Talk:Political correctness/Archive 6

message: (I assume what was previously here is not needed.  Please add back if it is.)
The introduction 
PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT
Actually, you rudely demanded a cite, and then ignored it when it was given to you. here it is again: "This expression was born in the late 1900s" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct).
Want more (I thought the dictionary was good enough, but I guess not..)?
[3] (http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html)
[4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml)
[5] (http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/)
Shall I revert your intro, or place a factual accuracy dispute header? Sam Spade 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NM, I rewrote it and placed a dispute header. The dispute header can be removed as soon as things settle down, and we have a moments concensus. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues.  The lead is based on the work of William Lind, an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report. The cites used for writing the lead include the following:
*[ The Origins of Political Correctness],  
An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind 
*Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times  an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
*An individuals website at the University of Toronto with no identification other than "Alexander."
:I removed the above as inappropriate for a wiki article. Merge whatever you can back into the article, but avoid self references, and please consult NPOV. Sam Spade  22:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no self reference, it was an accurate summary. And, the footnote for the first sentence was false, the page linked turns up no such underlying text.--Cberlet 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the footnote from your version and there was no mention of a comic or the 1920s. The dictionary definitions on that page have no connection to the text you wrote for the lead.  It is all from the Lind article or variants snatched from it.--Cberlet 23:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The term became an issue in the late 1990s. That's what the cite supports. Nothing else. What comic strip? You cannot cite a sentence with multiple claims to one cite that does not cover all of them. It's not appropriate as a citation. The Frankfurt school fled Germany in the 1930s. All your other cites are to right-wing sources and an anonymous person on a campus. Anyway, it all tracks back to Lind. Lind is the basis of your lead. I asked for published cites from reputable sources. You provide nothing of the sort, and then claim to be a left-leaning centrist and rely on the work of a right-wing ideologue with a theory that most scholars reject as a crackpot right-wing conspiracy theory. The lead I wrote was based on a conservative book by D'Souza in 1991. Have you even looked at this book? Have you looked at any printed source on this matter.  Do you just rely on the Internet for research?--Cberlet 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I cut my text pending an answer.--Cberlet 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm... do you think a RfC would help? Or a [article in need of attention] header? You seem to be being pleasent all of a sudden, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. Sam Spade  01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid self references 

message: I added a paragraph about criticism of political correctness from the left.  Feel free to move it around, put it somewhere else in the article, or modify it or whatever, but I think it should be addressed.  As written, the article seems to give the impression that PC is only a charge leveled at the left and that the right (and a few comedians) are mainly the ones using the term as a blanket political epithet.  There's more to it than that and it deserves a mention somewhere.  There is a very real concern that social class and labor have been replaced by "white skin privilege", ecology has been replaced by "environmental justice", color-blind socialism and a safety net by postmodernism, investigations of government wrongdoing replaced by blanket rejection of "conspiracism", fighting organized white supremacist groups replaced by claims that mainstream society is itself inherently racist, homophobia replaced by "heterosexism", etc.  Kaibabsquirrel 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how this has helped matters at all.  This article needs less text, not more. dlf 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Why there's the stress on the "leftist" usage of P.C. ?
I'm sure the P.C. is "politically indifferent" governmental new-speak. Just take a look at the article about the Ukrainian film director A. Dovzhenko, and you'll be shocked to learn how the Brits dubbed his documentary filmed in 1943 : they replaced the word "Ukraine" with the word "Russia" just in order to appease Stalin. Was Sir Churchill a "leftist"? I don't think so.
(Not a user) G.N. Boiko-Slastion, Aug.22,2005
Even a phrase like "the left" is inherently ambiguous and, some would claim, reflects bias. There is no real, discrete, thing as "The Left" or "The Right".
Removing the following non-neutral phrase: "On the left, "political correctness" has primarily been used to mockingly dismiss their own more doctrinaire and zealous allies. " Issues: "on the left"; "doctrinaire"; "zealous".... -- Serge Dupouy 21:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of PC from the left

message: (This material was moved from above.)--Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Insert

