are two strands to the article: a)one about origins and usage of the expression and concept, and usage of it (including satirical usage) b) whether or not is is a good thing (including benefits and problems from it, unintended consequences, misuse, and criticism). perhaps it needs to be split. Totnesmartin 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the need for a split? Andrew Levine 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I can't see Whether or not political correctness is a good thing being an acceptable article. In fact, the article here should not include anything on that; it should only include the facts about it. People are supposed to make up their own minds on topics after reading article of nothing but facts, or so I thought. Skittle 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a bad title for an article I agree, but the debate exists and should be discussed in the context of a general article, perhaps under a subheading "criticisms of political correctness" or some such. Many of articles have a section on debate about the subject, and in this article I think it would be remiss not to. Totnesmartin 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered extensively in the article. Andrew Levine 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split?