Talk:Political correctness/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Political correctness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Recent Example of Verbal PC

It was reported in the mass media (Channel 9 News, 16.30(AEDST) (05.30 UTC?) Edition, Sydney, Oztralia) today that in Britain someone is making the rhyme "Humpty Dumpty" 'politically correct' by giving it a 'happy' ending.

In that "All the kings horses...", "..Made Humpty happy again".

In the original it was: "Couldn't put Humpty together again"

Don't have citeable sources yet. Add 'em if you've get 'em.

I have also put this information on the discussion page of Humpty Dumpty.

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you need an assertion, reported by a reliable source that the change is an example of "political correctness". Otherwise this would be an example of OR/SYN. It would also be helpful to identify "someone". The practice of giving sad stories happy endings is old, and not normally associated with any particular political viewpoint. JQ (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably way too late but anyway:

Merrick, Jane (18 October 2009) "Humpty Dumpty had a great fall... but don't worry, he'll be fine". The Independent. Retrieved 17 February 2010 &
Brown, Craig (21 October 2009)"Humpty Dumpty's happy again" Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 February 2010
220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

History

The history of the term contains much that is not strictly relevant, i.e., which does not use the term PC at all, or does not use it in the sense under discussion. In addition, much of the material that is relevant is merely assertions from secondary sources. In this instance a primary source which uses the term is necessary to prove the point. A vague assertion that leftists used the term, without any examples, is unconvincing.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the Mitford stuff that didn't refer to PC. But the article gives evidence that the term was used in the way described. If you would like to help with documentation, the NY Times has some instances earlier than the Bernstein piece, most of which assume familiarity with the ironic leftwing usage. You can check their archives. I'm currently reading an anti-PC book, very confused, but which has some additional 1980s examples. More coming on this when I get a chance.JQ (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pruned back the history section, removing irrelevant and unsupported material. Basically I think the argument that the phrase has origins in left-wing terminology seems very weak. No one has produced a quotation from Mao using the phrase, for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Emotional Charges

The problem with this term is that it's an emotionally charged term used by either side to either browbeat people into their way of thinking or shaming them for who they are or how they think. There is no way that you could use the term without raising the ire of someone. Are you certain that this would actually belong in a wiki? The term itself inherently has no "NPOV". Rapierman (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think that the Wikipedian system works where the controversy is about just-being-discovered-facts (e.g. in areas on leading edge science) it is an utter failure in other controversial areas. Every such article is a mess in Wikipedia, including this one. Such should all be taken out of the main Wikipedia article section, including this one. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikipedia - A Lengthy Article, A Zillion Edits, and it Completely Misses the Main Definition of the Term

Terms like this are defined by their prevalent usage. Since such content or perspective is completely missing from this article, despite being a huge article and a zillion edits, you can learn more about "Politically Correct" in 20 seconds by punching "politically correct" into any dictionary site than you can from reading this entire article. BTW, here's one randomly chosen example of many:

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

Wikipedia articles on controversial topics are all in such a mess.....the otherwise-excellent Wikipedia system simply fails on controversial topics. One could do a much better job in informing by erasing this whole current article and just putting in links to a few major dictionary sites.

75.24.138.102 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your preferred definition misses a central feature of the term "political correctness", namely that it primarily applies to the use of "correct" language and symbolism. That's why it makes sense to talk about "right-wing political correctness", which would make no sense with the definition above. The definition in terms of progressive orthodoxy generally is mentioned as an extension of the primary one - it was removed a few days ago by an anonymous edit, but I've restored it.JQ (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. No offense, but a discussion that that widely acknowledged primary use of the term is an "offshoot" of a distantly secondary use of the term, or is merely the "preferred" definition of one editor and that such can block highlighting of the primary usage is an example of how the Wikipeda rules fails on controversial articles.

The mechanism is that an article can always get occluded or POV'd in a certain direction by filling it with selected sidebar referencable facts, where the "big picture" is inherently expert, objective synthesis...that which dictionaries and non-Wiki enclyclopedias (and non-controversial Wikipedian articles) are built on but which Wikipedia can and must reject on controversial articles. And so, respectfully, I think that 75 was right, despite your statement. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A condition of "Politically incorrect" is that it be acceptable to at least a reasonable fraction of society. Editors have occluded the definition by pretending that aggregious violations of near-universally held societal norms are examples of "political incorrectness" That like saying cannibalism is an example of people being un-vegetarian. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts regarding Blacks lower test Scores vs. lower intelligence

I think that making a broad statement like "Blacks having lower intelligence" rather than a narrower more objective statement (like "lower scores on IQ tests") is extreme. A condition of "Politically incorrect" is that it be acceptable to at least a reasonable fraction of reasonable society. With John Quiggin's newest wording, I think that the statement is too extreme to be used as an example of political incorrectness. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that in a bunch of edits, and meant to fix it. Neither of the versions so far was really satisfactory. No one disputes that the mean score of (US) blacks on IQ tests is lower than that of whites. As the cited source states, the mian dispute is over the claim (in particular, in the Bell Curve) that this gap is (largely/primarily) genetically determined. Those opposed to this claim are criticised as "politically correct". I've made this change. Hope that satisfies concerns.JQ (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Shouldn't we include something in this section that's actually relevant to Marx? He advocated political correctness (I forget what he called it) in one of his books. He believed that by controlling the language, you could control the people (or something like that.) PokeHomsar (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Why don't you? The Marxist tie in is unsubstantiated in my opinion and is an example of double speak, not PC.--DCX (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Loony Left" Link is not in the right place

I think it's worth mentioning the "Baa, Baa WHITE Sheep" incident, but it is in the middle of a section that has nothing to do with it. I propose adding this section somewhere else.--DCX (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions to political correctness

There should be a section about how some exceptions to political correctness are permissible in contemporary society. Malighnment of white European males, particularly "dead white European males" is considered entirely permissible, as is the usage of epithets such as redneck, cracker, hill-billy, white-trash, etc. Open attacks on conversative women are also considered acceptable in contemporary society. ColDickPeters (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the double standard that such attacks are considered OK, but that the same attacks against people in different categories would be considered horrible isn't an exception to political correctness, it is exactly following the rules of political correctness.

Again, this is per the main current usage of the term, not all of the rare / obscure usages and non-example "examples" that this article is occluded with. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is part of the standard critique of "political correctness" and should probably be included under "critique". What is needed is to find a WP:RS making this point, with specific reference to PC. JQ (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But then you get to a complex question. Are you talking about the TERM "political correctness" or are you talking about the BEHAVIOR which the term seeks to deride? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Has to be the term. It's WP:SYNTH for us to include in our own voice a statement like that of ColDickPeters above, and to connect that with political correctness. We have to quote a notable RS using the term to describe this behavior.JQ (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search on redneck + "politically correct"/"politically incorrect". I found one list [1] which included a PC euphemism for redneck, and a couple of non-notable blogs repeating the complaint above. But the top hit was for a self-described "politically incorrect redneck. Looking at this and the Wiki article redneck, I'd say this term, though still sometimes derogatory, has mostly been re-appropriated as a term of self-praise. Same for cracker and hill-billy as our articles on this show point out. On "white trash", I did find something suitable [2]. There's a bit of irony there though - the writer is complaining about the term being used on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect". I've added this (without my side not on the irony). JQ (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

By the main common use of the term, Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect" was VERY politically correct, so, the show's name was ironic, but the statement you referred to isn't. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that "politically correct" means "disliked by conservatives", that might be right. But although that use is widespread, it isn't, as your comments have suggested, the dominant use. Even in conservative circles, it's more common to use the term to refer to a particular style of left/liberal politics, pretty much the exact opposite of Maher's style, rather than to anyone who holds opinions that are, from a conservative perspective, incorrect. As noted in Bill Maher, he describes himself as a libertarian, and satirises (his view of) political correctness. JQ (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello JQ Not sure that I'd agree that the predominant use/definition is any of those. I think I'd define the predominant use/definition as what is in the dictionaries; here's one I chose at random:

"marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues especially involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology"

With the closest (albeit imperfect) thing to that in the WP article being: "a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations"

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions, especially of current political terms, aren't that useful for encyclopedia articles. Even looking at the criticism above, it's clear that the primary uses of PC and its derivatives refer to language, rather than the policies they describe. A secondary use, illustrated by the reference to "orthodoxy" is the idea of following a "correct line". That's discussed in the article and referred to in the lead where "politically incorrect" people are noted as seeing themselves as unconstrained by (leftwing/progressive) orthodoxy. Again, Bill Maher would clearly see himself as politically incorrect in that sense - he favors lots of policies like social security privatisation that the left dislikes. An even broader usage, applied to anyone (like Bill Maher) who doesn't conform to rightwing/conservative orthodoxy on any particular topic, gets a mention, but it clearly is not (as I think you want to argue) the predominant usage. Finally, of course, there are the uses that focus on orthodoxy per se rather than ideology, as in the section on right-wing political correctness, which makes sense because excessive concern with "correct" language and adherence to orthodoxy is not the preserve of any particular political group. JQ (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

JQ, I could not understand your "An even broader...." sentence, which appears to be a key one. Was there missing words in it? North8000 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Should be "An even broader usage. Fixed now, thanks "JQ (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course those two words put together have probably been used in a zillion ways over hundreds of years. There aren't Wikipedia articles on all two word combinations and all usages of such. My point being that the only thing notable or useful for coverage is widespread meanings and uses. I do submit that the prevalent definition from the dictionaries (e.g. "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues especially involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology") is the prevalant usage/definition. The reality is that the term caught on amongst those who seek to deride or fight against widely entrenched "typically progressive" (liberal) orthodoxies in a FEW PARTICULAR areas. There are many other "rule sets" or othodoxies imposed by all groups (the right, the left, society as a whole) but I think that the prevalent usage (and thus the main definition of the term) relates to the narrower case described earlier in this paragraph, and not to all of these other cases. If we could find some study that counted and categorized uses of the term, I think that it would bear out the above and guide this article to being more Wikipedian. But as a quick gut check, when you see the left criticizing, right wing orthodoxy, do you REALLY see them calling such orthodoxy "political correctness"?

I think that the lead is 90% well worded, but the missing 10% is major. First it is missing the aspect that PC refers to efforts seeks to minimize social and institutional offense against CERTAIN classifications of race, gender etc. For example it is politically incorrect to say "women are dumber than men" and politically correct to say: "men are dumber than women". Secondly, the term clearly refers to "over the top" or excessive efforts to minimize offense, not such efforts in general.