message: :Yes. Cberlet's first paragraph went like this:
Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "politically correct" (often abbreviated "PC), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.
:This was changed by Harrismw to this:
Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc.  It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics. 
:I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to criticize  a way of using language. Cbernet's formulation is admirably precise, but I think it may be rather complex for an opening, so I've simplified it a little:
Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. The term most often appears in the adjective form "politically correct" (often abbreviated "PC), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.
:I optimistically removed the "forms of conduct", hoping that they aren't that important compared to forms of discourse, because having two terms rather than three makes the sentence a lot easier to read. Please just reinsert the conduct if I was wrong about that. Oh, and I don't see any point in talking about a predicative adjective. "Politically correct" is quite commonly used attributively also, as in: "That's a very politically correct remark." Bishonen | talk 03:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section called intro above.  If you could please repeat your problems up there.  I'll also address them up there.  --harrismw 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, I'm new here! Bishonen | talk 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: End Insert

message: ::YIKES! Please carry on one substantative conversation at a time at put it at the end of the text, not up in previous sections.  That's a Wiki convention to keep editors from going nuts. After reviewing previous comments on a talk page, it is easier for everyone if the current discussion is at the bottom of the page. Please DO NOT repeat comments in different sections.  Having said that, the current edits and discussion show a lot of thought.--Cberlet 12:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: #2.  NEVER delete comments from a talk/discussion page (except in rare circumstances involving personal attacks). It is considered a form of vandalism. The comments on talk pages are permanent and archived to preserve all text and the flow of the discussion. If you have deleted comments from this page, please go back and restore them. The proper method for dealing with a talk page that has become too long is to archive it, or ask someone else to archive it. Sorry to be the policy police, but this is a contentious page and Wiki policies need to be observed along with courtesy. --Cberlet 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refresher course on policy

message: Heartfelt thanks to Cberlet for writing a version that can be used for editing the article towards a better state. With his rewrite, it becomes easy to see just how bad paragraphs 2, 3, 4 under "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"" are!  These nuggets and snippets need to contribute to some kind of coherent account, or narrative, or analysis—they need to make sense—or they need to go. It would even be better to have one of those dreaded "trivia" sections, where such "examples" of nothing in particular can be collected. I've removed these three paragraphs. That may seem drastic, and I add hurriedly that I don't want to delete any text at all; I've put them below for easy reference, bolded and italicized, with comments on what I think is wrong with them. I hope people will restore them to the article, but please not without clarifying them. Mystifying or incoherent material isn't any use. Presumably somebody understands their purpose—the original author, or somebody else (or everybody except me..?). 
In the United States, some public school systems consider bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks.  These guidelines can be used in the construction of tests that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences.  Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate.
How is that a viewpoint, or from a viewpoint? And, while I'm not a US resident, is it really the case that US schools merely "consider" bias and sensitivity guidelines? I was assuming many or most schools would already have them, and indeed the article Bias and sensitivity guidelines says they do. If there was some hint of the opinions expressed in the "considerable debate", it might become clearer what point, or what side of the debate, the paragraph is meant to contribute to. "Within the industry"? What an enigmatic way of putting it. The schoolbook industry..? Why not a clearer reference to it? Surely there's plenty of debate elsewhere?   Incidentally, what exactly is the subject of considerable debate—customizing tests, buying schoolbooks, using these particular guidelines, having any guidelines? 
A recent situation at the Los Angeles Times is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech.  A news review of an opera included the term pro-life in the sense of life-affirming.  However it is Times policy to use the term anti-abortion in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different and had nothing to do with abortion. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged .
Qué? Very illustrative? It's a joke about the stupidity of computers. (A reasonably good joke IMHO—well, in a mild way.) If somebody can rewrite it so that it appears how and why it's illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech, please put it back.
Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for French Language) of the term "political correctness" as "nouvelle orthodoxie" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term.
Now this is an interesting fact. I do believe it may be relevant to the article, and  I hope someboy will put it back with a clarification of what it's an example of (let alone an "ironic" example). Bishonen | talk 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewpoint of critics of "PC"

message: 24.130.117.205 has added a list of "Popular and Oft-Used Politically Correct Terms and Euphemisms", apparently without noticing that there already was one (under the better heading "Examples of language modification"). The lists should be merged, and 24.130.117.205's POV use of "in place of", implying that the older terms are intrinsically more rightful than the new, needs to be removed. I'll return and take a shot at a merge if nobody else does, but I'd rather a native and resident Anglophone did it, in view of the fast-moving shadings of offense in the "default" terms. ("Mentally impaired" has shifted from PC to older and rightful? Interesting. An article with any pretensions ought to mention this kind of shift, which goes on all the time.) Bishonen | talk 10:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article now has '''two''' lists of PC terminology :-(

message: I've two issues with this (actually three if you include the american-centricity of it):
Are some of these terms used?
* "Plus sized" - how often is that said or used? Is "mentally challenged" PC? What about mentally ill? Is latino a PC term? - in what sense is it PC?
* Aren't Pro-Life/Pro-Choice/Religious right all terms used by the supporters not because they're PC but because they put a more positive spin on their views?
Secondly, in what way are african-americans not american?
-- Joolz 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Be Bold, Joolz, please do the merge, and remove the terms you have a problem with! People are adding to that list all the time now, obviously without reading this discussion, so, at a minimum, there ought to be one list rather than two (and please lose the POV misformatted heading, also). Bishonen | talk 00:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically correct terms? 

message: They argue that what they see as defending victims of oppression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance or censorship.  A rejoinder by critics is that leftist political correctness does exist, as a crusade on behalf of the hypersensitive that can be compared to the objections of monotheists to "insulting" God with criticism of monotheism.
:I don't have much more to say at the moment, I'm waiting for the page to die down before preforming a much needed overhaul. This was a featured article at one time, you know... ;) 
::Sam Spade 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page. This page needs an overhaul to remove the conservative bias. Please do not begin a major edit without discussing specifics first. That this was once a featured article is ludicrous.--Cberlet 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  these are uncited, and probably uneeded 

message: Personally, I doubt that this page will ever amount to anything deserving to be called an "article", the way it attracts a steady trickle of unsourced POV contributions, often inserted at points where they detract from coherence. I've removed the contribution of 206.54.124.160, please NPOV it and return with a source if you wish. 67.114.128.37, please provide a reputable source for your addition, or I'll remove that. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rm addition of 67.114.128.37 per above, feel free to return it with citations and NPOVing. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The steady trickle and the incoherence

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

message: 1) To what standard of grammar do we want to conform this page?  There is a relatively large number of grammatical, dictional and rhetorical errors here, but the page seems to be frequently altered and reverted, which can tend to make copyedits pointless.  I'm a big grammar Nazi, but am I merely sticking my finger in the dike by attempting to fix these?
2) What is the difference between liberals and progressives?  If there is no practical difference (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), we can remove one or the other to augment concision, which this article (especially the intro) badly needs.
3) I switched the "especially" in the second paragraph to "including."  Was there a specific reason these forms of identity politics were chosen as especially wont to be accused of political correctness?  If so, I think there needs to be a parenthetical citing some stats, or a sentence explaining why.  Also, is multiculturalism a form of identity politics?  Maybe I'm understanding it in the wrong sense...
4) The first sentence seems to imply that political correctness is disparaging efforts to do what most people consider "good" things, such as "raising awareness" and "eliminating social and political biases."  This strikes me as rather POV, in that I infer that political correctness is working against (or at least not taking seriously) these "good" goals by mocking them.  I would rather the first sentence, at least, addressed the issue in a more clinical manner.  Cberlet suggests that it can be considered both a linguistic and a political phenomenon, and that's fine, but shouldn't the article lead with the linguistic aspect?  If for no other reason, simply because it's easier to avoid polarizing the reader right off the bat.
That's it for now.  More when I get to the meat of this bad boy.  
RiseAbove 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Questions 

message: Someone needs to cite this material to some published research. It appears to be original research as written. If this is a widespread belief, that should not be difficult.
::"Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms.  These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory.  Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society."
If this is a widespread belief, finding a cite should not be difficult.--Cberlet 13:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Robert A West 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Side Question