You might be right about Bill Maher, I never knew him or the show that well. I was basing what I said on the highly publicized swipes that came out of the show, which were generally all against Republicans or the right, which are the politically correct swipes to take. If he was a fellow libertarian thinker, I wish I would have watched the show.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the "prevelant usage" shouldn't be what an encyclopaedia is about though, that is what the latest edition of a dictionary seeks to define. An Encyclopaedia should be more encompassing and thorough that just the latest way in which a term is used, it should cover all major uses and the history of the term (as much as space/patience/clarity can support that is). --86.179.186.239 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth be known, this probably shouldn't even be an article. It's prevalent usage is defined by dictionaries. It's #2 usage is the reverse of it's #1 usage, and then there are about 10 obscure unrelated meanings of the term, including historical. And since it's main uses are as a political tool, or a reverse meaning to deflect it's effectiveness as a political tool, the article will forever be uninformative and forever a contentious mess under current Wiki rules. Hate to say it, but it's true. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article should remain, the use of opinionated political pundits as verifiable sources should be removed unless in that context or as a quote from them.--DCX (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously proposing getting rid of it. Just pointing out that in addition to the usual things that doom "battlegroung area" articles to be an eternal unstable messes under current Wikipedia rules, this one had the additional challenge that it really doesn't have a subject. Unless you accept it prevalent use as being the topic, it is simply two words put together with zillions of different meanings and uses. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Bill Maher nor "white trash" are PC

This line will be removed unless there can be shown some relevance.

The term "white trash" is not in the least bit PC.

Bill Maher host of "Politically Incorrect" is...by his own admission and title of his program...politically incorrect.--DCX (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (In case it needs to be explained, "white trash" implies that 'trashy' people are 'usually' non-white, thus the perceived need to modify 'trash' with 'white'.)--TyrS (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This section does not make sense and has no place in this article. It is clearly there as a POV bias against those perceived (incorrectly) as perpetuating PC-ness because of left wing affiliation to point out a perceived hypocrisy. I don't argue the fact that negative terminology for caucasions, Christians or Americans exists or was used on the program 'Politically Incorrect', but perceiving this to be PC is incorrect.

Further, titling this section "Exclusion of some groups" is incorrect because the example mentioned is clearly not an exclusion and is in fact ONE, incorrect example, "Exclusion of one group", which is still misleading because it is Larry Elder's misconception about what constitutes PCness.

I once again propose that this highly incorrect, opinionated, badly written, unorganized and base section be removed--DCX (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article totally misses the point

Haven't any of you noticed that this article is about the term "political correctness" rather than political correctness itself? Look at the "History" section; it only talks about the origin of the two words. What a pointless article! How could someone write so much and still completely miss the point like this? (Huey45 (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Your comment seems to presume the existence of something well defined that corresponds to the term "political correctness". As the article makes clear, this presumption is false - the term, like most pejoratives, is the subject of contest and dispute, which is why the article is written that way. JQ (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Culturally-disadvantaged caucasians

Is this term alive in the wild to describe those who might be subject to the slur "white trash"? Google suggests it is, but mostly by people citing Wikipedia - not this article but White trash. The increasing dominance of Wikipedia as an info source is certainly problematic as regards the concept of WP:Verifiability.JQ (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Politically correct labeling to undermine

The article dances around it, but doesn't directly point out how calling something politically correct can be used to undermine a legitamte topic or at least to challenege a viewpoint without having to debate that viewpoint on its merits. 24.211.184.77 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true but it's a 2 way street that I think mostly goes the other way. The behavior that the term "political correctness" is applied to is is an orthodoxy which does not permit debating the viewpoint on it's merits, and pillories anyone who tries to do so.North8000 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article misses the most crucial aspect of its own subject: power. It's about the power over language, over who decides what is or is not to be spoken, how people control other people via social pressure. It's also about the language itself, but that is already covered in the article.

It's also interesting that the term "politically correct" itself, oncce used by people who identified with it, is no longer considered to be politically correct.

Finally, I object to too much of the "right wing-left wing" emphasis in the article. A lot of people on the left wing object to the notion that certain words are righter than others. And the right wing employs PC when it's to its advantage - e.g., if waitresses are told to refer to themselves as "servers" by employers to avoid negative reactions from customers, even if the waitress wishes to be called a waitress. Oh, and of course waiters too. ;-} 207.216.13.209 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Had to remove the editorializing statement (and the multiple nutrality problems it presents) that ONE example of supposed consevatives questioning Global Warming proves a larger conspiratorial movement in which "ANY (emphasis, mine) policy or factual claim opposed by the political right" will wrongly "be criticized as 'politically correct'" Whatavividimagination (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Winter holiday instead of Christmas

The link to a regional report in the NYT is about a small number of people and a rejected suggestion, this doesn't show that this is a common example, it suggests that indeed it is not very common (and it seems to have been hard to find references, if it's common they should be easy to find). I think this is a bit of an urban myth. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I found that one in 1 minute. I could find 100 more. This is pervasive. I can't believe that you are questioning it! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then fine one that actually says it is "commonly criticized" as politically correct. It's original research to just put it in as an example of something "commonly criticized" . Your source needs to make the specific claim. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See notes on RFC page. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This article suggest Political correctness is a communist conspiracy

Politically correct language is intended to show respect to all people. Examples of this can even be found in the constitution, predating Marxist theories. The links to Marxism- Lenin and Mao are dubious and do not demonstrate politically correct language. Eliminating racist or otherwise biased and offensive or even divisive language has nothing to do with communism or socialism. --DCX (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is definitely pushing a POV. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The links to Communist régimes are clearly there. Wikipedia works on specific citations not wishful thinking that there are "positive" political correctnesses as well as the egregiously negative ones. On the negative side,someone can just fish out Mao's exhortation to the press to print what is "politically correct" not what is physically correct. That is an unmistakeable milestone in Political Correctness:the denial of realities for political ends. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The "As an engineered political term" section needs major surgery to stay in the article

Right now, that section, starting from the the title (which implicitly says that one side's assertion is fact) to 100% of the content is just a soapbox for one side's views on the topic of the section. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need any surgery. The section is about a significant opinion concerning the phrase. I don't see where it says one side's assertion is a fact, it's just giving one explanation about its use and development, nothing in the article indicates that it is the correct, or I should really say the only, explanation. You seem to be complaining that a particular point of view is being presented, but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. But admittedly I was perhaps overly brief on my first point, and so here it is expanded a little plus a response to your note. I think that there are a lot of folks )amd a significant opinion) who think that this term came into being and gained popularity as a tool to define and attach a negative label to the orthodoxy that is now called "political correctness". I think that only a small fraction of them (= a small minority viewpoint) would think that the above process was organized and centralized enough to call that process "engineering" of the term. The title essentially that "small minority" viewpoint as being a fact.

My second main concern is that ALL of the material in that section is from the one side / one point of view on the issue. NOWHERE did I say that the viewpoint should not be covered, as you are saying that I did.

My third point is that the last quote was beyond a personal attack against his opponents, it was basically making up lies about what his opponents said, and then making ad hominem attacks based on the lies. Basically saying that [persons against political correctness are those "who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them," That's like a vegertarian activist saying that those arguing against vegetarianism are the people that want to practice cannibalism. Such is not suitable for the article. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia works. We don't determine the truth of a statement, that's not our role. He said it, it's significant enough to be in the article, whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter, although I know you won't like my response. As for your 2nd point, 'major surgery' to me is not the same thing as 'something needs to be added', which is what you are saying now. If you have reliable sources commenting on this 'engineered' concept, fine, bring them here, but they have to specifically comment on this concept.

Your comment on the way you think it came into being confuses me - it already seems to be in the article in the "Current usage" section, what's missing from that that you think should be added? Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

While being assailed from both the left and the right is not a guarantee of correctness (let alone political correctness), it's striking that the comments on this page are about evenly divided between those who think the article is biased one way or the other. As Dougweller says, the aim is to report all points of view in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT, not to arbitrate between them.JQ (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To y'all. I didn't claim there was any bias in the overall article, just severe problems and bias in that one section which clearly violate wp:NPOV. And, responding to Dougweller on the "came into being" section, I was really saying that to analyze the last quote. Basically it was an ad hominem attack against persons with a particular viewpoint rather than a comment on the issue. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how having various povs in the article violates NPOV. The quote looks relevant to me. Toynbee is a prominent commentator, and I really don't see how it is not a comment on the issue even if it is a criticism of people with a particular viewpoint - and that isn't a reason not to use it. But there is the NPOV noticeboard if you think you want to take this elsewhere. See WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this section as written would survive 5 minutes at WP:NPOVN, but my goal is more to have a discussion to improve the article rather than being driven by any effort or having any issue regarding "sides". I think that this is an important section which should be intelligently covered, and I think that it needs improvement to get there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Having biases in both directions does not make it a neutral article! It makes it biased in both directions. And if people are evenly divided about its bias, it doesn't mean the bias is evenly divided in the article. If the article is 75/25, the 50% who favour the 75% view will still say it's biased due to the 25% they don't like. That is, the opinion divide does not necessarily reflect the article divide. Personally, I think the slant tends significantly more to the "progressive" side. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious Offense

I just added "religious belief" to the list of offense contexts. I think this is a valid addition, but what do others think? Harvest316 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

politically correctness not is a "pejorative" term..in the 60s/70s/80s/90s/etc was a positive term.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's become a critical term that is sometimes used perjoratively (though I agree it was original positive). But try changing "perjorative" to "critical" and you'll get reverted by someone's bias. It's the nature of politically correct thinkers to "read in" more sexism, racism, etc., than there is in things, and thus they "read in" a perjorative meaning even when it is merely used critically. "Critical" would serve to legitimize the term, and more than anything P.C.'ers hate legitimizing terms they misinterpret. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is an objective description of PC at all attainable?

As this expression appears to be pejorative in the view of most present-day users, irrespective of their POVs, I doubt that any objective consensus is possible. If you label something PC, you are in effect saying that it is in some way hypocritical, sanctimonious or indirectly denigratory (through intimating that people who do not express themselves in the prescribed way thereby reveal themselves as prejudiced, bigoted etc). Any statement about what is and is not PC usage will therefore carry an implication of reprehensible viewpoints and/or allegations in one direction or another, which can only be correctly decoded by someone sharing the viewpoints and frame of reference of the person using the label. Consequently, the term(s) are not possible to use in a value-neutral context, and an agreement on what would constitute an objective description of the term would appear to be unattainable. 83.233.139.61 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Value-based or just plain political? It's not about value differences. It's about ego. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is clearly a pejorative term referring to particular forms of behavior. Probably one of the few places in the article that actually says it is "The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations." It is an effective term to nounify and then disparage this type of behavior. And so the term is always in the eye of the beholder/user. Because it is effective, the folks who think differently have flooded this article with stuff that doesn't fall under this definition so as to make the article an incoherent irrelevant mess which fails to inform the reader. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a mess due to both sides attempting to use it as a vehicle to vent their emotional needs. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no technical reason we can't have an article that is WP:NPOV. The issue of objectivity is dealt with in the NPOV faq.

Quote:

"Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that lack of bias isn't possible. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?

"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

"Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day."