message: OK, but a minor point: as a teacher of writing skills, I'm really against hitting the readers with such an involved, complicated first sentence, even just while we're waiting for more thorugh-going rewrites. To cram so much into the first sentence can easily put people off from ever reading the second. I'm reinstating the first sentence that I wrote a while back (shortened from one by Cberlet). Bishonen | talk 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been accused of writing in overly-complicated ways.  :-)  So the cleaned lead is better. I do think it is useful to the reader to mention the terms politically correct, and P.C. so I tacked those at the end of the sentence. --Cberlet 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, and that inspired me to look them up: P.C. is a dab page with, ahem, this definition of political correctness: "referring to a topic that people are scared to talk against because those of influence accept a specific position". (Well, I've changed it.) Bishonen | talk 15:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence again

message: From the article: "Fat person becomes large or larger person, or person of size." Person of size sounds to me like a parody of person of color. Is there any citation for a non-humorous use of this expression? -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
:iawtc --24.251.143.179 04:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: The old quote unearthed just above shows that the notions of "critics of PC" and "proponents of PC" have a long history in the article. I'm sorry to see it, as they don't make any sense. I've taken a shot at getting rid of them in the section "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"". I retained the information and the arguments, but attempted to inject logic and to remove the perhaps unconsciouos POV. In the Lead and the History section, "Political correctness" is defined as a term that mocks politically selective language (correctly, IMO). But in the section "Viewpoint of critics of "PC", by contrast, PC is used as if it was a neutral, descriptive term: and thus it gets to have not only "critics" but even "proponents". That usage is incoherent in relation to the rest of the page, and it also projects a conservative POV. The section is supposed to describe criticism from the right, it's not supposed to embody that criticism by using the term in such a way.
I've cleaned up the secion, shortened it a little, and changed the title to "Criticisms of political language choice". I've replaced claims about mental processes--"critics believe X"-- with claims about arguments made--"critics argue X"; taken out emotive language like "plain embarrassing" or "jargon"; and removed a sentence I couldn't understand, "The allegation is that the theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people." I've kept the term PC as far as possible, i. e. I've kept it where it makes sense but replaced it where it's misused. Neutral replacements like "conscious/deliberate political language choice" unfortunately sound woefully clumsy and stilted, but at least they're logical. Please edit further, but please don't put the old POV back. "PC" is a slur. There are no "advocates" of a "theory of PC". Bishonen | talk 14:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Viewpoint of critics of 'PC'"

message: 62.252.128.18 has reverted my removal of a number of supposed examples of language modification without explaining why. I feel a bit like Sisyphos when he saw that boulder roll downhill again:  I've already argued the case for my change twice on this page, the latest time was here. I ask again that people don't simply revert without discussing the concerns I've expressed. Not serving pork is not an example of a language modification, is it? Nor are the others. Please don't put them under an erroneous heading. If you want them in the article at all, please explain what they're supposed to be examples of. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are deleting it because it is piling on a lot of text that detracts from the central focus, it is bad writing, it is bad editing, it is POV, and it unbalances the article.--Cberlet 21:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples list is way, way too long.  Examples are supposed to illustrate the point, not serve as a comprehensive list.  I suggest that it be shortened to two or three entries at most.  A comprehensive list of examples of political correctness (assuming that belongs on Wikipedia) would be more properly reserved for a seperate page; an article describing political correctness does not need more than a handful of examples.  Aquillion 01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My removal of "examples" reverted again

message: *The "War Department," together with the "Navy Department" became the "Defense Department." (This was back in 1947.)
*"Civilian Deaths" became "Collateral Damage."
How are these "PC"? Given that the claim seems to be that "PC" refers to the jargon of the Left, how are U.S. military euphemisms "PC"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
They seem to follow the idea of newspeak, but aren't really the kind of things that are derided by right-wing pundits and tabloids as "PC-mania". Instead they are accepted and used. I was just noting this, not arguing for inclusion or removal. Slizor 13:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I think a number of the people anonymously contributing to this article are lacking a decent grasp of what PC actually means (or rather, is purported to mean). If Wikipedia flags every example of language modification as PC, the article will end up looking like a complete joke, and I'm starting to think that might be the intention of some of the contributors. ("It's political correctness gone mad!" yawn). That would be a shame, as the majority of the writing is of suh a high standard. Slizor's point about newspeak is a good one, maybe the article should be reworded to make it clearer that it covers a phenomenon, not a list of examples.
Also, the repeated inclusion of the Factoids about the historical origins of the term also continues to puzzle me - we don't say the Renaissance originated in ancient France because that was the first time the word was used.illWill 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particularly odd inclusions 

message: What evidence exists to support the claim that a significant number of people openly embrace the term "political correctness?"  Evidence!  Published material in reputable publications. It is a myth.  Part of the dispute.  Please do not rewrite the lead until there is a discussion here with cites to reputable published sources. We have had this discussion repeatedly.  We can have it again, but there has to be some cites before the opening text is replaced.--Cberlet 17:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. What about a paragraph near the top that mentions the controversy over whether there really is some segment of humanity that favors political correctness? I'm fairly skeptical that such a group exists, myself. --electric counterpoint 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Correctness Movement?

message: Is it just me, or does the fact that the term "Politically Correct" is apparently considered to be Politically Incorrect(the neutrality dispute) on Wikipedia?Karmafist 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume you meant "does it amuse anyone else that the argument surrounding the Wiki entry on this phenomenon has devolved into a battle of who can be more politically correct in the context of Wikipedia (ie: who is the more NPOV / righteous about citation)" in which case the answer is yes, I'm amused.--Khaighle 05:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: does anyone know why people usually refer to PC as a left wing thing, seems odd, when it's PC that keeps the quotation marks around evolution in public schools/universities, when it's PC that forces professors to add the phrase "which I'm not allowed to say is real" before global warming????seems right wing to me
:I think because in recent history and still today alot of PC language is associated with feminist and other left types efforts to change language.  So that's where it's been the most visiable.  I'm not sure what country your in, but given the political polarization in some parts in the states, you'll see that happen in areas where left ideas are quite unpopular.  Up hear in Canada, I don't know anybody that would be afraid to say global warming is real. But your illustration is good in showing how PC seeks to intimidate people for verbalizing certain ideas.
::As the article states, "the term was … used jokingly within the left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier … applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance." It was then picked up by the Right as a club to lower over the heads of the entire Left. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the evolution and global warming examples PC.  Avoiding language on the grounds of accuracy (even if you're wrong about its accuracy) isn't PC.  (This applies to both sides; a left-winger who uses the phrase "so-called Moral Majority" isn't being PC any more than the right-winger who adds an implied "so-called" to "evolution".)  Avoiding language because you believe it's wrong isn't the same as avoiding it on political grounds, even if the belief that it's wrong is usually associated with politics. Ken Arromdee 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly question

message: The following paragraph was recently added without citation. I believe it to be either false or misleadingly vague: "Throughout the 1980s the term was commonly used on college campuses, without negative connotations, as a label describing adherence to the set of values, doctrines, and behaviors that would be considered acceptable and non-controversial among the campus leftist community." Admittedly, it doesn't say what country, and would be technically correct if there are even two campuses where this was the case, but the wording suggests that this phenomenon was general, and I'm pretty certain it wasn't. If someone has citation for such use, I'd like to see it (and would be very curious to know where these campuses were; for example, were they in the English-speaking world?) If no one has citation for this, I believe it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
: By the way, I would notify the person who wrote the paragraph, except that it appears to be an IP with no other contributions. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
If we are seriously going to debate the  phrase "politically correct" then lets break down the word politically derives from the latin word poli- meaning  "many" a refrence to a "many number of people". this is where we get the word politics.Now the aspect of of being "correct" is possessing a truth or acting in the correct or enlightend manner.Now when u put these two words together "politically correct",this phrase actually means speaking or adressing people in an agreeable manner. When i was growing up we had another word for this we called it "respect" or treating people with "dignity" or even being "polite".Now this thing my people called "respect" is an interesting concept it has two purposes when u treat people with "respect" 1.It demonstrates your intelligence and denotes an aire of good breeding,good family values, and essentially shows you possess the value of a human being.2.It makes the person you are talking to feel as they also possess these characteristics and value them as human beings.Its also a preventative method in debate to reduce AD HOMINEM attacks  and prevents an otherwise intelligent and productive discussion from devolving into a bitter name calling match. As far as "political correctness" being orwellian is not a very logical comparison ,usually orwellian double-speak has an ironic flair to it, a word that says onething but means  but the exact opposite,it also possess the quality that it is shorter than the actual words inhibiting the speaker or general populace the ability of independent thought."African-American" is not double speak it is exactly what it says a person of african heritage born in america.and also its possess many more syllables than the old moniker"negro" or "colored".These phrases in themselves can be considered double speak since it reduces a person a human being with a culture a heritage to a mere color.African American is actually more accurate term since all people are colored and no human being on earth is actually "black" or "negro" (spanish for black)colored it gives  u a more realistic impression of a people coming from an actual place the phrase actually promotes thought,for this reason it dosent qualify as double speak.I think the point of my insert here is that the ignorance of our ancestors shouldnt inhibit us from growing intellectually and culturally.At one time it was believed that the earth was flat, should we try to go back to that ideaology because were afraid to sail past the horizon?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.38.73 (talk • contribs) 31 Aug 2005.
: If that was in any way related to the uncited statement in question, I'm missing it. I will revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::Not to mention that the comment by Anon starts out with a glaring inaccuracy.  Like "Democracy", "Politics" derives from the Greek, not the Latin.  In this case, the root is Polis (πολις), meaning city, or more especially, city-state.  Robert A West 21:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statement 