And that is what we should be trying to do here. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If we boil it down, the job in this article is a lot simpler because the topic is just a phrase. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is poorly constructed

This article cites sources that paint this term as a right wing construction so as to undermine efforts to avoid offending people, suggesting right wing individuals (tacitly) intend and support offensive language. That is why the article lacks neutrality. One can cite herself to the moon, but research that yields credible sources that can be cited academically; but lack neutrality, are biased. Presenting one's own opinion on the subject and usage of the term, cited credibly, relevantly, or any argument, are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is not a medium for persuasive anti-right or anti-left language, but for explaining how and why the term is used as well as its broader meaning. The term stretches to mean significantly more than the opinions presented in this article, those who wrote it are doing a great disservice for those who seek true neutrality rather than petty persuasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phan8787 (talk • contribs) Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the problem is. The article should present all significant viewpoints. Everyone writing on this subject will have a point of view and we do not attempt to use only neutral sources. Read WP:NPOV. Perhaps you can make some more specific comments here. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP This is a case (the meaning of a term) where objective accuracy does exist. It was really bad and has gotten a tiny bit better. The rosetta stone is the the term PC refers to excessive deference to such sensibilities, not any deference to them. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Objective accuracy for a term called 'political correctness'? How is that possible? Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about it's meaning (as used) and usage. I do believe that objective accuracy exists on that. I know that it operates in a war zone, but I think that that's a different topic. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that we can be objective in writing that the phrase is used by the right to attack the left (which is true, but not a complete analysis of the way the phrase is used). Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific and General Criticism

I understand that sources may lack neutrality. Many sources will be attempting to argue for his or her respective viewpoint. Despite this, the article itself must be written in an impartial manner, which includes language that presents(even if implicit see: Impartial tone) the source in a way that could undermine or support the argument presented in that cited source. Language is powerful, as is syntax, and both can be used in an impartial manner. Summaries of arguments presented in cited sources that are inaccurate, selective, or overly broad, even if a contributor disagrees with the opinion presented, are not in line with the goals set out for the Wikipedia project.

I will provide specific criticism, as you asked.

The source used for the below quote found under "Current Usage" is represented inaccurately and violates the principle of verifiability as well as neutrality.

The section discussing the current usage of the term "politically correct" suggests that a current, common usage is as a support mechanism in arguing for a particular agenda, or as support against those who do not ascribe to a particular agenda, that which is stated in the quote below: "Proponents of the view that differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites are (primarily or largely) genetically determined state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness.[13]" The tone used suggests that "political correctness" is a tool of the ethnocentric who discount criticism because it attempts cultural sensitivity, and that cultural sensitivity is a competing viewpoint of those who use "political correctness" rather than ethnocentrism. This violates a specific clause of NPOV: "inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized."(Impartial tone) by suggesting critics of political correctness or a prominent use of the term "political correctness" is an ad-hominem attack against those that promote cultural sensitivity by the ethnocentric, and that "politically correct" critics support ethnocentric viewpoints. Moreover, the use of the word "proponent" in conjunction with "differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites" creates an underlying premise. The underlying premise involved is that "political correctness" is a word used prominently by those of racist agendas, and those users of "politically correct" wish to diffuse relevant counterarguments so as to allow individuals to elevate their race above others. This is not a fact, but an opinion on the agenda of those who use "political correctness". "Political correctness" as a critical term has no opinion and is not interested in promoting a given race or ethnicity, nor a bias on any side of an argument, nor a part of a particular ideology as this suggests.

Even if conclusive evidence supporting the sentence in question is not biased and does in fact represent an impartial view on the usage of "political correctness" aside, it further violates Wikipedia's verifiability core value. Wikipedia clearly states what makes a premise, especially a premise cited as originating or supported by a reputable source, verifiable “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true…and that the source directly support the material in question.” (Wikipedia:Verifiability). This clearly state that contributions must be supported by a reputable source. If source is used as evidence, or as an example, it must also “directly support” the material in question. As such, the premises and conclusions attributed to a given source must be the premises and conclusions of that source, not the “truth” or an extrapolation of premises and conclusions not included in the article.

A “proponent”, defined by Merriam-Webster, is “one who argues in favor of something”. The sentence states “Proponents of the view that differences in IQ test scores between blacks and whites are (primarily or largely) genetically determined state that criticism of these views is based on political correctness". This suggests that the source (a) argues in favor of the viewpoint that there exists a genetically attributable disparity between black and white IQs, and (b) the term “political correctness” is used by the source, much as it is used generally, to advance a particular ideology, and considered by users as sufficient to refute critics of (a) and similar premises. This suggests that users of the term “politically correct”, as well as the source, would use “political correctness” as an argument in support of an ideology similar to the premises of (a), particularly to dismiss counterarguments to a premise such as (a) or similar premises. Readers will draw these conclusions based on the wording of the Wikipedia article. The source, though, neither argues for (a) nor is (b) an accurate representation of the source’s use of the term “politically correct”. The article cited, entitled “The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future of America”, and the author, critically analyzes the book for which the article was named, and the source articulates that the book relies on “political correctness”, stating: “It is also true that many black Americans nowadays live in conditions which are much less favourable than for most of the whites… So the question is how much of this is due to the environment, and how much to genetical inheritance. Herrnstein & Murray believe that genetical inheritance has an important part to play here. But however persuasive their arguments may appear to be, supported by copious statistics, they are certainly not conclusive… the contributors to The Bell Curve Wars who take the line that, whether or not this conclusion can be supported by objective statistics, it is morally and politically unacceptable. That may well be so, but it would be better to examine critically the evidence upon which Herrnstein and Murray rely, rather than simply to reject their conclusions. Otherwise it may look like conceding that their statistical evidence is unarguable, which of course is not the case." The source does not advocate the conclusiveness of genetic/racial IQ disparity thus making this sentence inaccurate by the policy of verifiability; it makes no direct reference to supporting or being a proponent of genetic/racial IQ disparity. It does provide an example of “political correctness” and its use, but not as described by this contribution.

Considering the quoted material, the sentence must be revised to accurately represent the source from which it originates. It is not used by any particular side as an ad-hominem, nor does it describe a particular bias toward supporting ethnocentric views intended to elevate one race above another. An accurate, valid, representation of the source’s position as well as a more accurate portrayal of the way “political correctness” is used in this context is: “‘Political correctness’” is often used in a critical manner, such as in the argument on the statistical relationship between race and IQ, where the potential to offend, controversy, or sensitivity of a demographic group is seen as insufficient to ignore, discount, or ban certain topics from the critical analysis of objective data. This is controversial because many find moral grounds as sufficient for excluding some topics from analysis or discussion if those topics have the potential to strongly offend a specific demographic of people regardless of statistically significant data.”

The entire 3.2 “As an engineered political term” section is clearly critical of right wing politicization of the term, painting the right wing as taking advantage of cultural traditions and values for political gain. How is this neutral? It is clearly a biased criticism of the right wing’s use of the term. It has no place in an article that claims neutrality. It is a one sided attack on right-wing conservatives use of the word and their goals from using the word in a speculative manner. It even admits sourcing the section and molding it from commentary. That is not neutral, and there simply is no argument that it is neutral. Even more, if it is claimed that it is a relevant issue, explanation, or argument, it lacks any balance whatsoever. How can a section aimed at right wing politicization of the term that contains blatantly critical commentary from only one side of the spectrum be argued as balanced? If it is given its own section, or considered an explanation, it needs balance or should be removed. The only plausible appropriate area for this section is under the “Criticism” heading, where commentary and opinions are separate from informative writing. If anything, it is clearly critical of the term’s usage.

Much of the article seems to have a pro-left tone, criticizing right-wing viewpoints on political correctness while praising left-wing uses of the term. Is it because the term is used by right wing pundits to criticize leftist policies that try to be culturally sensitive? It is inaccurate to say that political correctness is a term used for attacking the left. It is a term that criticizes what individuals on both sides of the political spectrum view as an attack on cultural traditions that many people value, not just "right wingers" looking to undermine policies of the left. That may be part of the definition, but it is a very small and narrow part of political correctness and the use of the term. It can include policies such as schools that no longer allow games where children "win" or "lose" so as to prevent the pain associated with losing a game. When an individual criticizes this policy as "politically correct" to excess, is he or she a "right winger attacking the left" because she values competition? How about Philadelphia's Daniel Rubin's commentary on Center City's "Holiday Village" fiasco, lasting two days before changing back to "Christmas" (Rubin, 12-2-10)? Even more, the mayor of Philadelphia is a black democrat, and Rubin a Jew? Rubin uses the word "politically correct" here, but are these men "right wingers"? Is their purpose to attack "left wingers" when using the term "politically correct"? Come on man. That's just not the case. It is used a lot to attack the left, but it is by no means the most prominent vernacular use of the word. It is mostly used to criticize policy by individuals with respect to personal conviction that transcends politicization. --Phan8787 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% at the detailed level and 90% on your general theme. You should work on the article. A few comments that might related to the other 10%.

I don't ascribe to the myth that somehow an accurate article arises out a random gathering of material from wp "RS" 's (quote marks intended) including "RS" 's covering (providing a soapbox for) soapboxing and mis-information by political operatives. And the "predominance in RS's" is an unusable / never been successfully used criteria to deal with this. I think that we have to consensus an accurate, sourced article.
I think that all of the "right / left" stuff is inaccurate. While there might be some correlation with right/left, overall the "sides" on this are those for and against what the term posits is EXCESSIVE deference to those sensibilities, wrongly at the expense of other considerations, including an orthodoxy and enforcement system of such orthodixies.
The word EXCESSIVE is important. Although this article is accurate in some key places, the general theme of this article implies that those tagging behaviors/orthodoxies are "political correctness" are opposed to all cultural/racial sensitivities. "PC" is not used to refer to behaviors that are so insensitive that they are near-universally rejected. For example, someone saying "kill all n#%@^rs" would not be called "politically incorrect" just as cannibalism would not be referred to as "non-vegetarian".
PC IS a somewhat engineered term, and used by one side in some particular culture wars. Not per the soapboxing/mis-information-by-political-operatives way that this article describes it, but nevertheless it is so.

Just a couple thoughts. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

- I agree, reputable sources do not ensure accuracy. They do provide transparency (limited) though. If a claim is written but uncited, it carries less weight. I agree, though, and citing inaccurate op. ed. is counter-intuitive. I think the three pillars on which to build consensus are accuracy, balance, and sources; all of which work together to make a quality article.

- I agree with your second bullet as well. If the article descends into "right" vs. "left", I think we will be stuck in a zero-sum blame game for who's perspective is appropriate and why. The idea that the debate surrounding "P.C." concerns what is and is not appropriate deference on a case basis accurately describes the term. A good example of how political correctness is presented in a very non-political manner can be found in the GEICO caveman commercials, where both sides of the debate are jabbed.

- The word excessive is important, I agree. I think that respect is important as well. The parties involved generally want to respect others, but at the same time do not want to forsake something perceived as valuable. Whether it is data, cultural traditions, books, songs, games, etc., users do not want to defer excessively and lose something valuable. Most are trying to keep a respectful balance, and when individuals believe that balance becomes tilted the term is used.

- I agree that it is a term used by political pundits, engineered particularly on one side, but the main problem was the section's excessive use of one-sided opinion. It lacks the other side's viewpoint on the term's purpose, engineered or not. I do not necessarily think the other side needs to be presented in this section, but if it remains under the "explanations" heading it must be more neutral. Otherwise, this section belongs not under "Explanations" but under "Criticism" because it is not an explanation but a criticism of the word's use. I am not disagreeing with the existence of this section, just changes to set about appropriate organization of the article. Do you agree with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phan8787 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the frequent big problem situations is when political operatives deliberately put out mis-information about a matter where objective accuracy exists, (I.E. not an opinion) and then if a newspaper covers what they say, such becomes supposed a wp:rs for the misinformation. The problem is that wp allows deliberate mis-use / mis-presentation. In reality it is not info about the subject, it is info about what the operative said.

When I was talking about the term, I was really thinking structure for the article. PC is a term, and it is a behavior which the term essentially says is bad.

Answering your question, it's a bit complex to understand exactly what you are intending, but such is not necessary. I'd say just start editing.....from what I can see you'll do just fine. If someone disagrees, there's BRD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved the section to "criticism", where I think it fits quite nicely :). A section entitled "criticism" is specifically for opinions on the term's use. I think it provides a better balanced perspective on critical views with respect to the term and its use as well. I might be wrong though. I always accept "criticism", no pun intended, if anyone thinks this is wrong. --Phan8787 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

POV?

Addressing the edit summary with the recently placed POV tag, "Political Correctness" is a pejorative term, and the characterization of certain behaviors as such. I think the person placing the tag made a logical error, basically assuming that the article is about the behaviors being characterized rather than the characterization of them. In short, the TOPIC IS a POV, the coverage of it is mostly not. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm not going to take the fight. Let it be noted for the record though that I did not commit the logical mistake that you refer to, but I think the way the article is written it basically gives a free shot in favor of a particular conservative viewpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I said it badly when I said "error". Your last sentence is probably correct, but I think that such arises inherently from covering the term rather than from POV'ing of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is clearly written from a left wing perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a U.S. Independent voter with conservative leanings - I think it is balanced. If any adjustments are necessary, they are minor.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness vs Freedom of Speech.

One thing the article fails to mention is that Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness are mutually exclusive. Where society tells people what words they can use and what words they cannot use, there is no Freedom of Speech. Where people are afraid to speak their minds, Freedom of Speech does not exist. Thereof you can have Political Correctness or you can have Freedom of Speech, but you cannot have both. Rxantos (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources - see WP:RS -- for this. This isn't a discussion forum, but society (as opposed to governments) always shape what language we can and can't use. Go shout F**k in church and you'll see. But if you can find sources discussing the issue, bring them here for discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the term (or at least per it's common meaning) was "invented" to chide the idea of taking that restrictiveness too far in certain areas. But, I think that our job is narrower here....to cover the term, its meaning, usage, history etc. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

An accurate and generally accepted definition is critical. I do not think that the current "behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related context, and doing so to an excessive extent" is right.

There are at least six elements in that definition: behaviour (is it behaviour, an attitude, or accurately a belief?); aim of minimizing offense (is it, or is the behaviour of changing views, not minimising offense?; is it just social and institutional?; are the areas limited to those listed; and does the aim go too far? How much, if any, of this is correct?

More fundamentally, isn't PC not the aim of reducing offense (isn't that the traditional definition of an English gentleman - the PC brigade and the antithesis of gentlemen, English or not!), but of changing views and attitudes for political purposes, as the name implies? Consider the origins of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are purposes, they might be political, ethical, religious, etc. Your view is just that, your view. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To 124: With respect to behaviors, we're talking about instances of behaviors as characterized by a term which is asserting are excessive in those instances. This has made the article's job a bit complex in that area. At first glance (since the subject "noun" is ostensibly the behavior itself) one might think (as I believe that you do) that this is an article about the behaviors themselves, but it really isn't. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One needs to consider that PC is about opinion, not always about truth. Even a majority opinion can still be wrong. (Voting records over many decades tend to prove that!) I accept that PC is intended to be "least offensive" in a language of politics.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Before 1970

Surely the concept pre-dates the New Left by a considerable margin. Do its origin not lie in the Communist concept of "ideological correctness", which goes back to the Stalin era if not to Lenin? Marshall46 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO that's a different term and a different thing. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive bias section

I noticed that this has been going in and out. IMHO "out" would be better. Sort of an unusual, abstract and barely-related theory. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlton stuff

I've looked into this a bit more (I restored it at one time) and agree it shouldn't be in the article. Charlton was editor at the time and was fired shortly afterwards. See our article Medical Hypotheses. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right and left wing

I removed these section headings for a couple of reasons. First, there are big problems with classification (eg Kristeva as rightwing, Paglia as leftwing), but also because they are asymmetric. The critics (mostly, but not exclusively on the right( take it for granted that a movement for PC exists and is a big problem. Respondents (mostly, but not exclusively on the left) generally say that the whole thing is a spurious beat-up. There's (almost) no-one out therefore defending PC, except in the argumentative form of "If supporting (good thing X) makes me a (pejorative Y), then call me a (pejorative Y)".JQ (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in describing the issues from "left" and "right" perspectives. If labeling individuals according to an ideology is problematic, then delete them. The left/right sections should remain in the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the topic at hand, but to repeat one structural note, PC is is essentially a pejorative, promulgated term which asserts that, in the discussed cases, the discussed otherwise-acceptable behaviors are bad because they taken to an excessive degree. If we want to improve the article further, I think that we need to recognize this, and many of it's biggest mis-steps have come from not recognizing this. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Lionel. I therefore propose restoring the earlier classification. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 07:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to see how people propose doing this before I'd agree, and I certainly support what North8000 says. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"In New Left rhetoric" is cherry-picking

The entire "In New Left rhetoric" block is revisionism of the worst offense. It completely dismisses Marxist and Maoist usage as identified in "Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture". (See link below) Upon being embraced by Communist sympathizers in the New Left, it's chronicled usage indicate absolutely no tone of jest as suggested by the current version of this article. In fact, my source even clearly indicates when the derisive phrase "PC" comes into play; in 1992, after being subjected to countless examples of forced political correctness from ~20 years of Leftist agitprop.

This section of article is intellectually dishonest and is cherry-picking for revisionist purposes. Please consider incorporating this source to set this article straight.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zzw9WabmmVwC&pg=PT61&lpg=PT61&dq=political+correctness+1960s&source=bl&ots=tZq6xyckEG&sig=j_3d4UlpQpzBoOhaYmtVb7bLeHg&hl=en&ei=wUTNTtbJHKWhsQKK9ZX_Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=political%20correctness%201960s&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12dCode (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying that the term was used seriously by Maoists, and initially some in the US New Left (that's what the first two sentences of the section are about, but it may not be sufficiently clear). But the rest of the section, about the ironic use of the term, is well supported by sources, including the source you give, which says: "The formula came to be used in an ironic or self-deprecating sense by insiders even in the early years of its currency."VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The ironic intentions of the originators are supported in the sources, as you've pointed out, VoluntarySlave, but so are the unintended consequences. In 1986, the New York Times stated that "There is too much emphasis on being PC" while The Independent in 1989 said "We'd thought we'd be accused of not being PC." Even out of context, there is an anxiety being alluded to by very large media outlets at the time in regards to what they can and may not publish. The source of this anxiety is not covered in this article, yet, light-hearted intentions are.

Not to go full Godwinesque, but the KKK started with the name the Merry Band of Six and played pranks. We still are compelled to mention the consequences of those intentions, regardless of acceptable standards of purity. This disconnect supports my previous claim of cherry-picking and revisionism. Also, I'll get a real siggie soon. :D 12dCode (talk)

I think that those explorations and backgrounds are good, but IMHO this article isn't primarily about every usage of that two word sequence, it's primarily about the behavior posited by / through the lens of the current meaning of the term and, supportive to that, coverage of the current meaning of the term. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SNL

I think this article should have some kind of inclusion re The ConeHeads from Saturday Night Live. Current pc includes many derivatives from Beldar(Dan Ackroyd)'s over technical language (as stated in WIKI). Considereding that the original sketch was from 1977, I think it's reasonable to think that that type of language has certainly crept into the current pc language.Dcrasno (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.148.238 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition

The opening definition is unsatisfactory. The following may superficially appear to be pedantry, but getting the definition right might reduce controversy about who does politically correct stuff to whom.

"Political correctness is a term which denotes language,

[a noun denotes a noun?]

ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to

[ideas and language seek to do something?]

minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term

[the term purports? religions other than what?]

, doing so to an excessive extent.

One possible alternative

I make no claims as to the perfection of the following, except that it's better than the existing definition:

"Political correctness is a term denoting a habit of thought and expression which seeks to minimize the offense experienced by people and institutions when confronted by language, ideas, policies, and behavior they perceive as unfairly mischaracterising or discriminating against them on the grounds of occupation, gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, religion, beliefs or ideologies, disability, or age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.161.209 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

False accusations

This section seems to be predicated on the supposed falseness of the claim that schools had altered the words of Baa-Baa Black Sheep. However, the BBC report cited makes it clear that the claim is true: at least two schools did alter the words to "rainbow sheep", and a further report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/600470.stm states that Birmingham guidelines recommended changing the words. The subheader "False accusations" therefore doesn't reflect the content of the section and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.161.209 (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason for edit

I changed back an edit that compared nigger instead of black or negro. the reason for this is because nigger is a derogatory statement it isn't as good of an example. it Isn't an example of political correctness to not refer to someone in a derogatory manner, just common courtosy. if you disagree please say, I always want a second opinion

N8 Toe (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your fix was correct. There was a mixup and I accidentally reversed it and then subsequently reversed myself. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Major changes that someone seeks to make in the lead

From a process standpoint, the main problem is reinserting contested major changes in the lead with not discussion much less agreement. From a content standpoint, the two biggest problems I see are that it it removed the "purportedly to an excessive degree" which removes the core of the definition of the term. The whole assertion of this term is not just doing those things, but doing those things to an excessive degree. A more minor problem is that it should have something that says some religions, not just religions in general. For example, an alleged orthodoxy that says it's OK to bash certain religions (e.g. evangelical Christianity) but not others (e.g. Islam). On the other hand, I think that the proposed change is an improvement in other areas. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ineffectiveness

I added a paragraph about political correctness being ineffective on grounds, that the selection of words describing a social phenomenon, behaviour or personal quality changes very little if anything. If social opinion about a phenomenon remains negative, then any word describing that phenomenon will become offensive. The most obious example is terminology describing black race: At first, an offensive term was "nigger". Then "negro" also became derogatory, now even "black" is frowned upon. Another example comes from Poland - there was a camaign against discrimination of disabled people in the early 90s. In media they were called "sprawni inaczej" (literally: fit in another way) - this was instantly ridiculed and became an insult of choice in most Polish schools. I hope that someone can find a "reliable source" supporting this observation.

I still don't understand what point you are making. Political correctness is a term purporting excessive deference / sensibility towards a certain group, and typically that group that is overall not viewed negatively. Possibly that framework would help clarify to you, or else if you could explain what you are saying in that framework it might help clarify to us. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Media section

I thought that that was good material. This whole article is about a biased term. What could be more germane than giving examples of assertion of applicability of that term? And in a rather mainstream/ common area to boot. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong to have a book by a right-wing think tank presented as though it is just a comment by a Times journalist. If we are going to include this, we include it as the book with any criticism of the book, and we don't call Browne a journalist as although he was a journalist he is now Morgan Stanley's head of government relations for Europe, the Middle East and Africa and was appointed the head of the British Bankers Association.

John Ham's comments are not significant enough for the article and in any case if we are going to have a section on the media it needs to be balanced. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I missed North8000's section when I wrote the above. As it stood, it was only a couple of right-wing comments on the term and was not about the media. As we already had in the article quotes and statements from the media, it isn't clear why more such were added in a separate section. Any section on the media should not just be more quotes from the media, it should be based on independent sources analysing the use of the term and the concept in the media. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The underlying statement is essentially "has been labelled by some as political correctness" not "is political correctness." The labeling of something as political correctness is itself an expression of a point of view. That said, I think that your standard would block any additions of examples.....what could realistically meet the criteria that you are proposing? North8000 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Material in clearly reliable and significant sources that discuss political correctness in the media. As opposed to material from the media mentioning political correctness, which we already have. Might be a journal article, might be a think piece in a magazine or newspaper, etc. As I said, "analysing the use of the term and the concept in the media" or probably the use of the term. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are in essence saying assertions of political correctness can't be covered. Obviously not right. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the kind. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary was more of an actual response than your post "I'm not saying assertions can't be covered, but that a section on the media should be discussing the media, not quoting the media". North8000 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Krugman material & that section

This is one person asserting / putting forth a novel idea, not coverage of the topic. There is no evidence of what he is asserting being called political correctness. Actually that whole section is either OR plus one wp:undue trivial quote. That is just not what the term is used for. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the novel idea? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That the term "political correctness" is used for those types of things. About 95% of that whole section is either a wp:or editor construction and/or misstating what is in the sources.

First paragraph: Most of the assertions of that first paragraph are not even sourced, and the one cite at the end is to a passage where Williams essentially said that what is promoting is a novel concept.
Second paragraph. There is an immense construction there and in the cite given for it there has only one mention of political correctness at the end which was in a comment by "a volunteer for a project called Literary Chicago"
Third paragraph The first source basically says that such is a mis-use of the term. The second sentence and its source are fine for what it is. Sourcing for the fact that that one person asserted that such is a new form a political correctness.
Fourth paragraph. In the op ed that this came from, Krugman essentially says that he is promoting an unusual use of the term.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Still don't completely follow you.

First paragraph - can't see the problem, can't see Williams saying it's a novel concept, can see him saying " Three years ago, a virulent strain of right wing political correctness all but shut down debate about the war in Iraq. Not only was it deemed “impolite” to criticize the war. Firebrands like Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly called it treason." and maybe we need to add some of that.
Second para - yes, that's a problem.
Third paragraph - first source isn't a RS. There are some, eg the Dallas Morning News: "Politically correct ketchup", Alan Peppard July 21, 2004 "It used to be that condoms were a political football, but now it's condiments. Perhaps you've heard that some on the right have declared Heinz ketchup to be too liberal to put on good old American freedom fries. That's why some conservatives have come out with W Ketchup (www.wketchup.com) - "made in America, from ingredients grown in the USA."[3].
Fourth paragraph - I can't see where Krugman says that, or that it's material - it isn't novel if we have other sources in any case.

New sources. This article called "Right wing political correctness and 'outrage' double standards" could probably be used somewhere, but not sure where.[4].

In this section, [5] Fort Worth Star-Telegram - March 9, 1997 - 1 EDITORIAL/OPINIONS

Tony Lake: inhabitant of right-wing Twilight Zone BERKELEY, Calif. - Left-wing political correctness may have some aberrant moments, but right-wing political correctness is becoming a genuine menace. Calling a dwarf "vertically impaired" instead of "real short" is silly; barring someone from high public office for having resigned his job over a matter of high principle is both wicked and nuts. The citizen in point is Anthony Lake, currently in nomination to head the Central... " Full text here[6].

And a large number of books[7] when you search on "right wing political correctness" (using the quotation marks so you are searching on the whole phrase.

So yes, some of the stuff may need removing, but I think that we need more in the article on the right wing and pc and "right wing political correctness". Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets give this the smell test. Do you really think that such is the usage of the term vs. something that a few people are trying to establish?

What term? Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "political correctness" to refer to conservative or right-wing behavioral pressure or orthodoxy. This looks more like trying to help a few people establish a neologism, not finding sources on it's actual usage. And we're listing the "promoters" as sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems as though we have enough sources for it to be a significant view. You seem to be defining anyone using the term as a promoter. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going more by their own wording. If it says that it IS used that way, I'd call that a source. When their wording treats it as a new idea or something that ought to be, I'm calling that promoting rather than covering that particular use. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed solution. Maybe something that follows what the sources said and puts it in context. I.E. as a significant viewpoint, not as a fact about current usage.North8000 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try that, see what you think BRD. If you don't like please revert and we'll talk more. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Assume good faith, and justify

In the course of a research into political correctness I discovered in the "View history" section that on December 12th, 2012 User:North8000 without further justification deleted several additions to the "See also" list. His edit summary only claims that they had "marginal at best relevance to list that is already too long". My own review of the deleted additions indicates, on the contrary, that they all were very relevant, and several of them much more relevant than others which were left on the list. The length of the list is rather a reflection of the complexity of the issue, and at its worst it indicates that something is wrong with the concept itself, requiring research at a deeper level. Because of all this, for the benefit of readers, with due consideration of the neglected principle of Wikipedia:AGF I undo the deletions. 177.32.16.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look and ask for other's input at the large amount of "see also" external links that you just put back in. But you are a hundred miles off implying that wp:agf or a violation thereof is relevant here. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them. They seem to be there to make a WP:POINT. AGF certainly does not apply. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

About additions to the SEE ALSO list: I was alerted and consulted by an acquaintance on what seems to escalate (above) into a dispute about something that - as an item of See Also - does not appear to be to be a controversial statement. It seems, rather, to turn into a question of authoritarian "burden of proof": justify the insertion or the deletion? I could not find in the View History the "justifications" of all the 25 items that have been approved and left in the See Also section up to now. Can anybody indicate whether, when and where such justifications were done? I did review the deleted items that are in question here and I support the previous two judgmente that they were relevant and informative but a discussion about that would amount to research stuff that is not supposed to belong to Wikipedia . I feel that AGF is relevant in that the selection of the items that were rejected here testifies a sizable investment of time and effort by their original author: AGF includes the assumption that somebody's with his effort tried to IMPROVE an article. A sheer deletion does not require any effort. The original rough authoritarian deletion of the suggested added items did not even include a Talk-explanation. This discourages the general readers' contributions, the core idea of Wikipedia, turning it into a matter for a few professional users/administrators who can coordinate their judgments. Doughweller and North8000 should revise their judgment. 90.229.133.145 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The core of WP:AGF essentially says to assume that others have good intentions. Nobody here has done anything contrary to that. Your post also indicates some misunderstandings in other areas. If you are new to Wikipedia, it is very easy for that to happen. Instead of getting into all of that, why not start with bringing up a few of your proposed additions here for discussion? Happy to work with you on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not stand in for the original author (213.97.69.11) of the deleted items in the See Also list since I (as probably he/she) cannot afford the time for edit-wars in the form of picking up the shifted burden of proof. But for the benefit of readers I have the following space-consuming final comments after quotations from WP:AGF, wainving my opportunity of having the last replica:

If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

- Nobody has accused others but no discussion was initiated about the rough deletion of the original editor's action adding items to the list of See Also.

Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

- No real motive was given for the opposition to the attempt to help, except for the denigration of its value.

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

- No explanation was given, no initiative in the Talk-page. No opportunity to reply in kind. No consideration of the other perspective.

If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns.

- No substantiation of those doubts with specific diffs and other evidence.

Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research).

- The invitation of "why not start with bringing up a few of your proposed additions here for discussion?" is a gratuitous shift of the burden-of-proof and in practice an invitation of adding original research in the Talk-page.

Encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits

- No articulation was made of the honest motives for deletion, or willingness to compromise except for shifting the burden of proof and of further work.

Comment to quotation from WP:DCASAS:

Don't edit war. When there are only two people, or two opposing groups of about the same size, it never helps, and just makes both sides look bad. Hold back a bit, talk on the talk page, and, if possible, perhaps try out new, bold attempts at compromise... Talk on the talk page in the meantime, explaining why the version that you oppose is wrong

- There was neither "holding back" nor invitation to talk except for shifting the burden of proof and of work after refraining from explanation why the opposed version was wrong. The final wholesale expression "Your post also indicates some misunderstandings in other areas. If you are new to Wikipedia, it is very easy for that to happen" suggest a "from above" attitude. This is the reason why I do not use a registered user-identity since I perceive in Wikipedia some user-administrators' tendency to adopt an ad-hominem attitude that in this case may be prompted by knowledge of the IP-address. But thank you for your late invitation for further work.

Finally from WP:HUMAN:

Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects.

No comments. 90.229.133.145 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You have misread the situation, and how Wikipedia works. So both of you reading way too much negativity into a routine process. Such is easy to do for new folks because Wikipedia editing is a really different place that takes some getting used to. Probably the best place to get a feel for what actually happened is WP:BRD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I will also add that it seems reasonable to ask a person who has added a large number of 'see alsos' that don't immediately appear relevant to justify them. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree, that too. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Substantiating Political Correctness, pt. 1.

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

Thank you, for your supportive comment about my edits to the Political correctness article, however, the addition of substantiating quotations, in stead of "Herbert Kohl said in a 1992 essay" is within the rules, regulations, laws and ordinances of Wikipedia. That it is in the first person is irrelevant to the FACT that it was published in a journal, The Lion and the Unicorn, thus, it is a secondary source.

The skeletal and personal, in-crowd nature of the current version is uninformative, that is to say, it does not answer the questions Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? of the subject; I read just the opinions of editors, not substantiating sources; hence, I have added them. As it stands, the article is a collection of thematically unrelated sections and subsections; there is no narrative coherence, there is no beginning, no middle, and no concluding end, just some paragraphs; good stuff, nonetheless. So, please wait until I complete my edits, and then revert them, if you wish, but, I cannot, realistically, ask the opinion (permission?) of others about an editorial contribution that does not exist . . . thus, I ask that you wait.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Subsatntiating Political Correctness, pt. 2.

OK, my two cents. I just happened to stumble upon this discussion. I have no "irons in the fire," so to speak. Here is what I noticed:

Mhazard9, you are violating not only the copyright rules of Wikipedia but also copyright law. You are also misusing bold and capital letters. You are accusing an editor of unsavory practices without a shred of evidence to back up your claims. Lastly, you are acting in bad faith. Here are few things you should know:

1) An editor or an administrator who reverts your edits because the edits violate the rules is not acting in bad faith. That person is following the rules.

2) Accusing an editor of malfeasance is a good way to get blocked and/or sitelocked.

3) Screaming and yelling about the validity of your posts only serves to make you look like...well, you know the answer to this one.

Dougweller? You did the right thing. Do not let this person's childish behavior and general rudeness and bullying deter you.

That is all. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello Mhazard9, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.

Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.

Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not, must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

How is this not a copyright violation? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE to the Administrator Dougweller

Dear Dougweller:

Thanks for watching me work in order that the Political Correctness article answer the Who? What? Where? When? and How? questions of the readers. Yet, the legalistic arguments you presented contradict the editorial purpose of the Wikipedia publishing enterprise, which is the production of a subject article that is faithful, true, and accurate to the FACTS of the subject matter. Your especially dogmatic application of the rules to my contributions indicate that you consider the rules as more important that the reality they are meant to regulate, that is, the ARTICLE proper. Furthermore, you provided no examples of where or how I have violated the rules you have so faithfully quoted to me.

Moreover, the coincidental (?) presence of a back-up editor when You revert my contributions, whilst I am still working on the article, bespeaks your BAD FAITH in dealing with me, the Wikipedian Mhazard9. This behaviour of yours, as a Wikipedia Editor and as a Wikipedia Administrator, in FIGHTING me over the SUBSTANTIVE EXPANSION of a lame article bespeaks "Gatekeeper"; you have done so on two occasions, in order to restore ungrammatical and disconnected text, which does not reflect the content of the article it supposedly summarises. Please remember, that the Political Correctness article used to be a FEATURED ARTICLE, until . . . it just fell apart, all by itself!

As proof that you, the Wikipedia Adminstrator Dougweller, are acting as a Gatekeeper for the Political Correctness article, is that your back-up-editor pal FORGOT to restore the requisite bold-text typography innate to the article's introduction, which is a very, very minor VIOLATION of the Wikipedia rules, regulations, laws, and ordinances, which I corrected for you law & order people, at no charge. I guess your assistant just forgot to do the job right, whilst his edit summary said that I did not do the job right. Bullshit is a bitch, is it not?

As you can see, in the Edit History, and with the extensive, heavy-handed rules-quotation, this is not an editorial disagreement, but a personality conflict that you threaten to inflate into an edit war. Proof of this is in you, and company, reverting my contributions within SECONDS of my saving my work. Please, STAY on TOPIC, be specific and give examples of where my contributions are unfaithful, untrue, and inaccurate to the subject of the article. I say this, because, as a Wikipedia Administrator, you KNOW BETTER than to play such hair-splitting mind games; after all, it is only a Wikipedia article, not a matter of life and death. Correct?

The quotation that has upset you is not a copyright violation, because it is attributed in full, etc., etc., etc., and fully substantiates the rest of the text, especially the right-wing Cultural Marxism charges made by Patrick Buchanan, thus it is a super special (ca. 221-word) exception to your rules, because it provides the REQUIRED CONTEXT, otherwise, as You said in your edit-summary of your reversion of my contributions, some parts might be too recondite for the layman reader. So, Mr Dougweller, LIGHTEN UP, its only a Wikipedia article.

I shall continue to substantiate the article, and shall continue to banter with you as you require, because my editorial goal is to re-establish Political Correctness as a Featured Article, not a struggle with you at Reichenbach. You are welcome to join me. Moreover, at the risk of copping out on this very, very precious matter of yours, Jimbo Wales has repeatedly enjoined Wikipedians to ignore all rules that get in the way of producing an article that is factual, faithful, true, and accurate to the subject.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hardly best regards if you are accusing me of having a backup editor. The bottom line is that you will be blcoked if you continue to add copyright material. Ask Jimbo if he thinks IAR applies to copyvio. This is not negotiable, we don't make exceptions on copyright. I don't mean to be harsh but given your response I need to be explicit. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, a friend of the Court

Rhetoric isn't going to help you, and IAR does not allow copyright violations. You'd be amazed how many edits get reverted within seconds or minutes for a variety of reasons. But in this case it was about 6 12 hours the first time I removed the copyio and 1 2/3 hours the 2nd time. Editors who repeatedly insert copyvio get blocked, we don't give exceptions. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

IAR says that rules can be ignored if doing so improves the encyclopedia. This is a free content encyclopedia. Considering that purpose, using an irrationally long quotation does not improve the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ryan Vesey:

Might this help alleviate your concern? I went to the source, and, in my educated opinion, the contribution is good.

Acceptable use of text:
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, a citation is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting.

Response

Dear Mr Dougweller:

I am not accusing you, the Admin. Dougweller, the EDIT HISTORY confirms my reportage of your editorial actions. Your insistence upon reaching first for the truncheon ("I'll block you!"), rather than thinking through your opposition, and working with me, confirm as true what I wrote above. Coincidences are for bad fiction; two editors, you and some-one else, appear, simultaneously, and at the same time, to revert my contributions is what it appears to be: tag-team editing, which cannot be reverted, because of the intermediate edits. I was born at night, but not last night; moral outrage is unbecoming behaviour in a Wikipedia Administrator, given that such spangled epaulets are awarded only to those who can handle the truth. Be cool, and live and let live.

The material is a fair-use quotation, which I derived from the source that is hypertexlinked to the relevant paragraph. There is no copyright violation, because I have attributed the quotation; reality (the article) is more important than high-level abstractions. Again, lighten up! You can always Dumb down the article to the opinionated and unsubstantiated form to which I applied some work.

As a glass-half-full optimist, I look forward to working with you once our temperaments adjust to each other, especially because my editorial uniform does not feature the spangled epaulets of Authority.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that Mhazard9 has been blocked for 24 hours by another Admin for removing the copyvio tag. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhazard9, you have been reinserting contested changes (I'm thinking the first sentence and that top image) without discussing, and also with edit summaries which are about something else and don't even mention the big contest changes you re-made. Please discuss and also include in edit summaries. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhazard9, again, please take controversial changes to talk rather than warring them in! North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead and image

I have reverted the contested edits in an attempt to get Mhazard9 back to the talk page. We have had a few reverts with no attempt at further communication. We have basic conduct expectations that all should follow. Moxy (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree on two levels. Most likely the ideal first sentence would include things from both, but such work is not possible in the environment that they are creating, where we just have to go to the last stable version. I think that the picture is completely backwards regarding the common meaning of the term. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I also found the image puzzling. Lets also remove the copy and paste stuff.Moxy (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The have had such a blaze of edits, with no real edit summaries, that I've only managed to keep an eye on the first paragraph of the lead and the image they kept reinserting. So I don't even know what they did to the rest of the article, which is what I'm assuming that you are referring to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Response from Mhazard9: (7 May 2013)

Prefatory note

I have reproduced the contested elements of the introduction, so that we Wikipedia Editors, Moxy, the arbiter, Mr Dougweller and North8000, the plaintiffs, and I, Mhazard9, the defendant editor, can ALL be FULLY INFORMED of the subject about which we are Edit Warring. So, please, no bureaucratic pedantry about "the rules, the rules". Without evidence, that which can be seen, this would be mere bull session, i.e. "He said" and "They said" type dialogue.

(I) The leading sentence, as I composed it, faithfully, truthfully, and accurately describes the three (3) terms, political correctness, politically correct, and PC, for the "Orthodoxy of We", be it leftist, rightist, or centrist, and thus accurately introduces the subject and the substantiating examples. The current version is incorrect, inaccurate, and unfaithful to the text it is meant to introduce, and it is the Editor speaking to the reader, thus, it is POV-pushing, besides being ungrammatical, poorly written, and factually incorrect, regarding the text proper.

NOTES

(A) North8000 already had communicated that FACT to Mr. Dougweller, which he IGNORED in favour of an Edit War.

(B) THE EVIDENCE of their editorial bad faith:

To Mr Dougweller, North8000 said: That first sentence could use some improvements, but this environment prevents the mutual work to do that.North8000 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Contrast and judge for yourselves

The Dougweller version

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.

The Mhazard9 version

How, is this version CONTROVERSIAL? Where (line and sentence) does it not faithfully, truthfully, and accurately communicate the content of the article it is introducing?:

Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation PC are terms that denote ideas, language, and speech, policies and behavior that purportedly are meant to minimize and eliminate the social offense inherent to stereotypes, in occupational and institutional contexts, by means of excessively formal awareness, tolerance, and respect for the differences in gender and sexual orientation, race and culture, age and disability, religion and ideology of people who are not of the societal mainstream.

Politically Correct Opening Statement Corrected

To the general Public on Wikipedia,

Neither of the forms would pass muster if subjected to APStyle. Here is my suggested correction:

Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation "PC" are terms that refer to ideas, language, speech and behavior that are perceived to minimize and eliminate social offense. Such language also seeks to minimize reliance on stereotypes by fostering awareness, tolerance and respect for the differences between people. Such differences include, but are not limited to: gender, age, race, religion, culture, sexual orientation and national origin. Certain authorities contend such practice is excessive, ^[1] while others do not.^[2] The Ocford Online Dictionary defines political correctness as follows:

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.^[3]

I am taking a break from my paid-for article writing online, so I thought I would improve this sentence further. This is the best opening sentence for this article. It covers both sides of the issue with the first two dictionary citations, and offers the Oxford definition, as well, to be the final arbiter. Let me know what you think. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I cited two dictionary entries that showed both ends of the spectrum. Comments? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion got reverted. I would love to continue the discussion, but do not have the time at this point. I will get back into it when I find a job. My revision is better than anything written on this page, shows two citations supporting both sides of the equation, and settles the argument. You can still use it if you want to, but I am now out of the discussion until I find work. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(II) The matter of the image is risibly easy; McCarthyism was the Ant–Communist, right-wing orthodoxy of We that demanded ideologic agreement (submission?) from the man or the woman whose political correctness was doubted — usually by an anonymous snitch — lest he or she be politically destroyed (no job, no career, no life) and rendered an unperson, just like in the U.S.S.R., as noted in the origins section.

Anyone, be it Mr Dougweller or North8000, who does not see it, is choosing to not see it; the caption I composed for the image of the right-wing graphic novel identified it as such. Respectfully, in the course of the mutual pettiness inherent to this quibbler's quarrel, my impression is that neither of these Wikipedia Editors is much conversant with the subject; but, correct me if I am wrong.

Moreover, Mr Dougweller's Edit-war initiating action was his deleting of the GIST (second paragraph) of the Kohl text, which substantiated the entire subject; I quoted Kohl because he said it best. That is why I reinstated it, but was warned, arrested, and blocked, before I could reduce it to the 220-word Wiki-limit, of which Mr Dougweller had apprised me; I shall do so when the "Copyright Violation" label is removed.

(III) About the "blaze of edits" that so furrows the brow of North8000, the edit summaries indicate what edits I performed; it is incumbent upon North8000 to read, learn, and understand, so that he can write precisely, in the edit summary, about what worries him. I cannot do the editorial work (reading, thinking, grasping) of either of these Wikipedia Editors; a straight question gets a straight answer, bullshit gets pushed back; facts are facts, opinions are open to question . . . thus my defensiveness, before vague, FALSELY ALARMIST complaints of: "controversial", "contested", "big number of changes" . . . about a sentence and an illustration?

Curiously, concerning the Psychodynamic application of PC, the contributing editor (Schwartzz) DID NOT complain about my narrative integration of his contribution . . . yet, North8000 has voiced much, much, shrill alarm at my EDITORIAL WORK, despite his having contributed nothing of substance to the article, other than a thematic variation of "I just don't like it!", just like Mr Dougweller. Consequently, my request that said Wikipedia Editors be specific and give examples of where, in the article — section, subsection, paragraph, paragraph-line — I, Mhazard9, committed a FACTUAL error.

I mention their "Wolf!" crying, because such is the nature of the job of the Gate-keeper and the Page Owner, by which statements I stand, despite Mr Dougweller having deleted them for being . . . politically incorrect in the collective opinion of these nemeses of mine, who take themselves VERY, VERY seriously, whereas I take the Editorial Work seriously; feet on the ground, fellows, it is only a paper moon.

(IV) Now that I have assuaged your worries about the course of this Bureaucrat's Power Game, might you (plural) allow me to participate in restoring the Political Correctness article to Featured Article quality of substance and style?

Let me know, gents.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mhazard, you really need to read wp:civil and wp:npa. Also how to do edit summaries. But on to the topics at hand. I actually liked and even mostly preferred your first sentence (even better than TheKurgan's effort, which I thank them for) , but it did introduce an error, and your warring and non-conversing behavior kept it from being worked out and so I went back to the last stable version. The common meaning of PC is the engineered political term of the last few decades. It is a "lens" to view certain behaviors, and those behaviors as described by the lens, including "excesive" And you correctly acknowledged that in your version of the first sentence. However, the putative PC orthodoxy certainly treats different strands (within each of those groups) very differently, so the "certain" qualifier is essential; without it it introduce an error.

Further on the main and common meaning, during the period of overlap of when communism was considered a major threat, and after major usage of the "PCP" term began, emphasizing the communist threat was considered politicall INcorrect, not PC. And the poster that you were inserting takes it even farther, to the degree that would be considered a caricature today, and thus doubly politically INcorrect by the common meaning of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

Dear North8000,

My so-called "uncivil" behaviour was an equal and opposite RESPONSE to your initial uncivil behaviour, that of Mr Dougweller, and to the edit war that you people started. If you disbelieve me, re-read the edit summaries, and notice that I limited myself to "Composition and organsiation", whilst you and he used EDITORIAL and PERSONAL comments; the (Edit History) record does not support your statements. Like Mr Dougweller's initial gambit of academic recommendations, and yours, here, the recommendations are POV Warrior smoke, to hide a paucity of editorial substance on your behalf.

The petty stakes of "because I say so", by a self-appointed censor and his gatekeeper, over which you and he started the edit war, are risible, especially because you people continually speak of ERRORS, which you have refused to SPECIFY: What error is introduced? Spell it out. I think the Wiki-term is VERIFIABILITY, so you must spell out "the errors", otherwise . . . What are you talking about? You have one calendar week to get it together, and then I shall dumb-up the text.

Regarding the illustration, it is the cover of a graphic novel, not a poster, thus, Communism is not the subject of the application of the thematically pertinent illustration, but the FACT that the existence of the Anti-Communist graphic novel is an example of right-wing political correctness, nothing more. Talking at cross purposes is disingenuous of you, I mean, the nonsense you have here written is silly circular argument: MHazard9 did not get it right, because you say so, and The Kurgan did not get it right, because you say so, thus, the illiteracy of Mr Dougweller is "the best possible version", because you say so. . . O.K., if you say so; thus my recommendations to you about intellectual self-respect, which are not personal attacks, but recommendations pertinent to not lending your voice to another man's quarrel, which has led you to defend bad writing.

The Kurgan did get it right, and with CITED sources, yet, North8000 said "No", and dismissed factual and substantiated work in favour of his friend's illiterate tosh. The tone of The Kurgan's comment indicates that he takes you less seriously as an editor than do I; being talked down to by a POV Warrior does pall, especially the self-serving circular argument; wrestling with a pig, and all that jazz.

Moreover, the illiterate nonsense remains in place, because, in your opinion, "it is the best possible version"; sure, dude; lie to me, lie to Jesus, but do not lie to yourself, even when you have contradicted your own testimony to the contrary, and I quote you: I actually liked, and even mostly preferred, your first sentence (even better than The Kurgan's effort. . . .); such self-deceiving behaviour is Page-owner and Gate-keeper nonsense meant to keep you in control of an article about which you have a tenuous grasp, based upon your digressions above; those who can, do; those who cannot, administer. Oh.

For the record, about this stale-mated quibble-fest, you have a calendar week to "get it right", and then I shall re-instate, to the Introduction, factual, true, and accurate work, composed of The Kurgan's work and the work of MHazard9. Meantime, I shall continue developing the body of the text, which is the content that DETERMINES the composition and the organisation of the Introduction.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mhazard9, I don't know if I've ever seen one post that breaks so many Wikipedia policies or has them backwards. For example, the above has verifiability exactly backwards; you are in essence saying that the exclusion of material (rathr than the inclusoin of material) must be wp:verifiable. Your posts have been laced with insults and false accusations an in essence unsupported claims that you are right and other are wrong. Are you ready and willing to start a real dialog to work something out? I think that the first sentence(s) will not be that tough. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Response:

You have a deadline to meet; get to work, North8000.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, Mhazard9, now you are just being petty and petulant. Even though you back me up in your comments, your accusations and flagrant ignoring of the rules mean I do not need nor want your backup. You should be more mindful of others' points of view, especially when theirs are NPOV and yours are not. You are only succeeding in making yourself look foolish. Do I agree with North8000's reversion of my edit? No, I do not. I think he was mistaken and that the version he prefers is vague and grammatically incorrect, but I can be civil in discussing it with him. I heartily recommend you read the WP documents on both civility and assuming good faith. Please change your tone. If you do not, I fear the administrators will change it for you ... permanently. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Response:

Dear The Kurgan,

I was not backing you up, nor was I speaking for you, nor was I being deliberately uncivil, merely to the point. The politics about this article . . . Oh my.

Neverthenonetheless, I shall be kinder and gentler in dealing with with my opinionated conservative counterparts about this subject and this page. A thousand pardons, and thanks for the recommendation.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Would be best to simply revert to a version without all these problems ..copyright...lack of intelligible statements, insertion of POV and amateur guess work. Will let others take a look at all this before I revert to and older version that has proper refs etc.Moxy (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying, due to such a huge amount of edits with no real edit summaries to the rest of the article, the only thing that I've been able to watch or be involved with is the first sentence and insertion of that image. The version of the first sentence that I reverted to is the last stable version and is not my preferred version. Ironically, my preferred version of the first sentence would be mostly Mhazard9's version with a tweak or 2. Unfortunately, their immensely bad behavior, arrogance and refusal to discuss has so far precluded any effort to discuss. Maybe the wiki-adults can move forward with a discussion on the first sentence? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Response:

Dear Mr Moxy,

Nonsense! That is intellectual cowardice in the face of a book without pictures. "A cop-out", as they say in the U.S. What you people need to do is read the sources, read the books mentioned, and you, too, shall "get it". The "problems" are fake, they are problems of OPINION, and of fake hurt feelings, hence, the anonymous complaints of "Unfair to conservatives!", because the adjectives describe the anti-intellectual ideas proffered in the books under discussion in the pertinent sub-sections; nowhere is there a substantiated statement accusing conservatives as being racists, racialists, or anything untoward, BECAUSE they are conservatives; facts are facts. In real-life publishing, you people would cry blood in a manuscript meeting.

To revert to a version from the good old days would be intellectually reactionary, because the previous version was deliberately obscure, in order to hide the fact that Conservatives and Communists are brethren in their orthodoxies, that each is politically correct as suits their political goals; the same political coin. The previous versions were dumbed down in order to hide such facts. Pick up the books, do the reading, and your headache shall disappear.

The subject of this article is Political Correctness, not a given variety of PC, nor an historical variety of PC, but political correctness as a praxis for keeping people in line. To argue otherwise, in view of the current SUBSTANTIATED text is to avoid plain, solid work. Wikipedia is a publishing enterprise, not a latrine wall where any bloke can write (voice) an opinion, and erase it with a stream of urine. Running away? Really? On the level, is this subject truly so mentally daunting, that you opt for the cop-out of NOT doing some reading and composing some thematically pertinent text? Oy vey! Why, then, are you here, in a PUBLISHING venue? Don't you like knowledge?

The "copyright problem" is an editorial quarrel betwixt Mr Douweller and me; read the edit summaries, and you shall be illuminated, you needn't believe me; crying "Wolf!" is a POV-warrior feint meant precisely to produce this situation, golf-club-armed conservatives running Mhazard9 from the page! Yikes, feets, don't fail me know! I expected more courage from conservatives, given all that tough-guy talk on television, against the EQUALITY of women, coloured people, homosexuals, and everyone else not like them, but . . . Hurt feelings? Really? How about some cogent, factual arguments as contributions to the article. Running away from the work shall not resolve "the issues" of the article, critical reading, cogent writing, and the personal CHOICE to be objective, will resolve the problems of the article.

What is this, Penelope's feint? Reinvent the article in perpetuity, in order to keep it obscure, dumbed down, and thus intellectually worthless as a reference ENCYCLOPAEDIA article. Major Strasser would be proud. The other internet sources do not shy away from the facts that conservatives work very hard to exclude from here. Why is that? Again, despite my being correct, you needn't take my word about anything; watch these three movies, about political correctness The Front (1976), Oleanna (1994), and Idiocracy (2006), each explores the political correctness of the right-wing, the (so-called) American left-wing, and the proletariat; afterwards, let us correspond, if you wish.

The factual correctness of my position, throughout this fascinating festival of quibbles, is in the resort to argumenta ad hominem, specifically, the continual complaints of my incivility, RATHER than addressing the subject to hand. Read the entirety of the correspondence among Mr Dougweller, North8000, and Mhazard9, including the edit summaries, and you shall choke on the smoke!

Let me know, because I shall continue to edit the Political Correctness page, and develop it properly and correctly. Ciao!

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on first sentence and choice of possible image for the lead

As indicated before, "maybe the wiki-adults can move forward with a discussion on the first sentence"

As a preface, the content of the article, the overwhelmingly common mean meaning of the term is as a modern engineered political term, promoted by conservatives. And discussions about behavior are the behavior as seen through the lens of that term. And so efforts to expand outside of that, either to include anything where that two word sequence was used, or to posit that it includes any behavior which was/is out of fashion politically are kind of going off on tangents. I'm not pushing for removal of such material, just a realization of what the overwhelming common (and almost sole) meaning of PC is.

Now, on to the first sentence. Despite Mhazard9's immensely bad an arrogant behavior here, the first sentence that I would propose is mostly the one that they have been trying to war in, with a few tweaks. And their version included coverage of a key items which is that the term does not claim that all deference etc. to certain groups is PC'ness, it claims that it covers cases of excessive deference and efforts. The main tweak is the inclusion of word "certain" with respect to the types of groups which PC'nes. The putatitive "rulebook" / orthodoxy does not treat each type of sex, race, religion, belief-set equally. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the image, as a brief summary of what I've explained before, by the common meaning of the term, emphasizing threats of communism was generally considered politically INcorrect, and so the illustration is exactly backwards. If an image is added to the lead, it should be one agreed as being representative. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two ideas to work with:

New idea:

Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation PC are terms that denote ideas, language, and speech, policies and behavior that purportedly are meant to minimize and eliminate the social offense by means of (as purported by the term) excessive formal awareness, tolerance, and respect for disabilities, and certain races, cultures, disabilities, religions and ideology and genders.

Parentheses are not recommended for coherent writing according to AP Style. It is also a run-on sentence. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Current

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.

This is a run-on sentence. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Politically Correct Opening Statement Corrected, Version II

I am taking a break from my paid-for article writing online, so I thought I would improve my sentence further. This is the best opening sentence for this article. It covers both sides of the issue with the first two dictionary citations, and offers the Oxford definition, as well, to be the final arbiter. Let me know what you think. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation "PC" are terms that refer to ideas, language, speech and behavior that are perceived to minimize and eliminate social offense. Such language also seeks to minimize reliance on stereotypes by fostering awareness, tolerance and respect for the differences between people. Such differences include, but are not limited to: gender, age, race, religion, culture, sexual orientation and national origin. Certain authorities contend such practice is excessive, ^[4] while others do not.^[5] The Oxford Online Dictionary defines political correctness as follows:

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.^[6]

- - -

One important thing that is in both of the competing versions but not yours is that it refers to not all instances of the above, but to "going too far" with the above. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That is because "going to far" is a subjective concept. We must present the "excessive" and "not excessive" points of view and not just the "excessive" point of view. I provided two dictionary definitions on either side of the equation and then the Oxford definition which tends to support the "not excessive" point of view. The two versions other than mine highlight the fact that it is excessive with no accompanying citations. NPOV means just that. We cannot take one side or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKurgan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a statement about whether any of those instances are actually going too far, it is actually explaining the common meaning of this (POV) term. It's like any POV term (e.g. radical left, radical right) while it is arguable whether any particular behavior is actually radical, it is not arguable what the the term means, and is asserting when it is used. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000, that is a dangerous slope. The fact that "political correctness" carries excessive undertones is, in and of itself, not an established definition. I found two contrasting definitions proving my hypothesis. If you write the article under the assumption that political correctness is, by its very nature, excessive, then you are guilty of violating NPOV. We must present the article in a way that does not connote excessiveness or non-excessiveness. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we're talking about two different things. I think you are talking about the behavior, and I agree that any characterization of behavior as excessive is POV. I am talking about the common meaning of the term which is inherently a claim of excessive degree. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is complexity here because while "political correctness" appears to be about behavior, it is actually about a term, or behavior as seen through the lens of that term. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, North8000, I assert that discussing the term itself must be neutral. The term's definition itself, as shown by the dictionary citations I found, can either include the reference to excess or not, depending on the dictionary you read. As an example, I will use myself. As a fat man, I might be characterized as portly, plus-sized, plump, or husky instead of just plain fat. Fat might be construed as insulting to some, so people insert the other words. They don't have to go whole-hog, pardon the pun, and call me "gravitationally challenged." Both using the synonyms and inserting the ludicrous term are examples of political correctness. Likewise, I do not believe the term itself carries any connotation of excess when people substitute less offensive words for the following terms: (WARNING: This list of terms is offensive and is included merely for purposes of furthering the conversation) darky, pickaninny, wop, dago, kraut, Jerry, frog, mick, etc. Conversely, referring to the heavy, metal discs that cover entrances to the sewers as "personholes" is excessive. Political correctness embodies all of these examples; therefore, it cannot be construed as inherently excessive because only some of the examples of its application are, indeed, excessive. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I'm in a rush at the moment, rather than fully develop/support them, let me just throw out two thoughts.

The vast majority of our society supports avoiding the nasty words that you use, or ascribes to the minimum of sensitivity to the subject attributes. The only way to reconcile that quandary is to recognize that that the proponents using the term are asserting that the monikered examples are when it is taken to an excessive degree.
Eliminating the "alleged excessive" is itself highly POV. Because without that you are asserting that anyone using the term is ostracizing any degree of accommodation; a position which few of them hold, and is an extreme which is widely ostracized by society.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hum, well having had my version removed, I don't really understand the discussion above. The term "politically correct" is pejorative, and so "excess" is nonsensical - if you call something "politically correct", by definition you're labelling the thing as excessive, in the sense of being an extension of some behaviour you would consider reasonable. So

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a pejorative term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior aimed at minimizing offense and discrimination against politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, sexual orientation and disability.

Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it is a term which, when used, is a claim that the sensitivity/accommodation is excessive. So that is a part of the definition of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said... it's covered by saying it's a "pejorative" term. If you talk about "excess" here you introduce all sorts of problems in terms of comparing what is "excessive" with what is not, compounded by the fact that in modern usage, if you consider it not excessive, you won't call it "politically correct" anyway (being a pejorative term). Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we are 90% agreeing, but I submit that the 10% is you not taking our thoughts to the finish line of defining the term. Let me ask a narrower question which might help sort this out. Being a pejorative term, on what basis is the speaker claiming that the behavior is bad? North8000 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's usually presented as a "freedom of speech" issue, isn't it? Bernstein's book puts that thesis in its title... [8] (Although quite a few non-libertarian critics of "political correctness" are only stridently in favour of freedom of speech when it suits them, as John Wilson's book points out.) Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was dealing at a much more basic level that that. The answer I was seeking is essentially a claim its "because they took it too far". And thus showing that "claimed to be excessive" is a central part of the meaning/definition of the term. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get this idea from? I've yet to see anyone talk about this. I sort of see what you're getting at, in the vein of "it's OK to make 'nigger' taboo but not insist on 'chairperson'", but you don't seem to be getting my point that the pejorativeness of the label "politically correct" takes care of all such distinctions. If a user means to say that both 'nigger' and 'chairman' should not be used, they won't apply "politically correct" when talking about either of them. If a user means to say that both 'nigger' and 'chairman' should be OK, they might apply "politically correct" about both - eg "we can't say chairman any more, we can't say nigger any more, because of political correctness". And the more common case (it's OK for 'nigger' to be taboo, but 'chairperson' is considered silly) I don't need to spell out. So the pejorativeness of the label takes care of user judgements about the acceptability of the phenomenon. OK? Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that that further shows that we 90% agree but there's still a key 10%. Let's take a more granular analogy. Which of the following would you say more accurately summarizes the term "radical right politician"?:

A pejorative term used to describe a politician who has conservative views.
A pejorative term which asserts that the politician has extreme conservative views.

Example of why the distinction in the definition is important: If President Obama refers to the radical right, #1 means "That's just his term for conservatives" (making his statment look silly) and #2 means "he is claiming that the referred to persons have extreme right views"

I believe that you might agree that #2 is more accurate. Whether the assertion is valid or bogus, when used, the "extreme" IS the assertion, and so it is an essential part of the meaning of the term. "Pejorative" doesn't specify it.

North8000 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy is entirely artificial. You've constructed something based on position on the political spectrum, which is not directly comparable to "political correctness". A better analogy would be based on something not inherently relative, like "idiot". When do you call someone an "idiot"? When you're trying to say that they're being idiotic. If you thought that what they were doing was reasonable, you wouldn't use the term. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All of this stuff about "extreme" seems to come from trying to say that some behaviour which may be described as "politically correct" is reasonable and/or widely accepted. This may be worth elaborating, as not everyone will grasp the full meaning of "pejorative". But I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe an additional sentence (after my first two), Depending on the author or speaker, the term may be used to negatively label both widely accepted linguistic conventions, ideas and behaviours aimed at minimizing offense and discrimination, and neologisms and new policies.' Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why a political analogy is any different. But to be applicable, it needs to be where the "complaint" is a claim of excessiveness of something that in moderation could be OK e.g. "problem drinker", "radical islamist", "overbearing", extreme left, extreme right, nymphomaniac. In each case, saying that the term means drinking, followers of Islam, authority, liberals, conservatives, sex-enjoying women in general would be false. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue was not the politicalness of the analogy, it was the inherent relativeness. This conversation continues to go round in abstract circles... Why haven't you responded to my suggestion, or made one of your own? Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I thought I was implicitly responding on yurs and saying that the one in there now looks OK (could be better but OK) to me. So I'll do so. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you jumped the gun. But maybe we can work it out / have worked it out on the article page. Otherwise we should go back to the last stable version and work out here. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You seemed to have got bored. I see you put that awful phrasing and, as purported by term, doing so to an excessive degree back. It's horrible, horrible writing. Well, the ball's in your court, I guess. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, just had a couple of days of non-wiki life. :-) I think that (despite numerous other problems) Mhazard's version handled that aspect more elegantly. I'll see if we can borrow from that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Mhazard version plus a couple of tweaks by me. :"Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation PC are terms that denote ideas, language, and speech, policies and behavior that purportedly are meant to minimize and eliminate stereotype social-offense, in occupational and institutional contexts, by means of excessively formal awareness, tolerance, and respect for certain choices of gender, sexual orientation, race, culture, disability, religion and ideology."

I think others have been doing some good work with it. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

^ "Definition of Politically Correct". Yourdictionary.com. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
^ "Definition of Politically Correct". Merriam-Webster Online. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
^ {{cite web |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political%2Bcorrectness?q=political+correctness |title=Oxford Online Dictionary Definition of Political Correctness |publisher=The Oxford Online Dictionary |accessdate=16 May 2013||
^ "Definition of Politically Correct". Yourdictionary.com. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
^ "Definition of Politically Correct". Merriam-Webster Online. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
^ {{cite web |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political%2Bcorrectness?q=political+correctness |title=Oxford Online Dictionary Definition of Political Correctness |publisher=The Oxford Online Dictionary |accessdate=16 May 2013||

[1] "Definition of Politically Correct". Yourdictionary.com. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[2] "Definition of Politically Correct". Merriam-Webster Online. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[3] {{cite web |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political%2Bcorrectness?q=political+correctness |title=Oxford Online Dictionary Definition of Political Correctness |publisher=The Oxford Online Dictionary |accessdate=16 May 2013||

[4] "Definition of Politically Correct". Yourdictionary.com. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[5] "Definition of Politically Correct". Merriam-Webster Online. 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[6] {{cite web |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political%2Bcorrectness?q=political+correctness |title=Oxford Online Dictionary Definition of Political Correctness |publisher=The Oxford Online Dictionary |accessdate=16 May 2013||

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]