message: Suggestion: Authors are confusing "Political Correctness" in general with what should be a sub-division: "Politically Correct Terminology". Modification of terms and phrases to be more politically sensitive (use of euphamisms) is only one small aspect of what the terms "Politically correct" and "Politically incorrect" refers to.
Background: 'Political correctness' was intended to refer to (critcise or condem, not "mock") the "chilling effect" on public discourse of certain topics. It was not intended to refer to the terms use by comedians (such as the 'you might be a redneck' bunch or Bill Maher); in particular defining use of Politically correct to refer only to simple minded examples of gender-neutral job roles (e.g. "fireperson").
Recommendation: Create a seperate article for "Politically correct terminology" or "Politically correct language".
- Serge Dupouy 21:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC vs PC terminology ("PC Speak") 

message: This article is very poorly written, and I agree with the comment about confusion between PC and examples of PC language. The article is disjointed and seems more like a series of sentences plucked from high school essays.
The overall impression is well meaning amateurs writing about the pet peeves. A more academic approach is needed. There is nothing about the Frankfurt school, "critical theory", nor is there anything about the link between PC and environmentalism.
Somebody with a broad knowledge of history/social sciences need to rewrite this article Gtoomey 03:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please. Many of us have a "broad knowledge of history/social sciences," you just happen to disagree with our views. It is true that there is "nothing about the Frankfurt school, 'critical theory', on this page. There was once material drawn from the right-wing musings of William Lind, from where all such material originates (if it is not from the LaRouchites), but when it was pointed out that Lind then took his views well into the sphere of outlandish antisemitic claims of conspiracy, the material was seen as less useful. There are a number of scholarly cites on the page, and some material is drawn from them.  So if you want to start by providing scholarly or notable published cites to back up your claims, that would be an improvement. Please avoid polemic screed from right-wing websites. This page could use some editing, but it has been batled over for months, and represents a compromise. Belittling hard work is not a good place to start.  --Cberlet 13:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to be rewritten from scratch 

message: Another round of discussion.  Please provide a scholarly cite that there ever existed a "political correctness" movement. Even most conservative academics don't make such a claim.  Please do not base this page on right-wing polemics. --Cberlet 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly agreed. There has been no evidence presented that there ever existed a "political correctness movement". Censorship movements and language "reform" movements do not happen in silence. They create documentation, proposals, speeches, and so forth. Advocates for hate speech legislation, or spelling reform for that matter, publish papers and write editorials in defense of their positions. If there were a "political correctness movement", then its opponents would be able to point specifically to its works. However, they don't. Why not? --FOo 02:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Because the term "political correctness" in its current usage was concocted by the political right in the 1990s as a way to bash the left. This history is discussed on the page itself. Your text implied the existence of a "PC" movement, even if that was not your intent. --Cberlet 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate edits

message: OK, I know there is an irony here, but two recent edits creep me out in their lack of sensitivity to what is appropriate in an encyclopedia.  I don't care that a "Jew" wrote a song about Christmas. I don't think we need to point out that the term "nigger" is offensive. --Cberlet 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How very predictable. I am accused of being PC. I found that your text lacked maturity and sensitivity. My opinion. It's called being an editor. I did not think your edits improved the page. My opinion. It's called being an editor. Some of us are tired of people using this page as a dumping ground for their pet examples of what they consider to be PC. My opinion. It's called being an editor. --Cberlet 20:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of politically-correct speech, like all facts and assertions in Wikipedia, need to be backed up by sources. Examples which are not sourced are open to being challenged or removed pending verfication of sources. That's a core principle of this encyclopedia, and the only way to avoid original research. -Willmcw 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like CB has been accused of being PC on other occasions. Imagine that. Apparently I stumbled across a page that's the personal "pet" of a few of you. Fine. Maybe you could include something in the introduction dictating which specific users and/or facts are allowed and not allowed, thus saving money, time and space. Wahkeenah 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good suggestion, which has already been fulfilled. See wikipedia:no original research, wikipedia:verifiability, wikipedia:cite your sources, and wikipedia:neutral point of view. They specify what types of facts can be included. All editors who follow those policies and guidelines are welcome. -Willmcw 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I have to give this page credit for is having a lot more citations and footnotes than average. Of course, with a controversial topic, it's probably necessary. You wouldn't need so many citations if you were writing about Angelina Jolie, for example. A link to the National Enquirer would probably suffice. Alrighty then, if I can find a good source for a seemingly relevant fact, I'll post it, and cite it, and then wait to see how many nanoseconds go by before you guys clobber it anyway just because it threatens your basic premise. Wahkeenah 23:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the next topic, it is clear that any edits to this page are a waste of time, because they are going to get clobbered soon in any case. Maybe the core problem is that everybody knows what P.C. is when they see it, but they can't define it? Wahkeenah 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, against my better judgment, I have added back some stuff, including citations for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. If you still delete it, I'll have a pretty good idea what your real agenda is. Wahkeenah 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politically Incorrect Edits

message: The heated manner in which this issue is being discussed shows just how much baggage we have, how much our views are affected by our power needs (and I mean that for people on all sides, me too!).  It would seem impossible to produce an article not overly influenced by people’s political/emotional agendas.
Like others who have already commented, I find it hard to understand why the opening sentence suggests that the term is “almost always” used ironically or pejoratively.  I have often heard the term used positively.  Perhaps this is an American bias:  the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press Canada 2001) defines political correctness as:  “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups.”  Given the number of people who perceive it positively, perhaps “almost always” could be changed to “often” or “sometimes”?
To me, PC ideology is used two ways:  as an attempt to promote inclusive language, as the article states; and as an attempt to control or claim linguistic superiority over people who use lay language.  I have no objection to the former; I even use some PC terms myself.  It’s the power struggle behind the latter that causes the politics:  many PC users insist that everyone should conform to language that supports their world views, and people who don’t are labelled “intolerant” or “insensitive,” or some other pejorative term.  Rather than merely “expressing an opinion about, or making a public argument about, the use of language” (Messer-Davidow, cited in Usage), many PC people adamantly insist you talk their way, and if you don’t, they label you sexist, racist, etc.  This attitude, intolerant of people’s words, is what people are often objecting to when they use the term PC negatively.
People resent it when academic-types look down on them with their theories.  There really is no greater tolerance inherent in “mentally challenged” (or the current term, “developmentally disabled”) than there is in “mentally handicapped.”  I use the latter because I consider it a neutral term, and I prefer to avoid the baggage of PC terminology.  I like to convey an acceptance of average people’s language, rather than the kind of high-minded projection of meanings onto everyday language.  I also prefer to alternate between “she” and “he.”  These are personal preferences, and if we are to be tolerant, we should aim to accept these differences without assuming prejudice or insensitivity that isn’t necessarily there.  In my view, “correcting” people is insensitive, and is usually done by PC speakers, not to promote inclusiveness, but to satisfy the need to feel right.
I don’t criticize people’s use of language, or project my own prejudicial assumptions onto their use of words.  I try to hear what they mean, not what I am making them out to mean.  This empathy seems lacking in both proponents and critics of PC language.
Sorry for rambling.  I haven’t made any changes; it seems that there is an editor too ready to erase anything that doesn’t conform with his/her views.  But maybe someone can pick up on some of the themes I’ve brought up, and they might affect the article.24.64.223.203 06:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are referring to me? I do not object to material that is cited to reputable sources, I object to uncited opinions and material lifted off of highly POV right-wing websites and plopped into the article as if it representes "fact." I also have issued a challenge for anyone to locate published evidence that there ever was an organized "political correctness" movement, and as yet, no one has. Therefore all claims sugesting such a movement get deleted. If you read the whole page, many of your concerns are actually addressed in the the body of the article. I also made some edits based on your comments here.--Cberlet 15:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, ah, an ecyclopedia is not comprised of 'useless' lists? An encyclopedia (ne Wikipedia) is, by nature, an alphabetical list. One of the best features of Wikipedia is the 'List of x' articles, IMHO. Just saying...sounds to me like it would be a good idea to move the controversial stuff to it's own list-style entry.
JustinStroud 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: I really think the last batch of edits are probably a hoax, but if not I apologize in advance, but the writing was some of the most obtuse and impenetrable I have ever encountered.  Can we please talk? As for the snide comment about the U.S. and English language, it does not belong on this page. It's hard enough keeping on topic.--Cberlet 22:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Obtuse edits

message: i am skeptical of the claim that political correctness has caused a change of term in accounting from "profit statement" to "income statement". please back this up with good source(s) (including the conversion and the influence), or it's gone. Wbfl 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be perfectly glad to see this gone, but would point out that the evidence is equally weak on almost every single example listed. And, yes, I'd like to see most of those gone unless there is a decent citation, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite "income statement" conversion please 

message: Political correctness in the United Kingdom is not the most egregious POV fork I've ever seen, but it certainly doesn't (at this time) need to stand on its own. I've recommended it be merged here (perhaps we can have sections of the article addressing aspects of PC-ness in various countries?) for now and I'm putting it up for AfD.--chris.lawson 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Political correctness in the United Kingdom is not of much value.  Most of it is a racist diatribe, and some claims are just wrong, such as the claim about the Red Cross. Delete, please do not merge.--Cberlet 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV fork article needs a merge 

message: What's the stop-hand neutrality template for? I can't see anything biased here! --Adam Paul 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't visited this page for a few months but I feel that the introductory section is much much better esp. with the removal of the word mocking and the inclusion of the usage of PC in protecting groups of people.  I'm feeling pretty good about at least the opening section of the article which was quite controversial when I has here last. I haven't read the rest but I thought I'd put my 2 cents in that perhaps the need for the template should be reevaluated.  Granite T. Rock 01:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality template? 

message: the endless examples i've just tried to cut back should be scrutinized for PC heft (not mere general euphemism) then ported elsewhere entirely. they're just lists. they just suck. this article and Euphemism are turning into each other. spoooooky. Wbfl 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking out the trash 

message: Hey all. I had noticed that some of the given examples were euphemisms but really had little or nothing to do with political correctness. It seems a few others have mentioned that this problem exists. Here are the specific examples I found.
:*A heart attack became a cardiovascular event.
Was this change made in the name of not offending people who have had heart attacks? It doesn't seem like PC was a factor here; it looks more like a more neutral and scientific term for what could vaguely be construed as a "violent" term (from the word "attack").
:*The Department of Prisons became the Department of Corrections.
:*The War Department, together with the Navy Department became the Defense Department in 1947, implying that the United States does not initiate wars.
:*Civilian deaths became collateral damage.
Again, I don't think concern for people taking offense at these terms was even an offered motivation for adopting their replacements. These are natural euphemisms for unpleasant and sensitive topics - namely war and incarceration. The last one, especially, is a neutral term that obscures the loss of human life, in the interest of preserving the warring party's image.
If this were like most articles, I would remove these myself. As such, with its controversy and whatnot, I'll open the floor up to anyone who disagrees. Well, for that matter, speak up if you agree too. We'll make this a mini-VfD (I consider AfD to be an invention of the PC police against VfD. Just kidding! VfD is just what I'm more accustomed to. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, folks!) --BDD 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some non-PC euphemisms

message: PC is a phenomenon in non-english speaking countries as well. A less US-centric article is required. Arcturus 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise