
#REDIRECT political correctness
Political correctness is a term generally used to disparage efforts to raise awareness about and eliminate social and political biases in language and other forms of representation. The term also appears in the adjectival form ''politically correct'' (often abbreviated ''PC''). While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is also extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The term is generally employed to mock the idea that carefully chosen words, language, and behavior may be used to encourage, promote, or establish outcomes and relationships that benefit society. When used this way, it often targets advocates of certain forms of identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement. The use of "gender-neutral" terms to describe occupations ("fire-fighter" instead of "fireman," "chairperson" instead of "chairman," etc.), for example, might be referrred to as "political correctness" to characterize its proponents as overly sensitive or even coercive. "PC" is often used in a manner that implies there is a significant number of people who agree with it, and employ it in their speech -- usually those on the political left. Most of these argue, in turn, that the term "political correctness" is part of larger attack on social equality (Messer-Davidow 1993, 1994). They argue that expressing an opinion about, or making a public argument about, the use of language cannot in itself constitute intolerance or censorship. Those who use the term in a derogatory fashion often do so out of concern about the potential dilution of speech and the failure to articulate important societal problems. They argue that the political criticism of diction may inhibit freedom of speech, particularly the expression of opinions that risk offending some group. For example, an individual wont to engage in politically correct speech might be reluctant to call attention to the misconduct of a particular minority group in order to avoid offending members of that group. ==History== Use of the term became popular in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998.) The word was taken from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian revolution, when it was used to describe the Party Line. The term was transformed and used jokingly within the left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier, to describe either an over-commitment to various left-wing politics political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance. So on the left the term was primaraily used to mockingly dismiss their own more doctrinaire and zealous allies. In the 1990s conservatives picked up and once again transformed the term "Political Correctness" to claim that a left-wing movement based in liberal academic circles was attempting to create a new doctrinaire political orthodoxy by using a form of social engineering that included changing words and phrases some groups claimed were offensive. Use of the term then declined in the late 1990s, and it is now mostly seen in comedy or as a political slur with questionable meaning. More recently, the term has been reclaimed by a tiny subset of multiculturalist writers and speakers who are oblivious to or reject its controversial connotations and origins. ==Earlier Uses== The term has earlier uses, leading critics to suggest that such linguistic sensitivity is nothing new. However, the often quoted "earliest cited usage of the term" comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision ''Chisholm v. Georgia'' (1793), where it clearly means that the statement it refers to is not literally correct, due to the political status of the United States as it was understood at that time: :''The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention [...]. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct.'' The first recorded use in the twentieth century was in 1912 in Chapter 1 of Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s autobiography[http://memory.loc.gov/gc/lhbum/07510/0045.tif]. Speaking of his education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he says "In those days we did not so much get ''correct political'' and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name, but what we somehow did get, and largely from [[John Bascom|[John] Bascom]], was a ''proper attitude toward public affairs.'' And when all is said, this ''attitude is more important than any definite views''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/lhbum:@field(DOCID+@lit(lhbum07510div6))#075100045] a man may hold." Again, this clearly refers to incorrect views, in his opinion, as opposed to the current usage of "politically incorrect." Another example of the same literal use of the term is from a passage of H. V. Morton's ''In the Steps of St. Paul'' (1936): "To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But Epistle to Galatians, a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman Empire rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium." ==Linguistic background == One argument for using language dismissed by critics as ''politically correct'' is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people based upon differences or handicaps. Another involves the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that a language's grammatical categories shape its speakers' ideas and actions. In both cases the goal is to bring peoples' unconscious biases into awareness, allowing them to make a more informed choice about their language and making them aware of things different people might find offensive. Two common examples of this practice are to use the word ''disabled'' in preference to ''crippled'', and ''mentally ill'' in preference to ''crazy''. However, critics of "PC" argue the new terms are often awkward, euphemism substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, religion and political views. Proponents argue that the goal of changing language and terminology consists of these four points: # Certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype. # This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology. # By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think consciously about how they describe someone. #Once labelling is a conscious activity, the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent. In linguistics, the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds that a language's grammatical categories control its speakers' possible thoughts. While few support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong form, many linguistics accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. In its strong form, the hypothesis states that, for example, "Sexist language" promotes sexist thought. The situation is complicated by the fact that members of identity groups sometime embrace terms that others seek to change. For example, Deaf culture has always considered the label ''deaf'' as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The term now often substituted for the term deaf, ''hearing-impaired'', was developed to include people with hearing loss due to aging, accidents, and other causes. While more accurate for those uses, and less offensive from the perspective of the mainstream culture, is can be considered highly derogatory by the deaf culture. ==Viewpoint of critics of "PC"== Critics of "PC" argue that advocacy of political correctness amounts to censorship and is a danger to free speech. Some argue that limits placed on language and the boundaries of public debate will inevitably lead to limits on conduct. Some conservatives would also view the use of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.) Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society. Some on the political left reject the conservative definition of the term when applied as a blanket political epithet to all liberals and leftists, but do believe that there is indeed a political correctness which has become a problem on the left. Specifically, those holding this viewpoint believe the emphasis on the left has shifted in recent years away from traditional left concerns of social class, socialism, organized labor, ecology, ending discrimination, and related issues, and has instead turned toward such things as postmodernism, post-structuralism, multiculturalism, academic theories of structural or instutionalized oppression such as white privilege (sociology) and heterosexism, and the use of neologisms and unusual spellings, all of which are seen as either antithetical to the traditional left emphasis on the working class, divisive, exclusionary toward the white working class, incomprehensible to most of the general public outside of academia, or just plain embarassing to be associated with. One example is the theory that all heterosexual sex is rape; another example is the shift among environmental groups in recent years away from traditional ecology concerns such as overpopulation and wilderness preservation, toward environmental justice which is seen as leading to some environmental groups taking positions in opposition to environmental protection. ===Orwell=== The changing of terminology as a result of political correctness, for example "visually impaired" rather than "blind", has led to accusations that those who follow political correctness are ushering in the era of Newspeak, a bowdlerized form of English predicted by George Orwell in his novel ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' which eliminates any words that might conceivably have meanings against the state. Some critics allege that the "PC program" is an Orwellian attempt to make "bad" or "incorrect" thought difficult. The allegation is that the theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people. Critics of "PC" argue it intends to achieve a form of mind control (see doublespeak, newspeak, and thoughtcrime. Some critics argue there is a similarity between political correctness and Orwellian ideas such as 'Communist_state' and fascism propaganda. Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced. ==Satirical use== The idea of political correctness also has a very interesting history of use in satire and comedy. One of the earlier, and most well-known, satirical takes on this movement can be found in the book ''Politically Correct Bedtime Stories'', in which traditional fairy tales are rewritten from an exaggerated, politically correct viewpoint. The roles of good and evil in these ''PC'' stories are often the reverse of those in the original versions. For example, Hansel, Gretel, and their father are evil, and the witch is good in the politically correct version of ''Hansel and Gretel''. The practice of satire so-called politically correct speech indeed took on a life of its own in the 1990s, though its popularity in today's media has largely declined. Part of what it is to understand the meaning of ''political correctness'' is to be familiar with satirical portrayals of political correctness, and to understand them as such. Such portrayals are sometimes exaggerations of what actual politically correct speech looks like. For example, in a satirical example of so-called political correctness speech, the sentence "The fireman put a ladder up against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat" might look like this: :''The firefighter (who happened to be male, but could just as easily have been female) abridged the rights of the cat to determine for itself where it wanted to walk, climb, or rest, and inflicted his own value judgements in determining that it needed to be 'rescued' from its chosen perch. In callous disregard for the well-being of the environment, and this one tree in particular, he thrust the mobility-disadvantaged unfriendly means of ascent known as a 'ladder' carelessly up against the tree, marring its bark, and unfeelingly climbed it, unconcerned how his display of physical prowess might injure the self-esteem of those differently-abled. He kidnapped and unjustly restrained the innocent feline with the intention of returning it to the person who claimed to 'own' the naturally free animal.'' The above text admixes the most radical versions of several movements or theories. In fact, almost any ''politically correct'' speaker would most likely be perfectly satisfied with "The fire''fighter'' put a ladder against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat." However, the term firefighter is preferred to fireman for reasons other than political correctness. A firefighter puts out fires; a fireman can just as well mean a stoker, who tends the furnace in a steam locomotive. A more brief, lighthearted satire of our ''PC culture'' is provided in [http://www.samsmith.co.uk/article.php?id=13 this article] by [http://www.samsmith.co.uk/ Sam Smith]. The article mocks some of the extremes which Political Correctness has reached. :"''So the Political Correctness Army are recommending the only logical step we can take, calling for us to have our native language officially changed to French. The proposal will be voted on in parliament next month.''" ==Examples of language modification== *''Invalid'' became ''disabled'', then became ''handicapped'', then became ''disabled'' again, then became ''people with disabilities'' (the emphasis being on "people"), then became ''differently abled'', then became ''physically challenged'' (the current term). *In the United States over the course of one hundred years, , ''blacks'' became ''Negroes'', then became ''blacks'' again, then became ''Afro-Americans'', then became ''African american'' (the current term). In the meantime, the term "colored" came into and went out of usage, while the related term "people of color" came into usage later on. *''Eskimo'', a word that has long been viewed as pejorative by the people it refers to, has increasingly been replaced by more specific terms (for example, ''Inuit'', ''Yupik'', and ''Aleut''). *''Chairman'' was replaced by ''chair'', ''chairperson'' (or ''president'' or some other terms). *''The elderly'' became ''senior citizens''. ''Old person'' became ''older (or elderly) person''. *''Indians'' became ''Native American'' or ''Indigenous People'' in the United States. ''American Indian'' and ''Amerindian'' are also gaining popularity. Similarly, they became known in Canada as ''First Nations'' or ''aboriginal peoples.'' *Any reference to the area that consists of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan as "Greater China", and Taiwan should be referred to as "places", thus avoid taking a position on the political status of Taiwan. *''Fat person'' becomes ''large'' or ''larger person'', or ''person of size''. *''Man does not live by bread alone'' became ''People do not live on bread alone'' in the 1996 [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] of the Bible, Gospel of Matthew 4:4 *''TIME'' Magazine's ''Man of the Year'' became ''Person of the Year''. *''Mentally handicapped'' became ''mentally challenged''. *''Juvenile delinquency'' became ''children at risk''. * Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement: ''Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm] *Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be "political correctness gone mad". *Nativity play replaced by an "End of Season" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey. *In the UK, the Dean of Llandaff Cathedral has changed a traditional carol from 'God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" to "God Rest Ye Merry People" because of the sexist overtone. *A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children. *In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents. *The phrase "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" that was spoken by Jesus is frequently changed to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." *"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." *"Anno Domini" (AD) is replaced by "Common Era" (CE). ==Anecdote== In 2002 in television the television talk show ''Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher'' was cancelled. Maher resigned as host of ''PI'' in after making a controversial on-air remark, in which he objected to President of the United States George W. Bush and others calling the September 11, 2001 attacks terrorists cowardly: ''"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."'' Maher later apologized for the comment, saying, "In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong". In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the remark was deemed too controversial for parts of the public and some advertisers, and offensive to the military. Although some pundits supported Maher, pointing out the distinction between physical and moral cowardice, companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, quickly causing the show to cost more than it returned. The show was cancelled nine months later at the expiration of Maher's contract. What Maher said is not "politically correct", but is rather an example of how things are categorized as politically correct even though they are not. ==Quotes== "If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed." - Benjamin Franklin Comedian Billy Connolly, in one of his performance videos (''Live 1994''), called Politically Correct "the language of cowardice." ==Examples== * Mentally Challenged (used in place of Mentally Retarded, Mentally Handicapped, Mentally Disabled or Mentally Impaired) * Physically Challenged (used in place of Physically Handicapped, Physically Disabled or Physically Impaired) * Undocumented Worker (used in place of Illegal Alien) * Caucasian (used in place of White) * People of Color (used to describe people of certain ethnicities, including Whites of Hispanic origin) * Affirmative Action (used in place of Preferences or Discrimination) * Transgender (used in place of Transvestite or Cross Dresser) * Gender (used in place of Sex, even though the word "gender" does not refer to male/female, but rather masculine/feminine) * Spokesperson (used in place of Spokesman) ==See also== * Doublespeak * Euphemism * Hate speech * Identity politics * Kotobagari (a similar concept in the Japanese language) * Language and thought * Newspeak * Non-sexist language; see Alternative political spellings#.22.40.22 replacing .22A.22 and.2For .22O.22 for a Spanish-language example. * ''Politically Incorrect'' * Propaganda * Subject-object problem ==Further reading== * Berman, Paul. (ed.). 1992. Debating P.C.: The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses. New York, New York: Dell Publishing. * [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_n1_v25/ai_13566093 The Rise of the Conservative Student Press - college campuses] ===Critical of "political correctness"=== * D'Souza, Dinesh, 1991. ''Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus.'' New York: Macmillan, Inc./The Free Press. * Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, ''The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook'', Harper Collins, 1992, paperback 176 pages, ISBN 0586217266 * Nigel Rees, ''The Politically Correct Phrasebook: what they say you can and cannot say in the 1990's'', Bloomsbury, 1993, 192 pages, ISBN 0747514267 * Diane Ravitch, ''The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn'', Knopf, 2003, hardcover, 255 pages, ISBN 03754148271 ===Skeptical of claims about "political correctness"=== * Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1993. "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education." ''Social Text'', Fall, pp. 40–80. * Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1994. "Who (Ac)Counts and How." ''MMLA'' (The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association), vol. 27, no. 1, Spring, pp. 26–41. * Scatamburlo, Valerie L. 1998. ''Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness.'' Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang. * Debra L. Schultz. 1993. ''To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the "Political Correctness" Debates in Higher Education.'' New York: National Council for Research on Women. * P. Lauter. 1995. "'Political correctness' and the attack on American colleges." In M. Bérubé & C. Nelson, ''Higher education under fire: Politics, economics, and the crisis in the humanities''. New York, NY: Routledge. ==External links== *[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/pc_lexicon.html Frequently Used Words and Phrases of the PC Lexicon] - critical satire. *[http://www.tonguetied.us/ Tongue Tied] - documents alleged ongoing censorship of politically incorrect speech or expression in the United States. *[http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-879.html Possible origins of the term at www.linguist.org] *[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The Origins of Political Correctness, by Bill Lind] *[http://www.languagemonitor.com Global Language Monitor list of the Top Ten Politically (In)Correct Terms of 2004] *[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The Origins of Political Correctness] - Lecture by Bill Lind *[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] - Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton *[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An examination of Political Correctness] - University of Toronto * [http://www.tmbible.com/Related%20Matter/Forgay/Notes%20on%20Inclusive%20Language%20-%20Forgay.htm Notes on Inclusive Language, by Warren Forgay] Political neologisms Satire Sociolinguistics Pejorative political terms
---- Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page! ==Archive== *Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results *Talk:Political correctness/Archive1 *Talk:Political correctness/Archive2 *Talk:Political correctness/Archive3 */Archive 4 */Archive 5 ==POV and self-awareness== The fact that many people who are critical of what they call "political correctness" are oblivious to their POV (such as Same Spade above) does not make their lack of selfawareness an example of NPOV.--User:Cberlet 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Please refrain from ad hominems (and hypocracy), discuss the article and not the editors on this page, thanks. ''User:Sam Spade'' 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Sam, your lack of self-awareness that you have a highly biased POV about this topic is the major problem at this point. Your bias is palpable and vivid in the above paragraph, and you do not seem to be able to step back and see it; nor are you willing to engage in a debate over the merits. You cannot see your bias, and thus construct it as NPOV. It is a closed loop. The concept of "political correctness" was invented as a frame by conservatives out to bash progressives. The concept was first employed to attack liberals and leftists in colleges. These facts belong in the lead. When I cite conseratives and progressives backing up my claim, you sweep them away while refusing to provide cites for your point of view. Then you get self-righteous and claim this is all an ''ad hominem'' attack. --User:Cberlet 19:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Lets simplify. Your asking me for a citation as to the origins of this term, correct? ''User:Sam Spade'' 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Partly. I am asking you for a citation as to the origins of this term, and a definition from a mainstream source of what the term means and how it came to be used and by whom.--User:Cberlet 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct]. Sources don't have to be "mainstream" btw, they just need to be cited. Either way I think The American Heritage Dictionary is pretty mainstream. ''User:Sam Spade'' 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, the quality of published sources is debated here at Wiki all the time, so the claim that material just has to be cited is patently untrue. Most of the sources cited or linked to on this page are conservative to ultraconservative. I added the cites to the progressive books. Editors here are constantly advising that dictionary definitions are insufficient. But even if we accept The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms definition (not from the main dictionary, thanks), it raises the issues I am discussing. :::"Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies." The other definition is better at showing the struggle over meaning: :::"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. :::Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters." That is a more NPOV definition. Compare it to the current lead. :::"Political correctness describes the attempted erection of boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. :::"The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. :::The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or any other protected group. ::Now compare it to my suggested lead: :::"::"The concept of Political correctness is based on the claim that some on the political left seek to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. The controversy erupted in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998). The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or other status. ::That's an NPOV lead. It is based on the arguments made in the 1991 book by conservative luminary D'Souza. If you disagree, cite an actual source that has probed the issue in depth from a scholarly perspective (such as the folks I cited). A popular dictionary definition from the Internet does not count. ::Then we can turn to how this page is overwhelmingly a laundry list of conservative bashing of the left based on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. --User:Cberlet 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Since no discussion has resulted from my request for cites to defend the lead, I am editing the page.--User:Cberlet 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ==Intro== (I assume what was previously here is not needed. Please add back if it is.) The introduction PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT Actually, you rudely demanded a cite, and then ignored it when it was given to you. here it is again: "This expression was born in the late 1900s" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct). Want more (I thought the dictionary was good enough, but I guess not..)? [3] (http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html) [4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml) [5] (http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/) Shall I revert your intro, or place a factual accuracy dispute header? Sam Spade 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC) NM, I rewrote it and placed a dispute header. The dispute header can be removed as soon as things settle down, and we have a moments concensus. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realise. I am relatively new here. I humbly beg forgiveness.--User:Harrismw 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Avoid self references == The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53 See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report]. The cites used for writing the lead include the following: *[[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html] The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind *[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories. *[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An individuals website at the University of Toronto] with no identification other than "Alexander." :I removed the above as inappropriate for a wiki article. Merge whatever you can back into the article, but avoid self references, and please consult NPOV. ''User:Sam Spade'' 22:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Are you kidding me? Citing The Poverty Law Center for anything related to the Right is like citing the Nazi Party for anything relating to Jewish culture. Some phrases such as "white nationalist Pat Buchanan" or claiming that the term has anything to do with anti semitism.I don not know this Lind character or if he is an anti semite, what I do know is that the SPLC is by no means a respectable civil rights organization. It has been criticised by the NAACP and other groups for doing more to fund raise than fight racism. There is a reason that the word controversial is written after every mention of SPLC. User:Guy Montag 05:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::There was no self reference, it was an accurate summary. And, the footnote for the first sentence was false, the page linked turns up no such underlying text.--User:Cberlet 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Read further down. ''User:Sam Spade'' 22:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::I went to the footnote from your version and there was no mention of a comic or the 1920s. The dictionary definitions on that page have no connection to the text you wrote for the lead. It is all from the Lind article or variants snatched from it.--User:Cberlet 23:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC) There was no mention of a comic, nor the 20's, you are correct. there was however a mention ''of the origin of the term'', in the '''''late 1900's'''''. Look @ entry sourced by The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997. Cripes, politically I'm a left leaning centrist, but fallacious conversations like this make me want to join the christian coalition!. ''User:Sam Spade'' 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::The term became an issue in the late 1990s. That's what the cite supports. Nothing else. What comic strip? You cannot cite a sentence with multiple claims to one cite that does not cover all of them. It's not appropriate as a citation. The Frankfurt school fled Germany in the 1930s. All your other cites are to right-wing sources and an anonymous person on a campus. Anyway, it all tracks back to Lind. Lind is the basis of your lead. I asked for published cites from reputable sources. You provide nothing of the sort, and then claim to be a left-leaning centrist and rely on the work of a right-wing ideologue with a theory that most scholars reject as a crackpot right-wing conspiracy theory. The lead I wrote was based on a conservative book by D'Souza in 1991. Have you even looked at this book? Have you looked at any printed source on this matter. Do you just rely on the Internet for research?--User:Cberlet 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::I cut my text pending an answer.--User:Cberlet 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I think we need a mediator or some such, I'm hard pressed to keep from cursing at you :) ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I think you should restore your old lead, and then we both should give it a rest for a week. :-) --User:Cberlet 00:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Hm... do you think a RfC would help? Or a [article in need of attention] header? You seem to be being pleasent all of a sudden, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. ''User:Sam Spade'' 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==A requested comment== Unfortunately I don't have any time to address the problems with this article myself right now, but since it's been put on WP:RFC, I will comment all the same: I think it's a quite Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms right-wing POV piece casually covered with some see-through "NPOV" phrasing. I hope it gets the drastic collaborative rewrite it needs for real NPOV. I'll try to be back to help later. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 14:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :Seems to me that it ought to be deleted, as this is a topic that is ''inherently POV.'' Other than a definition (and good luck to anyone who even tries that), there is nothing that ''can'' be said that isn't POV. I would ask that anyone find a ''single person'' who will claim to be in favor of political correctness, per se. If no one says, "I want our speech to be politically correct," then all we're left with is, exactly as you've said, Bishonen, an insult. If no one self-identifies that way, you've got a pejorative, and there's no point in trying to have an article on that. User:Geogre 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Why not? We have articles on plenty of them, even Asshole. ''User:Sam Spade'' 16:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::Sam, the reason we shouldn't is that there is no there, there. I.e. it is a signifier of without signified. There is no actual group or specific behavior to point to, because there is no group actually in favor of political correctness. Instead, there are people who claim that other people are for political correctness, but that means that this article should, like nigger, be not about any purported reality, but instead about the history of the ''usage'' of the term, the ''goals'' of those who employ it, the social stresses that might account for the usefulness of the term. I.e. it would be an article about a phrase, and not a phenomenon, or about the phenomena behind people wishing to insult in a particular way. The closest analogy I can think of would be "Revisionism." Once, there was a real thing called "historical revisionism," and it was a good thing. Then there were the two Communist Parties in the USSR and China calling each other "Stalinist/Maoist Revisionists" as insults, and then the pejoration of ''that'' got carried over to historical revisionism so that today "revisionism" is used as a term of opprobrium. The difference is that once upon a time there really were people who would call themselves revisionists. I can find no such for political correctness. User:Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::I basically agree with Geogre, and would like to see this article deleted. Putting it on VFD was my first thought, except that I just can't imagine any consensus to delete. We've still got the irredeemable racism-magnets List of ethnic slurs (read that talk page!) and List of ethnic stereotypes, which have both been VfD'd, I think (I think so—I may not be remembering the details right, as there are presumably complexities to do with their mutual relationship,, but there's certainly been VfD'ing), so how's the community ever going to agree to delete the inherently rather less offensive Political correctness? I think we're stuck with it, and should clean it up. Deep-clean.--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 16:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure. I think it's going to be inherently POV, and there have been deletions of articles like that (List of Republican celebrities, and I saw Dumbest man of 2001 yesterday that I hope is on VfD). If there is going to be a real article, it's going to have to be (in my opinion anyway) about the emergence of women workers, the advent of academic Feminism, the Black Is Beautiful movement, and the reinterpretation of harassment laws in the US all combining to make this term a favorite for those who feel that their powers and perogatives have been eroded. That's a long, linguistics haul, I think, and it would nearly be original research (that someone in a Linguistics dept. needs to do). User:Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::I can imagine an excellent and NPOV article on this topic, but this sure isn't it. Roughly, the outline of that article would be: ::# A brief definition of how the term is used in contemporary political discourse. ::# A brief history of the use of the term ("correct line" in Marxist parties ==> in-joke on the left ==> criticism ''of'' the left and of identity politics). ::# A few examples of the sort of language shifts (etc.) that have been described as politically correct. ::# Critique of the concept (mainly as an effort to lump together several diverse agendas) ::# Some discussion of overt campaigns for "inclusive language" ::# Coda, return to use of the term, this time with more of a focus on how it has passed into popular usage. :: -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC) :::Here is the current lead: ::::"Political correctness is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900's [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct], and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920's, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism. The concept is said to be particularly embraced by advocates of certain forms of identity politics, especially gay rights, feminism, black power and the Disability rights movement." :::The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, (note there is no attribution which raises the issue of plagiarism). William Lind is an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53 See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report]. The cites used for writing the lead include the following: ::::--[[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html] The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind ::::--[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories. ::::--[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An individuals website at the University of Toronto] with no identification other than "Alexander." :::So the current lead only reflects a far right view of the issue rather than an NPOV approac. This is not appropriate, yet SamSpade continues to revert all attempts to make the article NPOV. This situation should be discussed.--User:Cberlet 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I've commented extensively on this Talk:Political_correctness#Tin_foil_hat_time above. Besides what I said there, there is ''nothing'' in the [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct link cited in the lead] to back up the claim about a comic strip that it is apparently intended to bolster, and also: how can something begin in the late 1900s (in the sense here, clearly, of late 20th century) and then be developed at a school that was closed down by the Nazis in the 1930s? This doesn't even make good nonsense. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::I see this is no longer the lead paragraph, but it's still there, and it's still close to nonsense. Neither the comic book thing nor the Frankfurt School claim make any sense. Since no one has seen fit to reply to me, I am going to remove this nonsense. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Jeez, I tried to fix it by citing it to Lind. See below. I agree it is nonsense, but it is Lind's nonsense. --User:Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::See [http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html Lind essay here]. --User:Cberlet 13:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::: I see, it was so compressed as to have become incoherent. Lind also doesn't get any more specific on "a comic strip" than referring once to an unnamed comic strip; I see no reason to believe he is right. Also, the claim about the Frankfurt School is part of an elaborate case Lind is making, more an opinion-piece type of thing than a scholarly argument from a quick read. I wouldn't object to a good summary of Lind's case in the article, but, with all due respect to all concerned, this confusing paragraph was worse than useless. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: And now I see that you (Cberlet) say much the same below as I just did here. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ==Plagiarism allegations== ::This sentence now avoids the serious plagiarism of the work of William Lind in a previous version: :::"According to a series of essays by ultraconservative ideologue William Lind, political correctness, is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900s, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920s, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism." ::I still think it is an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant, but if SamSpade wants it in the text, he needs to avoid the issue of plagiarism of Lind's work.--User:Cberlet 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC) I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty. ''User:Sam Spade'' 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::What you did, Sam Spade, was take a very idiosyncratic and original set of claims by William Lind and slightly rewrite them. That is plagiarism. There is only one original source for these claims. If they are to be made here on Wiki, they need to be properly cited. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the concept of plagiarism. I properly credited the paragraph and left it in the text. It is clear from a number of examples that you do not understand the concepts of proper citation or plagiarism. These are not hard to learn, and I encourage you to do so. Intellectual honesty includes understanding the role and form of proper citation and the requirements for avoiding plagiarism. :::Now someone has deleted them because the paragraph was largely incoherent. I happen to agree. Try taking some key points from the Lind essay, summarize them, and cite them, and place them in the text someplace below the lead. Then we can discuss them properly.--User:Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Whats [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=13236094&oldid=13236038 that]? Is that me citing my sources? Are you criticizing my lack of inline citation, or what? Inline citation (such as D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998) is frowned upon on the wiki, as you must have noticed. Citations and references are normally provided at the bottom of the page. There are a number of interesting policy pages outlining the principles of this, such as Wikipedia:Cite sources. I obviously consider your stooping to false allegations of plagiarism intellectually dishonest. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::No, Sam, that's actually not you citing your sources. Inline citations aren't discouraged, they're very much encouraged in a case where there's any doubt which source goes with which part of the text (and here there's more than just doubt). The policy has been in flux until recently, following a lot of discussion about reference standards in Featured articles, which are now very strict, so I don't blame anybody for not being up-to-the-minute on it. But there's more: it's not you citing sources in any sense, it's you adding an external link. (It got doubled btw.) The section "Sources" is for stuff actually used in the article, while the section "External links" is for (online) further reading. This article also has a third section called "Further reading", for printed further reading. The third one is fine, but "sources" and "External links" are not. "Sources" only has one item in it! Those "External links" that are your sources need to be moved there. The reader doesn't have any way of knowing which they are. Btw, there's now a simple way of providing invisible inline references/footnotes which are apparently now preferred for Featured articles (though after trying for 20 minutes to locate the link to the page about it, I give up).--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::Note to SamSpade: If you look not at the diff, but the actual article version, you will see that the lead as written by you in both versions still had no cite. At one point the lead you wrote had a cite to the wrong source (a dictionary definition that had no relationship to the paragraph you wrote). When you take an idea that is original to a single identifiable person (William Lind), summarize it and rephrase it slightly, and do not cite it to that person, it is plagiarism. I realize that you do not seem to understand the concepts of citation and plagiarism. Anyone can make a mistake. I tried to prod you on this discussion page into dealing with the issue several ways, and you ignored me. ::As for my inline citation, I posted those cites because you repeatedly deleted or reverted many edits I made on the main text page until I added the cites and asked you for cites to back up you claims. I will be happy to remove them. ::The page seems to be making forward process. Could we please just move forward with the editing?--User:Cberlet 21:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Lying ''and'' slandering, is this how you conduct yourself professionally as well? :politically correct :Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies. :Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct] I gave you this reference at least twice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_correctness&diff=12808352&oldid=12807224] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Intro (here I clarify my source for the intro in a pretty obvious manner as well)] It backed up the sentence having its origin "in the late 1900s". You, and another, refused to understand that rather important, encyclopedic fact, as well as the dictionary citation for it. Now your trying to willfully deny my source citing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=13236094&oldid=13236038] for the old intro. I'll make sure to give it an inline citation when I reinsert it. I demand a formal apology for your allegations. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::SamSpade, please calm down, You made some mistakes on proper citation, and now are fulminating over it. Your cites and lead paragraph were a mess of bad citation and borrowed heavily from Lind without proper citation. I called you on it and you refused to budge. Now you are rewriting history. In some cases your lead paragraph was almost totally incoherent, but it clearly was based primarily on the work of Lind. It was never properly cited--as in a reference to Lind in the context of the paragraph where his work was summarized. Not a cite on the discussion page, not at the bottom of the article page with no link to the lead paragraph, not mis-cited to a disctionary that contained only a tiny shred of the original source (which was Lind.) We all make mistakes. It is fixed now. Let it alone.--User:Cberlet 23:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC) If you wern't so busy trying to be obnoxious, you might want to reflect on your own copious errors here. If your saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=0&oldid=13496600 my intro] was less than perfect, thats one thing, but the lies and slander strewn above are something else entirely. ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::SamSpade, for two months you have reverted edits, deleted my text, treated me like dirt and generally rufused to discuss the obvious right-wing bias of this page. You have inserted outlandish right-wing opinion without cites as serious material. You inserted a paragraph of material that was clearly based on the work of William Lind. I gave you an opportunity to slide out of that error and you ignored it. Now take some responsibility for your actions. Your mistake is obvious. I am sorry that you now have to deal with the fact of your errors. I am willing to write it off as a simple mistake. We all make mistakes. Take responsibilty for your mistake and move on. I fully realize you did not understand the issues of proper citation and sourcing. Now you do. Learn from your mistake. Stop whining. --User:Cberlet 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Typical. You can insult, abuse and slander all you like, but as soon as I clarify the facts (as I do above, in detail) you try to hush things up, and suggest I am "whining". I do not "whine", I present the truth early, often and in the right place and manner. ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::Now SamSpade is seeking informal mediation. I think we are making progress on this page, and if formal mediation is sought, I will cooperate. Otherwise, let's keep editing--User:Cberlet 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC) I looked into Cberlet's claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed he is right. Cberlet is a noted journalist BTW, knowledgeable in dealing with concerns about plagiarism. The passage in question was wholly derivative and was presented without attribution or quotes, hence it constituted plagiarism. Since Cberlet's claim was accurate, well-founded and detailed and directs us to a significant policy violation, there are larger issues to be considered here. What to do about this instance of plagiarism? User:FeloniousMonk 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :How about you take it to arbcom, since cberlet has already refused mediation twice. Or, you could try Wikipedia:Copyright_violation. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::A mistake was made, and it has been fixed. Could we just please move on? I am out of town for the next several days. I hope I will return and find this matter has faded into memory.--User:Cberlet 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Multiple mistakes were made, and nothing has been fixed, and no apology offered. I've been studying footnotes, and will fix the article shortly. ''User:Sam Spade'' 08:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--User:Cberlet 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC) == Examples == Markaci: It might make sense if you read the article and numerous examples of politically correct inclusive language. [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] User:Nobs 02:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :You added a quote to the article without an explanation, and nowhere in the article is the NIV Inclusive Language Edition mentioned. I read the list of explanations, and come upon a Bible quote — to me it didn't make sense, so I removed it. Since you know more about this edition of the Bible than me, I suggest that you include an explanation with the quote. —User:MarkaciUser_talk:MarkaciSpecial:Contributions/Markaci 2005-05-10 T 13:45 Z ::How's this: ''O vain man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' became ''You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' in the 1996 [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] of the bible, James 2.20 (this relevent text to the article is lifted from the Conclusion in the link: "The politically correct/gender-inclusive agenda is usually associated with people who are liberal, theologically 'free' or neo-orthodox in theology.") User:Nobs 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::I've gone ahead and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=next&oldid=13515376 added that]. Now when I read it, it makes sense in the article. :-) —User:MarkaciUser_talk:MarkaciSpecial:Contributions/Markaci 2005-05-10 T 16:42 Z == Suggested revisions == * Lose the Stalin quote. What does that have to do with ''political correctness'' at all? * Likewise, remove the Bill Maher anecdote. How did that incident relate directly to political correctness? * Take all of the accusations of Orwellian thoughtcrime/doublespeak/etc and merge them into one paragraph in the criticism section. * "Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced." like "migrant" and "illegal alien"? The analysis in that line is a comfortable one, but sadly without empirical documentation. Can someone show me a list of these 'elaborate' PC sayings? *Consolidate the criticism section in general. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in there, most of which repeat variations on the claims of censorship and left-wing propaganda. -User:Gtrmp 01:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC) : someone removed the stalin quote. I actually think that (even though I had never heard of Bill Maher or anything to do with the show) is an example of language that is ''Italic text''not''Italic text'' politically correct, but is perceived as by others. Will attempt third revision. Will not at this time attempt fourth. ==Criticism of PC from the left== I added a paragraph about criticism of political correctness from the left. Feel free to move it around, put it somewhere else in the article, or modify it or whatever, but I think it should be addressed. As written, the article seems to give the impression that PC is only a charge leveled at the left and that the right (and a few comedians) are mainly the ones using the term as a blanket political epithet. There's more to it than that and it deserves a mention somewhere. There is a very real concern that social class and labor have been replaced by "white skin privilege", ecology has been replaced by "environmental justice", color-blind socialism and a safety net by postmodernism, investigations of government wrongdoing replaced by blanket rejection of "conspiracism", fighting organized white supremacist groups replaced by claims that mainstream society is itself inherently racist, homophobia replaced by "heterosexism", etc. User:Kaibabsquirrel 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC) : I can't see how this has helped matters at all. This article needs less text, not more. User:DougFelt 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ==Rewrite== I have rewritten the page based on some suggestions above, but have tried to keep all the major points and some debated blocks of text in the article for this rewrite. The text is now grouped in more logical blocks. What becomes clear with this edit is that those who reject the idea that "PC" is a real problem have very little text on this page compared to the critics of "PC." This page could use a lot more cites to more reputable sources on many sides of this debate. Anyway, I hope the rewrite will make the next round of editing easier. I really did try just to move stuff around and consolidate repetition in an NPOV way.--User:Cberlet 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Insert=== (This material was moved from above.)--User:Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly. is terrible. I am changing it now. It is not just a term used to criticise and criticism is not the main use of the word. If you have a problem with the changes, please tell me here. --User:Harrismw 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is addressing points from below. A definition from a dictionary, * 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. * 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters. Looks more like what I had then what is there now. I repeat "criticism is not the main use of the [phrase]". Unless you happen to be a right-wing. --User:Harrismw 06:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===End Insert=== :Yes. Cberlet's first paragraph went like this: ''Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.'' :This was changed by Harrismw to this: ''Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.'' :I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language. Cbernet's formulation is admirably precise, but I think it may be rather complex for an opening, so I've simplified it a little: ''Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. The term most often appears in the adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.'' :I optimistically removed the "forms of conduct", hoping that they aren't that important compared to forms of discourse, because having two terms rather than three makes the sentence a lot easier to read. Please just reinsert the conduct if I was wrong about that. Oh, and I don't see any point in talking about a predicative adjective. "Politically correct" is quite commonly used attributively also, as in: "That's a very politically correct remark." User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 03:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a section called intro above. If you could please repeat your problems up there. I'll also address them up there. --User:Harrismw 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::OK, thanks, I'm new here! User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Refresher course on policy== ::YIKES! Please carry on one substantative conversation at a time at put it at the end of the text, not up in previous sections. That's a Wiki convention to keep editors from going nuts. After reviewing previous comments on a talk page, it is easier for everyone if the current discussion is at the bottom of the page. Please DO NOT repeat comments in different sections. Having said that, the current edits and discussion show a lot of thought.--User:Cberlet 12:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::#2. NEVER delete comments from a talk/discussion page (except in rare circumstances involving personal attacks). It is considered a form of vandalism. The comments on talk pages are permanent and archived to preserve all text and the flow of the discussion. If you have deleted comments from this page, please go back and restore them. The proper method for dealing with a talk page that has become too long is to archive it, or ask someone else to archive it. Sorry to be the policy police, but this is a contentious page and Wiki policies need to be observed along with courtesy. --User:Cberlet 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Intro again== OK, so back to the discussion. Harrismw wrote: ''Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.'' Bishonen wrote: I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language. I agree with Bishonen, because for most scholars on the left, the term was an invention of the political right to bash multiculturalism. If you read the history section, this is easier to see. Many dictionaries have simply adopted the right-wing POV without seeing the complexity of the issue. Some on the left use the term "politically correct" to describe their attempts to deal with systems of oppression, but this is VERY problematic, given that the primary master frame for the term is to mock these political ideas.--User:Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Sigh...edit conflict with Cberlet. Yeah, I'm not new on the Wiki, just on this page, so I thought you guys must have agreed on a non-standard way of organizing the discussion here. With relief, then, I go on talking here as per usual, responding to Harrismw latest post: :If you look at the History section of the article, you will see that, yes, PC has been used in a straight-faced way at certain times, though at those time it was a much more marginal and little-used term than now. Now otoh it's a term of disparagemement, a slur (with the even more marginal exception of "a tiny subset of writers" who have "reclaimed" it). I can't help it if your dictionary is living in the past (dictionaries notoriously do lag behind current usage, AND dictionaries can have agendas, too): the intro should reflect how the word is used today. The time for historical definitions and tiny subset definitions is later, in the body of the article. I hope still more editors will join in this discussion, as our disagreement isn't really over a few lines in the introduction, but goes to the heart of the article. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 13:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I am newish to Wikipedia thus I didn't realise that I broke a convention when I did what I did, sorry :). Any way, I got the definition from answers.com. ::It may be the case in the US that the term is only used negatively, however, at least in Australia as far as I can tell the term is used mainly in the first sense (from the dictionary) (except again, by right-wingers - many of whom are racist). ::It is interesting to note that language has all ways been curtailed. At one stage you were not allowed to blaspheme. ''(By User:Harrismw, who forgot to sign.)'' ==Viewpoint of critics of "PC"== Heartfelt thanks to Cberlet for writing a version that can be used for editing the article towards a better state. With his rewrite, it becomes easy to see just how bad paragraphs 2, 3, 4 under "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"" are! These nuggets and snippets need to contribute to some kind of coherent account, or narrative, or analysis—they need to make sense—or they need to go. It would even be better to have one of those dreaded "trivia" sections, where such "examples" of nothing in particular can be collected. '''I've removed these three paragraphs'''. That may seem drastic, and I add hurriedly that I don't want to delete any text at all; I've put them below for easy reference, bolded and italicized, with comments on what I think is wrong with them. I hope people will restore them to the article, but please not without clarifying them. Mystifying or incoherent material isn't any use. Presumably somebody understands their purpose—the original author, or somebody else (or everybody except me..?). ''In the United States, some public school systems consider bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. These guidelines can be used in the construction of test (student assessment) that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate.'' How is that a viewpoint, or from a viewpoint? And, while I'm not a US resident, is it really the case that US schools merely "consider" bias and sensitivity guidelines? I was assuming many or most schools would already have them, and indeed the article Bias and sensitivity guidelines says they do. If there was some hint of the opinions expressed in the "considerable debate", it might become clearer what point, or what side of the debate, the paragraph is meant to contribute to. "Within the industry"? What an enigmatic way of putting it. The schoolbook industry..? Why not a clearer reference to it? Surely there's plenty of debate elsewhere? Incidentally, what exactly is the subject of considerable debate—customizing tests, buying schoolbooks, using these particular guidelines, having any guidelines? '''''A recent situation at the ''Los Angeles Times'' is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term ''pro-life'' in the sense of ''life-affirming''. However it is ''Times'' policy to use the term ''anti-abortion'' in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different and had nothing to do with abortion. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged [http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001477.html].''''' Qué? Very illustrative? It's a joke about the stupidity of computers. (A reasonably good joke IMHO—well, in a mild way.) If somebody can rewrite it so that it appears how and why it's illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech, please put it back. ''Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for French Language) of the term \"political correctness\" as \"nouvelle orthodoxie\" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term.'' Now this is an interesting fact. I do believe it may be relevant to the article, and I hope someboy will put it back with a clarification of what it's an example of (let alone an "ironic" example). User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(== 24.130.117.205 has added a list of "Popular and Oft-Used Politically Correct Terms and Euphemisms", apparently without noticing that there already was one (under the better heading "Examples of language modification"). The lists should be merged, and 24.130.117.205's POV use of "in place of", implying that the older terms are intrinsically more rightful than the new, needs to be removed. I'll return and take a shot at a merge if nobody else does, but I'd rather a native and resident Anglophone did it, in view of the fast-moving shadings of offense in the "default" terms. ("Mentally impaired" has shifted from PC to older and rightful? Interesting. An article with any pretensions ought to mention this kind of shift, which goes on all the time.) User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Politically correct terms? == I've two issues with this (actually three if you include the american-centricity of it): Are some of these terms used? * "Plus sized" - how often is that said or used? Is "mentally challenged" PC? What about mentally ill? Is latino a PC term? - in what sense is it PC? * Aren't Pro-Life/Pro-Choice/Religious right all terms used by the supporters not because they're PC but because they put a more positive spin on their views? Secondly, in what way are african-americans not american? -- User:Joolz 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Well, Be Bold, Joolz, please do the merge, and remove the terms you have a problem with! People are adding to that list all the time now, obviously without reading this discussion, so, at a minimum, there ought to be one list rather than two (and please lose the POV misformatted heading, also). User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 00:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == these are uncited, and probably uneeded == They argue that what they see as defending victims of oppression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance or censorship. A rejoinder by critics is that leftist political correctness does exist, as a crusade on behalf of the hypersensitive that can be compared to the objections of monotheists to "insulting" God with criticism of monotheism. :I don't have much more to say at the moment, I'm waiting for the page to die down before preforming a much needed overhaul. This was a featured article at one time, you know... ;) ::User:Sam Spade 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page. This page needs an overhaul to remove the conservative bias. Please do not begin a major edit without discussing specifics first. That this was once a featured article is ludicrous.--User:Cberlet 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==The steady trickle and the incoherence== Personally, I doubt that this page will ever amount to anything deserving to be called an "article", the way it attracts a steady trickle of unsourced POV contributions, often inserted at points where they detract from coherence. I've removed the contribution of 206.54.124.160, please Wikipedia:NPOV it and return with a source if you wish. 67.114.128.37, please provide a reputable source for your addition, or I'll remove that. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 08:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Rm addition of 67.114.128.37 per above, feel free to return it with citations and Wikipedia:NPOVing. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==OK, merging the lists of examples== Please see my note "The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(" from 13 June above. Nobody has merged the lists as I asked. Nobody has protested against the idea of merging the lists, and nobody has had a word to say in defence of the second list, in response to Joolz' criticisms of it. OK, I'm going to do a somewhat drastic merge, removing not just overlap but dubious terms as well. If you wanted it done differently, change it. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Done: I merged the list aggressively, i. e. I removed glaring errors, under the original heading of "Examples of language modification" and took the opportunity of taking out long-standing examples from the older list of, well, anecdotes, mostly unsourced, which weren't primarily about language at all. This left a pared-down and pretty good list, something that hasn't been there in a long time. I drop the erronoeus items into the well of silence (find them in the History, if you like), but paste below the motley collection of examples of... well, again, I don't know what they're examples of, that's the trouble. The section for them, IMO, would need to be named something like "Unsourced anocdotes and pointless trivia". :-( Here they are, put them back if you can find a context for them (and cites!)--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC): *''Nativity play replaced by an \"End of Season\" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey. *''A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children. *'''''In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents. *''Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement: *''Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm] *''Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be \"political correctness gone mad\".'' --User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) == A plea for sanity == I'm new to this page -- just happened to stop by and be depressed by its state. I see some of the above editors working hard to NPOV and make sense out of this page, and I see most of the IP address people and some wikipedians just writing whatever the hell they feel like. I'd like to join the former group, if I might. I would say this: please, please remember that political correctness, in spite of the fact that it has "political" in its name, is NOT a political subject, but a ''linguistic'' one. While it may be motivated by a political purpose (and that can be addressed within the article), it should first and foremost be approached as a linguistic, rhetorical and/or grammatical topic. If you think PC is great for society, great. If you think it's bad for society, that's great, too. Neither opinion matters at all for the purposes of this article. Thinly veiled attempts to inject biases are quickly spotted by the intelligent reader and are likely to evoke the opposite of the intended effect -- not to mention defeat the purpose of a wikipedia article in the first place. Anyway, that's my two cents. User:RiseAbove 00:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a lot of scholarship on this topic, and very little of it is used by editors in this article. Some say the issue is linguistic, some say it is political. Opinions seem to trump scholarly cites in this article --User:Cberlet 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Worth A Try == I've tried to get a start on a better introduction, keeping in mind that this article, if it's going to be encyclopedic, has to distinguish between the ''term'' "PC" (the rise and use of which is worth recording for its part in the "culture wars") and the ''concept'' of "PC," which is in dispute. I wouldlike to continue weeding out the drek here. It's worth thinking about an allied term like "feminazi." Such a word deserves a short entry: "a derogatory term for feminists or others who promote the social equality of women." It would not be encyclopedic to list under that entry a number of feminist arguments and their refutations. The same applies to "PC," although its uses has been more complex. I would like to delete examples that do not serve the puprose of illustrating a point (sigh) and add some subtlety to the description that steers awy from the left/right dichotomy. (Its users are now more likely to be libertarian in slant that socially conservative.) -- 68.40.200.167 ::I tightened up the language, made it a bit more balanced for the conservative side of things (sigh) and moved the cite to a better place in the paragraph. Otherwise, it it indeed a better introduction. --User:Cberlet 13:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::68.40.200.167, I'm not sure if you intended to take out my copyedit of your intro. I won't change it back, but please check it out: don't you think those were improvements? User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::No problem; sorry. 68.40.200.167 == Editorial Questions == 1) To what standard of grammar do we want to conform this page? There is a relatively large number of grammatical, dictional and rhetorical errors here, but the page seems to be frequently altered and reverted, which can tend to make copyedits pointless. I'm a big grammar Nazi, but am I merely sticking my finger in the dike by attempting to fix these? 2) What is the difference between liberals and progressives? If there is no practical difference (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), we can remove one or the other to augment concision, which this article (especially the intro) badly needs. 3) I switched the "especially" in the second paragraph to "including." Was there a specific reason these forms of identity politics were chosen as especially wont to be accused of political correctness? If so, I think there needs to be a parenthetical citing some stats, or a sentence explaining why. Also, is multiculturalism a form of identity politics? Maybe I'm understanding it in the wrong sense... 4) The first sentence seems to imply that political correctness is disparaging efforts to do what most people consider "good" things, such as "raising awareness" and "eliminating social and political biases." This strikes me as rather POV, in that I infer that political correctness is working against (or at least not taking seriously) these "good" goals by mocking them. I would rather the first sentence, at least, addressed the issue in a more clinical manner. User:Cberlet suggests that it can be considered both a linguistic and a political phenomenon, and that's fine, but shouldn't the article lead with the linguistic aspect? If for no other reason, simply because it's easier to avoid polarizing the reader right off the bat. That's it for now. More when I get to the meat of this bad boy. User:RiseAbove 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == More Criticism Added == I added the following: "Some conservatives would also view the us of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.) Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society." Because I felt like not all the criticism of the "PC concept" necessarily came from the true right of the spectrum (for instance, I would not agree at all that 'feminazi' is an 'allied term'--some level of mocking of 'politically correct' is much, much more widespread and acceptable in the American mainstream), and I thought in general that the lightweightedness of this section posed NPOV problems. -- User: stancollins 20 June, 2005 == "Progressive" == If one does happen to hold the belief that the way in which language is used colors personal and political opinion, then surely the use of the word "progressive" to describe one side of the political spectrum would be objectionable, since it connotes something vaguely scientific, or at least uniquely forward looking, about that side of the debate. In that context, especially on this page, it poses NPOV problems. I decided to put it in quotations. -- User: stancollins 20 June, 2005 ::I tend to agree with you, stancollins. I would rather we just said "liberal" or "left-wing." As I suggested above, I'm not sure the term "progressive" even adds anything if we've already used liberal. Then again, I could be wrong about that... User:RiseAbove 19:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::As a person who has written for "The Progressive" magazine and who considers himself a progressive, it is a bit strange to have people claiming the term has no meaning. Progressives and liberals are both on the political left, but the terms are not identicial in meaning. The quotation marks are POV.--User:Cberlet 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I'm not claiming it has no meaning. If you'll see my questions, above, I was just asking what the difference is among a liberal, a progressive and others on the political left. As someone who has not written for "The Progressive" magazine, and is just some guy off the street, I was left wondering. If there is no meaningful, immediately apprehensible difference, perhaps it would be best to just go with "those on the political left" for the sake of concision and ease of understanding... And I agree with stancollins that the use of the word "progressive" can frequently have a POV effect, especially on a psycholinguistic level. However, I also agree with Cberlet that the quotations can have a similar effect. Thus, I would suggest circumlocution to solve the problem. Further, I think a lot of the introduction to this article is rather rife with psycholinguistic (or, more simply, implied) POV points that could benefit from being looked at (please see my questions, ''supra''). While it may be unavoidable, it is clear between the lines that this article has an agenda, and I think that's not ideal for Wikipedia. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. User:RiseAbove 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Well, OK, maybe solve the problem by just using "those on the political left" ?--User:Cberlet 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and generalised openness to change. Progressive suggests only ''positive'' change, rather than change for its own sake. A true progressive can often appear reactionary, if they are defending decency against an onslaught of moral relativism. User:Sam Spade 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::What outlandish POV right-wing ideology. Liberal = "moral laxity" -- "onslaught of moral relativism" I've seen similar sentiments on quasi-fascist websites.--User:Cberlet 23:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::Trash and insult me all you like, the two words are still not synonyms. User:Sam Spade 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::The two words are not synonyms. Agreed, The rest of your prose is right-wing POV about liberals. That was clearly the point of my comments, which you, as usual, are trying to sidestep by drawing a stinking red-herring across the path. Fascists in the 1930s made the same complaints about liberals and morals and sexual "laxity." Hitler used to write about it. With fascists it was sometimes a way to mask issues of sexual repression or even repressed homoeroticism. Perhaps we need a page on that topic and the role it plays in generating fears among rightists about "PC". In the meantime, this page has an improved lead, and much of the pointless listing of so-called "PC" language has been trimmed. I was not trying to insult you, merely offering a factual observation based on my 30 years of research into the ideology of the political right. --User:Cberlet 00:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Taken care of?=== All right, I have changed the text to read simply "those on the political left," which will, I hope, defuse the "progressive/liberal" usage issue for the time being. I feel we lose nothing as a result of this, because more general terms are properly placed in the introductory paragraphs, and can be expanded and detailed further into the article. Now then, while I generally do not involve myself in others' conflicts, I would say (about the immediately above comments): I definitely agree with Cberlet that I understand "liberal" and "moral laxity"(!) to be in no way synonymous. On the other hand, I would point out that Sam Spade's spelling indicates that he is from a country outside the United States ("generalised"), where the term may have a different connotation or even a completely different meaning. Therefore, I would suggest that we all give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to avoid flames. That way, we can come to a compromise and get a page up on Wikipedia that we can all be proud of. Sorry if that came off as parochial, I just want everyone to be buddies. User:RiseAbove 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Everyone to be buddies? I'm sure you don't mean to patronize anybody, RiseAbove, but abandon that dream, it will not come to pass. (If it did on this particular page, I'll even admit I'd be a little weirded out. Notice how many archives it has..?) What we can more reasonably hope for is for everyone to be civil. The word ''liberal'' has more, not less, positive connotations in Europe than in the US. IOW, the claim that "liberal is suggestive of moral laxity" is even more of an extremist position when it comes from a European. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Heh, okay, so I'm a dreamer. Imagine all the people... ;-) However, I would respond by saying that word "liberal" in French, for example, actually refers to "classical liberalism" (i.e., what we often call libertarianism or, ironically, laissez-faire here in the States). In England, the Liberal Democratic Party holds, in some cases, more conservative views than the more leftist Labour Party (though, in some cases the opposite is true). Anyway, my point is that Europeans don't necessarily have a single viewpoint as to the meaning or connotation of the word "liberal," (i.e., we can't say for certain that it's more or less "positive" than it is here), and that we should try to be tolerant and give people the benefit of the doubt. But hey, I could very well be wrong about that. User:RiseAbove 06:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Incidentally, a point of rhetoric: this is an international encyclopedia in English, not a US encyclopedia, so you might want to make a conscious effort to avoid privileging a US viewpoint in your own use of language, as in "we" versus "Europeans", "here in the States" versus "in England" (notice how I avoided saying "here in Europe" in my own post?). That's a form of POV that many contributors are sensitive to. They might even think you had by the end of your message gotten an American "we" so firmly established that you're saying "we Americans need to be tolerant of those people". Nobody likes to be tolerated. Some people might say I'm splitting hairs or going off at a tangent here, but you're a linguist, you know these effects and implications matter. The article is Americentric enough as it is. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 14:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Well, I must say I was a bit taken aback by the above. It's rather disturbing to be accused of prejudice because of a sentence asking for tolerance. I've done my best to try to smooth over conflicts here, but I think it's better if I just remove myself from the equation at this point, before I get accused of anything worse. I would, however, respond that "[n]obody likes to be tolerated" is a rather confusing statement. Toleration is the best we can hope for from those who disagree with or outright dislike us. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. We have no right to expect those who oppose our views to give them credence or accession (or, moreover, to "like it") merely because we believe that we are right and they are wrong. We do have the right, however, to expect them to tolerate those views and treat us with intellectual respect, just as we should tolerate theirs and take care to treat them with respect. Therefore, whether or not people "like" to be tolerated is, I would say, utterly immaterial. I would also point out that the generalizations that Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans, or that "liberal" is a more positive term than "conservative" are at least as POV, ethnocentric, and -ahem- politically incorrect as my use of the pronoun "we" to stand for a particular perspective on this page. ::I would also say that, despite Cberlet's statements to the contrary, I do feel that the primary problems with this page are the large amount of POV text, coupled with the extremely ambiguous writing which is clearly an attempt to obfuscate that POV. Cberlet has admitted that he self-identifies as a "progressive." Perhaps it would be best to get someone who self-identifies as a moderate or who lacks a strong feeling about this issue, or politics generally, to captain this page. Alternatively, the issue could simply be approached as a linguistic phenomenon, which might help defuse some of the political infighting. To support this viewpoint, please see Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated." Both of those sentences focus on the language and rhetorical aspects of the phenomenon, and either would make a MUCH better first sentence than what is up on the page now. Anyway, I wish everyone here the best of luck getting this page ship-shape. I may be back from time to time, who knows? User:RiseAbove 18:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm sorry, and surprised, that I appeared to be accusing you of anything at all, that was not the intention. I must have sounded aggressive without meaning to—I thought I was being helpful, but obviously not. :-( I meant to be talking about language and the way it will do its own implying—by no means ascribing "prejudice" to you. I honestly do not see that I claimed, even remotely, that "Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans". It is certainly not what I believe. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 21:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==First phrase== First phrase of the article is pretty complicated grammatically. I am not even sure what it means. Is PC used to eliminate biases? Or it is used to discourage efforts to eliminate biases? "Other forms of representation" - representation of what? Also, is it really true that "political correctness" is used to "discourage efforts to raise awareness" about biases? I would think its main purpose is to avoid offending people who may be sensitive about some issues. [Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker, and it might be just my lack of understanding] --User:Vlad1 04:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I couldn't agree more, Vlad. English ''is'' my first language, and I find that first sentence rhetorically confusing and semantically ambiguous (not to mention more than a little POV, depending on how you read it). I had changed it to a sentence defining PC solely as a grammatical/linguistic concept, but this was reverted back to its current form. I believe (though I am not sure) this happened because the editors came to a consensus that PC is better treated as a political movement than a linguistic phenomenon. While I disagree with this approach (in part because I believe it is likely to generate major POV problems), I realize that Wikipedia operates under a democratic system, and I want to accomodate everyone as best I can. If you'd like to take a stab at it, Vlad, go for it. My biggest suggestion would be to avoid modifiers as much as possible and stick to kernel items only for the opening sentences. Adjectives, adverbs, etc. tend to inject more POV and ambiguity than do simple nouns and verbs. That's my opinion, anyway. User:RiseAbove 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There was a linguistic movement. It was not called Political Correctness--it was an aspect of leftist multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. The term Political Correctness was transformed by U.S. conservatives around 1990 into an attack on multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. It originally was aimed at college curriculum, the linguistic part was just a small aspect of the original criticism. We are not so much arguing about POV here as attempting to accurately reflect the history of the struggle over the term. That so many people think it is all about language is a problem of approaching the subject as if it had no history and no political content. I have cited several major books on the subject, including one by a conservative. I have repeatedly asked for people claiming Political Correctness is primarily a linguistic issue to cite substantial published works rather than biased right-wing websites. Please find a scholarly or substantial mainstream journalistic work that supports your arguments and then edit. But editing based on opinion is not going to last very long on this page. Please note that I have asked for mediation on this page to intervene in my disagreements with Sam Spade. --User:Cberlet 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::According to User:RiseAbove, :::' Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated." ' ::Here is why an encyclopedia is different from a dictionary. What if a dictionary defined "Tax and Spend Liberal" as "conformity to the belief that governments need to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs." How about this: "Pro-life" defined as "conformity to the belief that life is sacred and opposing the murder of unborn children. These are a bit hyperbolic to make the point, but not much. ::Nobody is arguing against the idea that the term "Political Correctness" is used a certain way by a certain group of people. What is at issue here, is the well-documented fact that the meaning of the term was transformed in the early 1990s by conservatives who wanted to attack what they claimed was a rigid liberal orthodoxy that had hijacked college curricula, and was forcing students and others to not use certain language that was considered insensitive or oppressive. The books and journal articles I posted in the references section make this clear. It appears that few people editing this page have bothered to actually read books or journal articles on the subject, and instead rely on the Internet for their information--or rely on ultra-conservative or libertarian sources which are highly biased. ::Using this concpet, then, the definition of "Tax and Spend Liberal" would be more accurate as "the complaint by critics that liberals have a tenedncy to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs." ::Thus the proper definition here for "Political Correctness" would be something like "the complaint by critics that persons on the political left seek to limit language that is seen as insensitive toward some group; and also seek to impose boundaries on certain public language, behavior, and even ideas." --User:Cberlet 12:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I see what you are getting at, but I don't think that what you suggest quite works. We wouldn't define "Crime" as "the complaint that one or more persons have violated the norms of their community." We could define it as "An action that violates the norms of a community sufficiently that the constituted authorities are authorized and directed to punish it." We would probably go on to say that, "The term may variously describe a specific action or the legal definition of a class of actions that are similarly characterized and punished." So, I would propose beginning with something slightly different: ::::Political Correctness is any attempt or desire to limit the terms of discussion on the basis of social or political norms, rather than a concern for free inquiry. Since the early 1990's the term has been used in the United States by commentators on the political right to criticize what they perceive as left-wing attempts to enforce doubtful ideas. The characterization is generally rejected by its alleged practitioners, who claim that they are merely attempting to increase civility and tolerance by campaigning to eliminate expressions that they believe are offensive, inaccurate and/or outdated. Partly as a result of this conflict, as of 2005 the term is rarely used outside of pejorative or humorous contexts. :::Not perfect by any means, but I believe that an interested person with ''no dog in the fight'' would actually be informed by that, which is a reasonable test of NPOV. The first sentence describes what people who use the term in good faith think they are describing. The second documents the dominant serious use without characterizing the claims, and the third does the same for the response. User:Robert A West 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Except, there never was a "Political Correctness" movement in this sense. And people who argue for language sensitivity seldom would say they do not defend "free inquiry." After some collective editing, this seemed like a good compromise: :::::"Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate." ::::As a compromise it was descriptive and yet problematized the term. The rest of the paragraph has lots of merit.--User:Cberlet 19:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Political_correctness:
Political-correctness
Political_Correctness
Political_correctness
Political_correctness
Political_correctness/Archive1
Political_correctness/Archive2
Political_correctness/Archive3
Political_correctness/Archive_4
Political_correctness/Archive_5
Political_correctness/Featured_article_removal_candidates_results
Political Correctness
#REDIRECT political correctness
Political correctness
Political correctness is a term generally used to disparage efforts to raise awareness about and eliminate social and political biases in language and other forms of representation. The term also appears in the adjectival form ''politically correct'' (often abbreviated ''PC''). While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is also extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The term is generally employed to mock the idea that carefully chosen words, language, and behavior may be used to encourage, promote, or establish outcomes and relationships that benefit society. When used this way, it often targets advocates of certain forms of identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement. The use of "gender-neutral" terms to describe occupations ("fire-fighter" instead of "fireman," "chairperson" instead of "chairman," etc.), for example, might be referrred to as "political correctness" to characterize its proponents as overly sensitive or even coercive. "PC" is often used in a manner that implies there is a significant number of people who agree with it, and employ it in their speech -- usually those on the political left. Most of these argue, in turn, that the term "political correctness" is part of larger attack on social equality (Messer-Davidow 1993, 1994). They argue that expressing an opinion about, or making a public argument about, the use of language cannot in itself constitute intolerance or censorship. Those who use the term in a derogatory fashion often do so out of concern about the potential dilution of speech and the failure to articulate important societal problems. They argue that the political criticism of diction may inhibit freedom of speech, particularly the expression of opinions that risk offending some group. For example, an individual wont to engage in politically correct speech might be reluctant to call attention to the misconduct of a particular minority group in order to avoid offending members of that group. ==History== Use of the term became popular in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998.) The word was taken from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian revolution, when it was used to describe the Party Line. The term was transformed and used jokingly within the left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier, to describe either an over-commitment to various left-wing politics political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance. So on the left the term was primaraily used to mockingly dismiss their own more doctrinaire and zealous allies. In the 1990s conservatives picked up and once again transformed the term "Political Correctness" to claim that a left-wing movement based in liberal academic circles was attempting to create a new doctrinaire political orthodoxy by using a form of social engineering that included changing words and phrases some groups claimed were offensive. Use of the term then declined in the late 1990s, and it is now mostly seen in comedy or as a political slur with questionable meaning. More recently, the term has been reclaimed by a tiny subset of multiculturalist writers and speakers who are oblivious to or reject its controversial connotations and origins. ==Earlier Uses== The term has earlier uses, leading critics to suggest that such linguistic sensitivity is nothing new. However, the often quoted "earliest cited usage of the term" comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision ''Chisholm v. Georgia'' (1793), where it clearly means that the statement it refers to is not literally correct, due to the political status of the United States as it was understood at that time: :''The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention [...]. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct.'' The first recorded use in the twentieth century was in 1912 in Chapter 1 of Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s autobiography[http://memory.loc.gov/gc/lhbum/07510/0045.tif]. Speaking of his education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he says "In those days we did not so much get ''correct political'' and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name, but what we somehow did get, and largely from [[John Bascom|[John] Bascom]], was a ''proper attitude toward public affairs.'' And when all is said, this ''attitude is more important than any definite views''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/lhbum:@field(DOCID+@lit(lhbum07510div6))#075100045] a man may hold." Again, this clearly refers to incorrect views, in his opinion, as opposed to the current usage of "politically incorrect." Another example of the same literal use of the term is from a passage of H. V. Morton's ''In the Steps of St. Paul'' (1936): "To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But Epistle to Galatians, a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman Empire rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium." ==Linguistic background == One argument for using language dismissed by critics as ''politically correct'' is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people based upon differences or handicaps. Another involves the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that a language's grammatical categories shape its speakers' ideas and actions. In both cases the goal is to bring peoples' unconscious biases into awareness, allowing them to make a more informed choice about their language and making them aware of things different people might find offensive. Two common examples of this practice are to use the word ''disabled'' in preference to ''crippled'', and ''mentally ill'' in preference to ''crazy''. However, critics of "PC" argue the new terms are often awkward, euphemism substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, religion and political views. Proponents argue that the goal of changing language and terminology consists of these four points: # Certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype. # This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology. # By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think consciously about how they describe someone. #Once labelling is a conscious activity, the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent. In linguistics, the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds that a language's grammatical categories control its speakers' possible thoughts. While few support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong form, many linguistics accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. In its strong form, the hypothesis states that, for example, "Sexist language" promotes sexist thought. The situation is complicated by the fact that members of identity groups sometime embrace terms that others seek to change. For example, Deaf culture has always considered the label ''deaf'' as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The term now often substituted for the term deaf, ''hearing-impaired'', was developed to include people with hearing loss due to aging, accidents, and other causes. While more accurate for those uses, and less offensive from the perspective of the mainstream culture, is can be considered highly derogatory by the deaf culture. ==Viewpoint of critics of "PC"== Critics of "PC" argue that advocacy of political correctness amounts to censorship and is a danger to free speech. Some argue that limits placed on language and the boundaries of public debate will inevitably lead to limits on conduct. Some conservatives would also view the use of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.) Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society. Some on the political left reject the conservative definition of the term when applied as a blanket political epithet to all liberals and leftists, but do believe that there is indeed a political correctness which has become a problem on the left. Specifically, those holding this viewpoint believe the emphasis on the left has shifted in recent years away from traditional left concerns of social class, socialism, organized labor, ecology, ending discrimination, and related issues, and has instead turned toward such things as postmodernism, post-structuralism, multiculturalism, academic theories of structural or instutionalized oppression such as white privilege (sociology) and heterosexism, and the use of neologisms and unusual spellings, all of which are seen as either antithetical to the traditional left emphasis on the working class, divisive, exclusionary toward the white working class, incomprehensible to most of the general public outside of academia, or just plain embarassing to be associated with. One example is the theory that all heterosexual sex is rape; another example is the shift among environmental groups in recent years away from traditional ecology concerns such as overpopulation and wilderness preservation, toward environmental justice which is seen as leading to some environmental groups taking positions in opposition to environmental protection. ===Orwell=== The changing of terminology as a result of political correctness, for example "visually impaired" rather than "blind", has led to accusations that those who follow political correctness are ushering in the era of Newspeak, a bowdlerized form of English predicted by George Orwell in his novel ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' which eliminates any words that might conceivably have meanings against the state. Some critics allege that the "PC program" is an Orwellian attempt to make "bad" or "incorrect" thought difficult. The allegation is that the theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people. Critics of "PC" argue it intends to achieve a form of mind control (see doublespeak, newspeak, and thoughtcrime. Some critics argue there is a similarity between political correctness and Orwellian ideas such as 'Communist_state' and fascism propaganda. Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced. ==Satirical use== The idea of political correctness also has a very interesting history of use in satire and comedy. One of the earlier, and most well-known, satirical takes on this movement can be found in the book ''Politically Correct Bedtime Stories'', in which traditional fairy tales are rewritten from an exaggerated, politically correct viewpoint. The roles of good and evil in these ''PC'' stories are often the reverse of those in the original versions. For example, Hansel, Gretel, and their father are evil, and the witch is good in the politically correct version of ''Hansel and Gretel''. The practice of satire so-called politically correct speech indeed took on a life of its own in the 1990s, though its popularity in today's media has largely declined. Part of what it is to understand the meaning of ''political correctness'' is to be familiar with satirical portrayals of political correctness, and to understand them as such. Such portrayals are sometimes exaggerations of what actual politically correct speech looks like. For example, in a satirical example of so-called political correctness speech, the sentence "The fireman put a ladder up against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat" might look like this: :''The firefighter (who happened to be male, but could just as easily have been female) abridged the rights of the cat to determine for itself where it wanted to walk, climb, or rest, and inflicted his own value judgements in determining that it needed to be 'rescued' from its chosen perch. In callous disregard for the well-being of the environment, and this one tree in particular, he thrust the mobility-disadvantaged unfriendly means of ascent known as a 'ladder' carelessly up against the tree, marring its bark, and unfeelingly climbed it, unconcerned how his display of physical prowess might injure the self-esteem of those differently-abled. He kidnapped and unjustly restrained the innocent feline with the intention of returning it to the person who claimed to 'own' the naturally free animal.'' The above text admixes the most radical versions of several movements or theories. In fact, almost any ''politically correct'' speaker would most likely be perfectly satisfied with "The fire''fighter'' put a ladder against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat." However, the term firefighter is preferred to fireman for reasons other than political correctness. A firefighter puts out fires; a fireman can just as well mean a stoker, who tends the furnace in a steam locomotive. A more brief, lighthearted satire of our ''PC culture'' is provided in [http://www.samsmith.co.uk/article.php?id=13 this article] by [http://www.samsmith.co.uk/ Sam Smith]. The article mocks some of the extremes which Political Correctness has reached. :"''So the Political Correctness Army are recommending the only logical step we can take, calling for us to have our native language officially changed to French. The proposal will be voted on in parliament next month.''" ==Examples of language modification== *''Invalid'' became ''disabled'', then became ''handicapped'', then became ''disabled'' again, then became ''people with disabilities'' (the emphasis being on "people"), then became ''differently abled'', then became ''physically challenged'' (the current term). *In the United States over the course of one hundred years, , ''blacks'' became ''Negroes'', then became ''blacks'' again, then became ''Afro-Americans'', then became ''African american'' (the current term). In the meantime, the term "colored" came into and went out of usage, while the related term "people of color" came into usage later on. *''Eskimo'', a word that has long been viewed as pejorative by the people it refers to, has increasingly been replaced by more specific terms (for example, ''Inuit'', ''Yupik'', and ''Aleut''). *''Chairman'' was replaced by ''chair'', ''chairperson'' (or ''president'' or some other terms). *''The elderly'' became ''senior citizens''. ''Old person'' became ''older (or elderly) person''. *''Indians'' became ''Native American'' or ''Indigenous People'' in the United States. ''American Indian'' and ''Amerindian'' are also gaining popularity. Similarly, they became known in Canada as ''First Nations'' or ''aboriginal peoples.'' *Any reference to the area that consists of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan as "Greater China", and Taiwan should be referred to as "places", thus avoid taking a position on the political status of Taiwan. *''Fat person'' becomes ''large'' or ''larger person'', or ''person of size''. *''Man does not live by bread alone'' became ''People do not live on bread alone'' in the 1996 [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] of the Bible, Gospel of Matthew 4:4 *''TIME'' Magazine's ''Man of the Year'' became ''Person of the Year''. *''Mentally handicapped'' became ''mentally challenged''. *''Juvenile delinquency'' became ''children at risk''. * Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement: ''Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm] *Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be "political correctness gone mad". *Nativity play replaced by an "End of Season" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey. *In the UK, the Dean of Llandaff Cathedral has changed a traditional carol from 'God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" to "God Rest Ye Merry People" because of the sexist overtone. *A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children. *In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents. *The phrase "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" that was spoken by Jesus is frequently changed to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." *"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." *"Anno Domini" (AD) is replaced by "Common Era" (CE). ==Anecdote== In 2002 in television the television talk show ''Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher'' was cancelled. Maher resigned as host of ''PI'' in after making a controversial on-air remark, in which he objected to President of the United States George W. Bush and others calling the September 11, 2001 attacks terrorists cowardly: ''"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."'' Maher later apologized for the comment, saying, "In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong". In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the remark was deemed too controversial for parts of the public and some advertisers, and offensive to the military. Although some pundits supported Maher, pointing out the distinction between physical and moral cowardice, companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, quickly causing the show to cost more than it returned. The show was cancelled nine months later at the expiration of Maher's contract. What Maher said is not "politically correct", but is rather an example of how things are categorized as politically correct even though they are not. ==Quotes== "If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed." - Benjamin Franklin Comedian Billy Connolly, in one of his performance videos (''Live 1994''), called Politically Correct "the language of cowardice." ==Examples== * Mentally Challenged (used in place of Mentally Retarded, Mentally Handicapped, Mentally Disabled or Mentally Impaired) * Physically Challenged (used in place of Physically Handicapped, Physically Disabled or Physically Impaired) * Undocumented Worker (used in place of Illegal Alien) * Caucasian (used in place of White) * People of Color (used to describe people of certain ethnicities, including Whites of Hispanic origin) * Affirmative Action (used in place of Preferences or Discrimination) * Transgender (used in place of Transvestite or Cross Dresser) * Gender (used in place of Sex, even though the word "gender" does not refer to male/female, but rather masculine/feminine) * Spokesperson (used in place of Spokesman) ==See also== * Doublespeak * Euphemism * Hate speech * Identity politics * Kotobagari (a similar concept in the Japanese language) * Language and thought * Newspeak * Non-sexist language; see Alternative political spellings#.22.40.22 replacing .22A.22 and.2For .22O.22 for a Spanish-language example. * ''Politically Incorrect'' * Propaganda * Subject-object problem ==Further reading== * Berman, Paul. (ed.). 1992. Debating P.C.: The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses. New York, New York: Dell Publishing. * [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_n1_v25/ai_13566093 The Rise of the Conservative Student Press - college campuses] ===Critical of "political correctness"=== * D'Souza, Dinesh, 1991. ''Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus.'' New York: Macmillan, Inc./The Free Press. * Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, ''The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook'', Harper Collins, 1992, paperback 176 pages, ISBN 0586217266 * Nigel Rees, ''The Politically Correct Phrasebook: what they say you can and cannot say in the 1990's'', Bloomsbury, 1993, 192 pages, ISBN 0747514267 * Diane Ravitch, ''The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn'', Knopf, 2003, hardcover, 255 pages, ISBN 03754148271 ===Skeptical of claims about "political correctness"=== * Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1993. "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education." ''Social Text'', Fall, pp. 40–80. * Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1994. "Who (Ac)Counts and How." ''MMLA'' (The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association), vol. 27, no. 1, Spring, pp. 26–41. * Scatamburlo, Valerie L. 1998. ''Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness.'' Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang. * Debra L. Schultz. 1993. ''To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the "Political Correctness" Debates in Higher Education.'' New York: National Council for Research on Women. * P. Lauter. 1995. "'Political correctness' and the attack on American colleges." In M. Bérubé & C. Nelson, ''Higher education under fire: Politics, economics, and the crisis in the humanities''. New York, NY: Routledge. ==External links== *[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/pc_lexicon.html Frequently Used Words and Phrases of the PC Lexicon] - critical satire. *[http://www.tonguetied.us/ Tongue Tied] - documents alleged ongoing censorship of politically incorrect speech or expression in the United States. *[http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-879.html Possible origins of the term at www.linguist.org] *[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The Origins of Political Correctness, by Bill Lind] *[http://www.languagemonitor.com Global Language Monitor list of the Top Ten Politically (In)Correct Terms of 2004] *[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The Origins of Political Correctness] - Lecture by Bill Lind *[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] - Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton *[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An examination of Political Correctness] - University of Toronto * [http://www.tmbible.com/Related%20Matter/Forgay/Notes%20on%20Inclusive%20Language%20-%20Forgay.htm Notes on Inclusive Language, by Warren Forgay] Political neologisms Satire Sociolinguistics Pejorative political terms
Political correctness
---- Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page! ==Archive== *Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results *Talk:Political correctness/Archive1 *Talk:Political correctness/Archive2 *Talk:Political correctness/Archive3 */Archive 4 */Archive 5 ==POV and self-awareness== The fact that many people who are critical of what they call "political correctness" are oblivious to their POV (such as Same Spade above) does not make their lack of selfawareness an example of NPOV.--User:Cberlet 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Please refrain from ad hominems (and hypocracy), discuss the article and not the editors on this page, thanks. ''User:Sam Spade'' 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Sam, your lack of self-awareness that you have a highly biased POV about this topic is the major problem at this point. Your bias is palpable and vivid in the above paragraph, and you do not seem to be able to step back and see it; nor are you willing to engage in a debate over the merits. You cannot see your bias, and thus construct it as NPOV. It is a closed loop. The concept of "political correctness" was invented as a frame by conservatives out to bash progressives. The concept was first employed to attack liberals and leftists in colleges. These facts belong in the lead. When I cite conseratives and progressives backing up my claim, you sweep them away while refusing to provide cites for your point of view. Then you get self-righteous and claim this is all an ''ad hominem'' attack. --User:Cberlet 19:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Lets simplify. Your asking me for a citation as to the origins of this term, correct? ''User:Sam Spade'' 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Partly. I am asking you for a citation as to the origins of this term, and a definition from a mainstream source of what the term means and how it came to be used and by whom.--User:Cberlet 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct]. Sources don't have to be "mainstream" btw, they just need to be cited. Either way I think The American Heritage Dictionary is pretty mainstream. ''User:Sam Spade'' 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, the quality of published sources is debated here at Wiki all the time, so the claim that material just has to be cited is patently untrue. Most of the sources cited or linked to on this page are conservative to ultraconservative. I added the cites to the progressive books. Editors here are constantly advising that dictionary definitions are insufficient. But even if we accept The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms definition (not from the main dictionary, thanks), it raises the issues I am discussing. :::"Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies." The other definition is better at showing the struggle over meaning: :::"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. :::Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters." That is a more NPOV definition. Compare it to the current lead. :::"Political correctness describes the attempted erection of boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. :::"The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. :::The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or any other protected group. ::Now compare it to my suggested lead: :::"::"The concept of Political correctness is based on the claim that some on the political left seek to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. The controversy erupted in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998). The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or other status. ::That's an NPOV lead. It is based on the arguments made in the 1991 book by conservative luminary D'Souza. If you disagree, cite an actual source that has probed the issue in depth from a scholarly perspective (such as the folks I cited). A popular dictionary definition from the Internet does not count. ::Then we can turn to how this page is overwhelmingly a laundry list of conservative bashing of the left based on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. --User:Cberlet 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Since no discussion has resulted from my request for cites to defend the lead, I am editing the page.--User:Cberlet 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ==Intro== (I assume what was previously here is not needed. Please add back if it is.) The introduction PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT Actually, you rudely demanded a cite, and then ignored it when it was given to you. here it is again: "This expression was born in the late 1900s" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct). Want more (I thought the dictionary was good enough, but I guess not..)? [3] (http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html) [4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml) [5] (http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/) Shall I revert your intro, or place a factual accuracy dispute header? Sam Spade 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC) NM, I rewrote it and placed a dispute header. The dispute header can be removed as soon as things settle down, and we have a moments concensus. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realise. I am relatively new here. I humbly beg forgiveness.--User:Harrismw 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Avoid self references == The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53 See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report]. The cites used for writing the lead include the following: *[[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html] The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind *[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories. *[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An individuals website at the University of Toronto] with no identification other than "Alexander." :I removed the above as inappropriate for a wiki article. Merge whatever you can back into the article, but avoid self references, and please consult NPOV. ''User:Sam Spade'' 22:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Are you kidding me? Citing The Poverty Law Center for anything related to the Right is like citing the Nazi Party for anything relating to Jewish culture. Some phrases such as "white nationalist Pat Buchanan" or claiming that the term has anything to do with anti semitism.I don not know this Lind character or if he is an anti semite, what I do know is that the SPLC is by no means a respectable civil rights organization. It has been criticised by the NAACP and other groups for doing more to fund raise than fight racism. There is a reason that the word controversial is written after every mention of SPLC. User:Guy Montag 05:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::There was no self reference, it was an accurate summary. And, the footnote for the first sentence was false, the page linked turns up no such underlying text.--User:Cberlet 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Read further down. ''User:Sam Spade'' 22:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::I went to the footnote from your version and there was no mention of a comic or the 1920s. The dictionary definitions on that page have no connection to the text you wrote for the lead. It is all from the Lind article or variants snatched from it.--User:Cberlet 23:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC) There was no mention of a comic, nor the 20's, you are correct. there was however a mention ''of the origin of the term'', in the '''''late 1900's'''''. Look @ entry sourced by The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997. Cripes, politically I'm a left leaning centrist, but fallacious conversations like this make me want to join the christian coalition!. ''User:Sam Spade'' 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::The term became an issue in the late 1990s. That's what the cite supports. Nothing else. What comic strip? You cannot cite a sentence with multiple claims to one cite that does not cover all of them. It's not appropriate as a citation. The Frankfurt school fled Germany in the 1930s. All your other cites are to right-wing sources and an anonymous person on a campus. Anyway, it all tracks back to Lind. Lind is the basis of your lead. I asked for published cites from reputable sources. You provide nothing of the sort, and then claim to be a left-leaning centrist and rely on the work of a right-wing ideologue with a theory that most scholars reject as a crackpot right-wing conspiracy theory. The lead I wrote was based on a conservative book by D'Souza in 1991. Have you even looked at this book? Have you looked at any printed source on this matter. Do you just rely on the Internet for research?--User:Cberlet 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::I cut my text pending an answer.--User:Cberlet 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I think we need a mediator or some such, I'm hard pressed to keep from cursing at you :) ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I think you should restore your old lead, and then we both should give it a rest for a week. :-) --User:Cberlet 00:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Hm... do you think a RfC would help? Or a [article in need of attention] header? You seem to be being pleasent all of a sudden, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. ''User:Sam Spade'' 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==A requested comment== Unfortunately I don't have any time to address the problems with this article myself right now, but since it's been put on WP:RFC, I will comment all the same: I think it's a quite Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms right-wing POV piece casually covered with some see-through "NPOV" phrasing. I hope it gets the drastic collaborative rewrite it needs for real NPOV. I'll try to be back to help later. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 14:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :Seems to me that it ought to be deleted, as this is a topic that is ''inherently POV.'' Other than a definition (and good luck to anyone who even tries that), there is nothing that ''can'' be said that isn't POV. I would ask that anyone find a ''single person'' who will claim to be in favor of political correctness, per se. If no one says, "I want our speech to be politically correct," then all we're left with is, exactly as you've said, Bishonen, an insult. If no one self-identifies that way, you've got a pejorative, and there's no point in trying to have an article on that. User:Geogre 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Why not? We have articles on plenty of them, even Asshole. ''User:Sam Spade'' 16:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::Sam, the reason we shouldn't is that there is no there, there. I.e. it is a signifier of without signified. There is no actual group or specific behavior to point to, because there is no group actually in favor of political correctness. Instead, there are people who claim that other people are for political correctness, but that means that this article should, like nigger, be not about any purported reality, but instead about the history of the ''usage'' of the term, the ''goals'' of those who employ it, the social stresses that might account for the usefulness of the term. I.e. it would be an article about a phrase, and not a phenomenon, or about the phenomena behind people wishing to insult in a particular way. The closest analogy I can think of would be "Revisionism." Once, there was a real thing called "historical revisionism," and it was a good thing. Then there were the two Communist Parties in the USSR and China calling each other "Stalinist/Maoist Revisionists" as insults, and then the pejoration of ''that'' got carried over to historical revisionism so that today "revisionism" is used as a term of opprobrium. The difference is that once upon a time there really were people who would call themselves revisionists. I can find no such for political correctness. User:Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::I basically agree with Geogre, and would like to see this article deleted. Putting it on VFD was my first thought, except that I just can't imagine any consensus to delete. We've still got the irredeemable racism-magnets List of ethnic slurs (read that talk page!) and List of ethnic stereotypes, which have both been VfD'd, I think (I think so—I may not be remembering the details right, as there are presumably complexities to do with their mutual relationship,, but there's certainly been VfD'ing), so how's the community ever going to agree to delete the inherently rather less offensive Political correctness? I think we're stuck with it, and should clean it up. Deep-clean.--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 16:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure. I think it's going to be inherently POV, and there have been deletions of articles like that (List of Republican celebrities, and I saw Dumbest man of 2001 yesterday that I hope is on VfD). If there is going to be a real article, it's going to have to be (in my opinion anyway) about the emergence of women workers, the advent of academic Feminism, the Black Is Beautiful movement, and the reinterpretation of harassment laws in the US all combining to make this term a favorite for those who feel that their powers and perogatives have been eroded. That's a long, linguistics haul, I think, and it would nearly be original research (that someone in a Linguistics dept. needs to do). User:Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::I can imagine an excellent and NPOV article on this topic, but this sure isn't it. Roughly, the outline of that article would be: ::# A brief definition of how the term is used in contemporary political discourse. ::# A brief history of the use of the term ("correct line" in Marxist parties ==> in-joke on the left ==> criticism ''of'' the left and of identity politics). ::# A few examples of the sort of language shifts (etc.) that have been described as politically correct. ::# Critique of the concept (mainly as an effort to lump together several diverse agendas) ::# Some discussion of overt campaigns for "inclusive language" ::# Coda, return to use of the term, this time with more of a focus on how it has passed into popular usage. :: -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC) :::Here is the current lead: ::::"Political correctness is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900's [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct], and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920's, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism. The concept is said to be particularly embraced by advocates of certain forms of identity politics, especially gay rights, feminism, black power and the Disability rights movement." :::The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, (note there is no attribution which raises the issue of plagiarism). William Lind is an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53 See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report]. The cites used for writing the lead include the following: ::::--[[http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html] The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind ::::--[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times] an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories. ::::--[http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/ An individuals website at the University of Toronto] with no identification other than "Alexander." :::So the current lead only reflects a far right view of the issue rather than an NPOV approac. This is not appropriate, yet SamSpade continues to revert all attempts to make the article NPOV. This situation should be discussed.--User:Cberlet 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I've commented extensively on this Talk:Political_correctness#Tin_foil_hat_time above. Besides what I said there, there is ''nothing'' in the [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct link cited in the lead] to back up the claim about a comic strip that it is apparently intended to bolster, and also: how can something begin in the late 1900s (in the sense here, clearly, of late 20th century) and then be developed at a school that was closed down by the Nazis in the 1930s? This doesn't even make good nonsense. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::I see this is no longer the lead paragraph, but it's still there, and it's still close to nonsense. Neither the comic book thing nor the Frankfurt School claim make any sense. Since no one has seen fit to reply to me, I am going to remove this nonsense. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Jeez, I tried to fix it by citing it to Lind. See below. I agree it is nonsense, but it is Lind's nonsense. --User:Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::See [http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html Lind essay here]. --User:Cberlet 13:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::: I see, it was so compressed as to have become incoherent. Lind also doesn't get any more specific on "a comic strip" than referring once to an unnamed comic strip; I see no reason to believe he is right. Also, the claim about the Frankfurt School is part of an elaborate case Lind is making, more an opinion-piece type of thing than a scholarly argument from a quick read. I wouldn't object to a good summary of Lind's case in the article, but, with all due respect to all concerned, this confusing paragraph was worse than useless. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: And now I see that you (Cberlet) say much the same below as I just did here. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ==Plagiarism allegations== ::This sentence now avoids the serious plagiarism of the work of William Lind in a previous version: :::"According to a series of essays by ultraconservative ideologue William Lind, political correctness, is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900s, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920s, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism." ::I still think it is an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant, but if SamSpade wants it in the text, he needs to avoid the issue of plagiarism of Lind's work.--User:Cberlet 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC) I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty. ''User:Sam Spade'' 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::What you did, Sam Spade, was take a very idiosyncratic and original set of claims by William Lind and slightly rewrite them. That is plagiarism. There is only one original source for these claims. If they are to be made here on Wiki, they need to be properly cited. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the concept of plagiarism. I properly credited the paragraph and left it in the text. It is clear from a number of examples that you do not understand the concepts of proper citation or plagiarism. These are not hard to learn, and I encourage you to do so. Intellectual honesty includes understanding the role and form of proper citation and the requirements for avoiding plagiarism. :::Now someone has deleted them because the paragraph was largely incoherent. I happen to agree. Try taking some key points from the Lind essay, summarize them, and cite them, and place them in the text someplace below the lead. Then we can discuss them properly.--User:Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Whats [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=13236094&oldid=13236038 that]? Is that me citing my sources? Are you criticizing my lack of inline citation, or what? Inline citation (such as D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998) is frowned upon on the wiki, as you must have noticed. Citations and references are normally provided at the bottom of the page. There are a number of interesting policy pages outlining the principles of this, such as Wikipedia:Cite sources. I obviously consider your stooping to false allegations of plagiarism intellectually dishonest. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::No, Sam, that's actually not you citing your sources. Inline citations aren't discouraged, they're very much encouraged in a case where there's any doubt which source goes with which part of the text (and here there's more than just doubt). The policy has been in flux until recently, following a lot of discussion about reference standards in Featured articles, which are now very strict, so I don't blame anybody for not being up-to-the-minute on it. But there's more: it's not you citing sources in any sense, it's you adding an external link. (It got doubled btw.) The section "Sources" is for stuff actually used in the article, while the section "External links" is for (online) further reading. This article also has a third section called "Further reading", for printed further reading. The third one is fine, but "sources" and "External links" are not. "Sources" only has one item in it! Those "External links" that are your sources need to be moved there. The reader doesn't have any way of knowing which they are. Btw, there's now a simple way of providing invisible inline references/footnotes which are apparently now preferred for Featured articles (though after trying for 20 minutes to locate the link to the page about it, I give up).--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::Note to SamSpade: If you look not at the diff, but the actual article version, you will see that the lead as written by you in both versions still had no cite. At one point the lead you wrote had a cite to the wrong source (a dictionary definition that had no relationship to the paragraph you wrote). When you take an idea that is original to a single identifiable person (William Lind), summarize it and rephrase it slightly, and do not cite it to that person, it is plagiarism. I realize that you do not seem to understand the concepts of citation and plagiarism. Anyone can make a mistake. I tried to prod you on this discussion page into dealing with the issue several ways, and you ignored me. ::As for my inline citation, I posted those cites because you repeatedly deleted or reverted many edits I made on the main text page until I added the cites and asked you for cites to back up you claims. I will be happy to remove them. ::The page seems to be making forward process. Could we please just move forward with the editing?--User:Cberlet 21:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Lying ''and'' slandering, is this how you conduct yourself professionally as well? :politically correct :Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies. :Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct] I gave you this reference at least twice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_correctness&diff=12808352&oldid=12807224] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Intro (here I clarify my source for the intro in a pretty obvious manner as well)] It backed up the sentence having its origin "in the late 1900s". You, and another, refused to understand that rather important, encyclopedic fact, as well as the dictionary citation for it. Now your trying to willfully deny my source citing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=13236094&oldid=13236038] for the old intro. I'll make sure to give it an inline citation when I reinsert it. I demand a formal apology for your allegations. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::SamSpade, please calm down, You made some mistakes on proper citation, and now are fulminating over it. Your cites and lead paragraph were a mess of bad citation and borrowed heavily from Lind without proper citation. I called you on it and you refused to budge. Now you are rewriting history. In some cases your lead paragraph was almost totally incoherent, but it clearly was based primarily on the work of Lind. It was never properly cited--as in a reference to Lind in the context of the paragraph where his work was summarized. Not a cite on the discussion page, not at the bottom of the article page with no link to the lead paragraph, not mis-cited to a disctionary that contained only a tiny shred of the original source (which was Lind.) We all make mistakes. It is fixed now. Let it alone.--User:Cberlet 23:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC) If you wern't so busy trying to be obnoxious, you might want to reflect on your own copious errors here. If your saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=0&oldid=13496600 my intro] was less than perfect, thats one thing, but the lies and slander strewn above are something else entirely. ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::SamSpade, for two months you have reverted edits, deleted my text, treated me like dirt and generally rufused to discuss the obvious right-wing bias of this page. You have inserted outlandish right-wing opinion without cites as serious material. You inserted a paragraph of material that was clearly based on the work of William Lind. I gave you an opportunity to slide out of that error and you ignored it. Now take some responsibility for your actions. Your mistake is obvious. I am sorry that you now have to deal with the fact of your errors. I am willing to write it off as a simple mistake. We all make mistakes. Take responsibilty for your mistake and move on. I fully realize you did not understand the issues of proper citation and sourcing. Now you do. Learn from your mistake. Stop whining. --User:Cberlet 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Typical. You can insult, abuse and slander all you like, but as soon as I clarify the facts (as I do above, in detail) you try to hush things up, and suggest I am "whining". I do not "whine", I present the truth early, often and in the right place and manner. ''User:Sam Spade'' 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::Now SamSpade is seeking informal mediation. I think we are making progress on this page, and if formal mediation is sought, I will cooperate. Otherwise, let's keep editing--User:Cberlet 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC) I looked into Cberlet's claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed he is right. Cberlet is a noted journalist BTW, knowledgeable in dealing with concerns about plagiarism. The passage in question was wholly derivative and was presented without attribution or quotes, hence it constituted plagiarism. Since Cberlet's claim was accurate, well-founded and detailed and directs us to a significant policy violation, there are larger issues to be considered here. What to do about this instance of plagiarism? User:FeloniousMonk 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :How about you take it to arbcom, since cberlet has already refused mediation twice. Or, you could try Wikipedia:Copyright_violation. ''User:Sam Spade'' 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::A mistake was made, and it has been fixed. Could we just please move on? I am out of town for the next several days. I hope I will return and find this matter has faded into memory.--User:Cberlet 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Multiple mistakes were made, and nothing has been fixed, and no apology offered. I've been studying footnotes, and will fix the article shortly. ''User:Sam Spade'' 08:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--User:Cberlet 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC) == Examples == Markaci: It might make sense if you read the article and numerous examples of politically correct inclusive language. [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] User:Nobs 02:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :You added a quote to the article without an explanation, and nowhere in the article is the NIV Inclusive Language Edition mentioned. I read the list of explanations, and come upon a Bible quote — to me it didn't make sense, so I removed it. Since you know more about this edition of the Bible than me, I suggest that you include an explanation with the quote. —User:MarkaciUser_talk:MarkaciSpecial:Contributions/Markaci 2005-05-10 T 13:45 Z ::How's this: ''O vain man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' became ''You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?'' in the 1996 [http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.asp NIV Inclusive Language Edition] of the bible, James 2.20 (this relevent text to the article is lifted from the Conclusion in the link: "The politically correct/gender-inclusive agenda is usually associated with people who are liberal, theologically 'free' or neo-orthodox in theology.") User:Nobs 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::I've gone ahead and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=next&oldid=13515376 added that]. Now when I read it, it makes sense in the article. :-) —User:MarkaciUser_talk:MarkaciSpecial:Contributions/Markaci 2005-05-10 T 16:42 Z == Suggested revisions == * Lose the Stalin quote. What does that have to do with ''political correctness'' at all? * Likewise, remove the Bill Maher anecdote. How did that incident relate directly to political correctness? * Take all of the accusations of Orwellian thoughtcrime/doublespeak/etc and merge them into one paragraph in the criticism section. * "Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced." like "migrant" and "illegal alien"? The analysis in that line is a comfortable one, but sadly without empirical documentation. Can someone show me a list of these 'elaborate' PC sayings? *Consolidate the criticism section in general. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in there, most of which repeat variations on the claims of censorship and left-wing propaganda. -User:Gtrmp 01:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC) : someone removed the stalin quote. I actually think that (even though I had never heard of Bill Maher or anything to do with the show) is an example of language that is ''Italic text''not''Italic text'' politically correct, but is perceived as by others. Will attempt third revision. Will not at this time attempt fourth. ==Criticism of PC from the left== I added a paragraph about criticism of political correctness from the left. Feel free to move it around, put it somewhere else in the article, or modify it or whatever, but I think it should be addressed. As written, the article seems to give the impression that PC is only a charge leveled at the left and that the right (and a few comedians) are mainly the ones using the term as a blanket political epithet. There's more to it than that and it deserves a mention somewhere. There is a very real concern that social class and labor have been replaced by "white skin privilege", ecology has been replaced by "environmental justice", color-blind socialism and a safety net by postmodernism, investigations of government wrongdoing replaced by blanket rejection of "conspiracism", fighting organized white supremacist groups replaced by claims that mainstream society is itself inherently racist, homophobia replaced by "heterosexism", etc. User:Kaibabsquirrel 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC) : I can't see how this has helped matters at all. This article needs less text, not more. User:DougFelt 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ==Rewrite== I have rewritten the page based on some suggestions above, but have tried to keep all the major points and some debated blocks of text in the article for this rewrite. The text is now grouped in more logical blocks. What becomes clear with this edit is that those who reject the idea that "PC" is a real problem have very little text on this page compared to the critics of "PC." This page could use a lot more cites to more reputable sources on many sides of this debate. Anyway, I hope the rewrite will make the next round of editing easier. I really did try just to move stuff around and consolidate repetition in an NPOV way.--User:Cberlet 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Insert=== (This material was moved from above.)--User:Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly. is terrible. I am changing it now. It is not just a term used to criticise and criticism is not the main use of the word. If you have a problem with the changes, please tell me here. --User:Harrismw 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is addressing points from below. A definition from a dictionary, * 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. * 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters. Looks more like what I had then what is there now. I repeat "criticism is not the main use of the [phrase]". Unless you happen to be a right-wing. --User:Harrismw 06:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===End Insert=== :Yes. Cberlet's first paragraph went like this: ''Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.'' :This was changed by Harrismw to this: ''Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.'' :I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language. Cbernet's formulation is admirably precise, but I think it may be rather complex for an opening, so I've simplified it a little: ''Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. The term most often appears in the adjective form "''politically correct''" (often abbreviated "''PC''), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.'' :I optimistically removed the "forms of conduct", hoping that they aren't that important compared to forms of discourse, because having two terms rather than three makes the sentence a lot easier to read. Please just reinsert the conduct if I was wrong about that. Oh, and I don't see any point in talking about a predicative adjective. "Politically correct" is quite commonly used attributively also, as in: "That's a very politically correct remark." User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 03:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a section called intro above. If you could please repeat your problems up there. I'll also address them up there. --User:Harrismw 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::OK, thanks, I'm new here! User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Refresher course on policy== ::YIKES! Please carry on one substantative conversation at a time at put it at the end of the text, not up in previous sections. That's a Wiki convention to keep editors from going nuts. After reviewing previous comments on a talk page, it is easier for everyone if the current discussion is at the bottom of the page. Please DO NOT repeat comments in different sections. Having said that, the current edits and discussion show a lot of thought.--User:Cberlet 12:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::#2. NEVER delete comments from a talk/discussion page (except in rare circumstances involving personal attacks). It is considered a form of vandalism. The comments on talk pages are permanent and archived to preserve all text and the flow of the discussion. If you have deleted comments from this page, please go back and restore them. The proper method for dealing with a talk page that has become too long is to archive it, or ask someone else to archive it. Sorry to be the policy police, but this is a contentious page and Wiki policies need to be observed along with courtesy. --User:Cberlet 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Intro again== OK, so back to the discussion. Harrismw wrote: ''Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.'' Bishonen wrote: I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to ''criticize'' a way of using language. I agree with Bishonen, because for most scholars on the left, the term was an invention of the political right to bash multiculturalism. If you read the history section, this is easier to see. Many dictionaries have simply adopted the right-wing POV without seeing the complexity of the issue. Some on the left use the term "politically correct" to describe their attempts to deal with systems of oppression, but this is VERY problematic, given that the primary master frame for the term is to mock these political ideas.--User:Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Sigh...edit conflict with Cberlet. Yeah, I'm not new on the Wiki, just on this page, so I thought you guys must have agreed on a non-standard way of organizing the discussion here. With relief, then, I go on talking here as per usual, responding to Harrismw latest post: :If you look at the History section of the article, you will see that, yes, PC has been used in a straight-faced way at certain times, though at those time it was a much more marginal and little-used term than now. Now otoh it's a term of disparagemement, a slur (with the even more marginal exception of "a tiny subset of writers" who have "reclaimed" it). I can't help it if your dictionary is living in the past (dictionaries notoriously do lag behind current usage, AND dictionaries can have agendas, too): the intro should reflect how the word is used today. The time for historical definitions and tiny subset definitions is later, in the body of the article. I hope still more editors will join in this discussion, as our disagreement isn't really over a few lines in the introduction, but goes to the heart of the article. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 13:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I am newish to Wikipedia thus I didn't realise that I broke a convention when I did what I did, sorry :). Any way, I got the definition from answers.com. ::It may be the case in the US that the term is only used negatively, however, at least in Australia as far as I can tell the term is used mainly in the first sense (from the dictionary) (except again, by right-wingers - many of whom are racist). ::It is interesting to note that language has all ways been curtailed. At one stage you were not allowed to blaspheme. ''(By User:Harrismw, who forgot to sign.)'' ==Viewpoint of critics of "PC"== Heartfelt thanks to Cberlet for writing a version that can be used for editing the article towards a better state. With his rewrite, it becomes easy to see just how bad paragraphs 2, 3, 4 under "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"" are! These nuggets and snippets need to contribute to some kind of coherent account, or narrative, or analysis—they need to make sense—or they need to go. It would even be better to have one of those dreaded "trivia" sections, where such "examples" of nothing in particular can be collected. '''I've removed these three paragraphs'''. That may seem drastic, and I add hurriedly that I don't want to delete any text at all; I've put them below for easy reference, bolded and italicized, with comments on what I think is wrong with them. I hope people will restore them to the article, but please not without clarifying them. Mystifying or incoherent material isn't any use. Presumably somebody understands their purpose—the original author, or somebody else (or everybody except me..?). ''In the United States, some public school systems consider bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. These guidelines can be used in the construction of test (student assessment) that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate.'' How is that a viewpoint, or from a viewpoint? And, while I'm not a US resident, is it really the case that US schools merely "consider" bias and sensitivity guidelines? I was assuming many or most schools would already have them, and indeed the article Bias and sensitivity guidelines says they do. If there was some hint of the opinions expressed in the "considerable debate", it might become clearer what point, or what side of the debate, the paragraph is meant to contribute to. "Within the industry"? What an enigmatic way of putting it. The schoolbook industry..? Why not a clearer reference to it? Surely there's plenty of debate elsewhere? Incidentally, what exactly is the subject of considerable debate—customizing tests, buying schoolbooks, using these particular guidelines, having any guidelines? '''''A recent situation at the ''Los Angeles Times'' is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term ''pro-life'' in the sense of ''life-affirming''. However it is ''Times'' policy to use the term ''anti-abortion'' in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different and had nothing to do with abortion. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged [http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001477.html].''''' Qué? Very illustrative? It's a joke about the stupidity of computers. (A reasonably good joke IMHO—well, in a mild way.) If somebody can rewrite it so that it appears how and why it's illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech, please put it back. ''Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for French Language) of the term \"political correctness\" as \"nouvelle orthodoxie\" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term.'' Now this is an interesting fact. I do believe it may be relevant to the article, and I hope someboy will put it back with a clarification of what it's an example of (let alone an "ironic" example). User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(== 24.130.117.205 has added a list of "Popular and Oft-Used Politically Correct Terms and Euphemisms", apparently without noticing that there already was one (under the better heading "Examples of language modification"). The lists should be merged, and 24.130.117.205's POV use of "in place of", implying that the older terms are intrinsically more rightful than the new, needs to be removed. I'll return and take a shot at a merge if nobody else does, but I'd rather a native and resident Anglophone did it, in view of the fast-moving shadings of offense in the "default" terms. ("Mentally impaired" has shifted from PC to older and rightful? Interesting. An article with any pretensions ought to mention this kind of shift, which goes on all the time.) User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Politically correct terms? == I've two issues with this (actually three if you include the american-centricity of it): Are some of these terms used? * "Plus sized" - how often is that said or used? Is "mentally challenged" PC? What about mentally ill? Is latino a PC term? - in what sense is it PC? * Aren't Pro-Life/Pro-Choice/Religious right all terms used by the supporters not because they're PC but because they put a more positive spin on their views? Secondly, in what way are african-americans not american? -- User:Joolz 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Well, Be Bold, Joolz, please do the merge, and remove the terms you have a problem with! People are adding to that list all the time now, obviously without reading this discussion, so, at a minimum, there ought to be one list rather than two (and please lose the POV misformatted heading, also). User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 00:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == these are uncited, and probably uneeded == They argue that what they see as defending victims of oppression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance or censorship. A rejoinder by critics is that leftist political correctness does exist, as a crusade on behalf of the hypersensitive that can be compared to the objections of monotheists to "insulting" God with criticism of monotheism. :I don't have much more to say at the moment, I'm waiting for the page to die down before preforming a much needed overhaul. This was a featured article at one time, you know... ;) ::User:Sam Spade 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page. This page needs an overhaul to remove the conservative bias. Please do not begin a major edit without discussing specifics first. That this was once a featured article is ludicrous.--User:Cberlet 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==The steady trickle and the incoherence== Personally, I doubt that this page will ever amount to anything deserving to be called an "article", the way it attracts a steady trickle of unsourced POV contributions, often inserted at points where they detract from coherence. I've removed the contribution of 206.54.124.160, please Wikipedia:NPOV it and return with a source if you wish. 67.114.128.37, please provide a reputable source for your addition, or I'll remove that. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 08:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Rm addition of 67.114.128.37 per above, feel free to return it with citations and Wikipedia:NPOVing. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==OK, merging the lists of examples== Please see my note "The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(" from 13 June above. Nobody has merged the lists as I asked. Nobody has protested against the idea of merging the lists, and nobody has had a word to say in defence of the second list, in response to Joolz' criticisms of it. OK, I'm going to do a somewhat drastic merge, removing not just overlap but dubious terms as well. If you wanted it done differently, change it. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Done: I merged the list aggressively, i. e. I removed glaring errors, under the original heading of "Examples of language modification" and took the opportunity of taking out long-standing examples from the older list of, well, anecdotes, mostly unsourced, which weren't primarily about language at all. This left a pared-down and pretty good list, something that hasn't been there in a long time. I drop the erronoeus items into the well of silence (find them in the History, if you like), but paste below the motley collection of examples of... well, again, I don't know what they're examples of, that's the trouble. The section for them, IMO, would need to be named something like "Unsourced anocdotes and pointless trivia". :-( Here they are, put them back if you can find a context for them (and cites!)--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC): *''Nativity play replaced by an \"End of Season\" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey. *''A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children. *'''''In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents. *''Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement: *''Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm] *''Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be \"political correctness gone mad\".'' --User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) == A plea for sanity == I'm new to this page -- just happened to stop by and be depressed by its state. I see some of the above editors working hard to NPOV and make sense out of this page, and I see most of the IP address people and some wikipedians just writing whatever the hell they feel like. I'd like to join the former group, if I might. I would say this: please, please remember that political correctness, in spite of the fact that it has "political" in its name, is NOT a political subject, but a ''linguistic'' one. While it may be motivated by a political purpose (and that can be addressed within the article), it should first and foremost be approached as a linguistic, rhetorical and/or grammatical topic. If you think PC is great for society, great. If you think it's bad for society, that's great, too. Neither opinion matters at all for the purposes of this article. Thinly veiled attempts to inject biases are quickly spotted by the intelligent reader and are likely to evoke the opposite of the intended effect -- not to mention defeat the purpose of a wikipedia article in the first place. Anyway, that's my two cents. User:RiseAbove 00:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a lot of scholarship on this topic, and very little of it is used by editors in this article. Some say the issue is linguistic, some say it is political. Opinions seem to trump scholarly cites in this article --User:Cberlet 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Worth A Try == I've tried to get a start on a better introduction, keeping in mind that this article, if it's going to be encyclopedic, has to distinguish between the ''term'' "PC" (the rise and use of which is worth recording for its part in the "culture wars") and the ''concept'' of "PC," which is in dispute. I wouldlike to continue weeding out the drek here. It's worth thinking about an allied term like "feminazi." Such a word deserves a short entry: "a derogatory term for feminists or others who promote the social equality of women." It would not be encyclopedic to list under that entry a number of feminist arguments and their refutations. The same applies to "PC," although its uses has been more complex. I would like to delete examples that do not serve the puprose of illustrating a point (sigh) and add some subtlety to the description that steers awy from the left/right dichotomy. (Its users are now more likely to be libertarian in slant that socially conservative.) -- 68.40.200.167 ::I tightened up the language, made it a bit more balanced for the conservative side of things (sigh) and moved the cite to a better place in the paragraph. Otherwise, it it indeed a better introduction. --User:Cberlet 13:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::68.40.200.167, I'm not sure if you intended to take out my copyedit of your intro. I won't change it back, but please check it out: don't you think those were improvements? User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::No problem; sorry. 68.40.200.167 == Editorial Questions == 1) To what standard of grammar do we want to conform this page? There is a relatively large number of grammatical, dictional and rhetorical errors here, but the page seems to be frequently altered and reverted, which can tend to make copyedits pointless. I'm a big grammar Nazi, but am I merely sticking my finger in the dike by attempting to fix these? 2) What is the difference between liberals and progressives? If there is no practical difference (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), we can remove one or the other to augment concision, which this article (especially the intro) badly needs. 3) I switched the "especially" in the second paragraph to "including." Was there a specific reason these forms of identity politics were chosen as especially wont to be accused of political correctness? If so, I think there needs to be a parenthetical citing some stats, or a sentence explaining why. Also, is multiculturalism a form of identity politics? Maybe I'm understanding it in the wrong sense... 4) The first sentence seems to imply that political correctness is disparaging efforts to do what most people consider "good" things, such as "raising awareness" and "eliminating social and political biases." This strikes me as rather POV, in that I infer that political correctness is working against (or at least not taking seriously) these "good" goals by mocking them. I would rather the first sentence, at least, addressed the issue in a more clinical manner. User:Cberlet suggests that it can be considered both a linguistic and a political phenomenon, and that's fine, but shouldn't the article lead with the linguistic aspect? If for no other reason, simply because it's easier to avoid polarizing the reader right off the bat. That's it for now. More when I get to the meat of this bad boy. User:RiseAbove 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == More Criticism Added == I added the following: "Some conservatives would also view the us of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.) Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society." Because I felt like not all the criticism of the "PC concept" necessarily came from the true right of the spectrum (for instance, I would not agree at all that 'feminazi' is an 'allied term'--some level of mocking of 'politically correct' is much, much more widespread and acceptable in the American mainstream), and I thought in general that the lightweightedness of this section posed NPOV problems. -- User: stancollins 20 June, 2005 == "Progressive" == If one does happen to hold the belief that the way in which language is used colors personal and political opinion, then surely the use of the word "progressive" to describe one side of the political spectrum would be objectionable, since it connotes something vaguely scientific, or at least uniquely forward looking, about that side of the debate. In that context, especially on this page, it poses NPOV problems. I decided to put it in quotations. -- User: stancollins 20 June, 2005 ::I tend to agree with you, stancollins. I would rather we just said "liberal" or "left-wing." As I suggested above, I'm not sure the term "progressive" even adds anything if we've already used liberal. Then again, I could be wrong about that... User:RiseAbove 19:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::As a person who has written for "The Progressive" magazine and who considers himself a progressive, it is a bit strange to have people claiming the term has no meaning. Progressives and liberals are both on the political left, but the terms are not identicial in meaning. The quotation marks are POV.--User:Cberlet 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I'm not claiming it has no meaning. If you'll see my questions, above, I was just asking what the difference is among a liberal, a progressive and others on the political left. As someone who has not written for "The Progressive" magazine, and is just some guy off the street, I was left wondering. If there is no meaningful, immediately apprehensible difference, perhaps it would be best to just go with "those on the political left" for the sake of concision and ease of understanding... And I agree with stancollins that the use of the word "progressive" can frequently have a POV effect, especially on a psycholinguistic level. However, I also agree with Cberlet that the quotations can have a similar effect. Thus, I would suggest circumlocution to solve the problem. Further, I think a lot of the introduction to this article is rather rife with psycholinguistic (or, more simply, implied) POV points that could benefit from being looked at (please see my questions, ''supra''). While it may be unavoidable, it is clear between the lines that this article has an agenda, and I think that's not ideal for Wikipedia. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. User:RiseAbove 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Well, OK, maybe solve the problem by just using "those on the political left" ?--User:Cberlet 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and generalised openness to change. Progressive suggests only ''positive'' change, rather than change for its own sake. A true progressive can often appear reactionary, if they are defending decency against an onslaught of moral relativism. User:Sam Spade 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::What outlandish POV right-wing ideology. Liberal = "moral laxity" -- "onslaught of moral relativism" I've seen similar sentiments on quasi-fascist websites.--User:Cberlet 23:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::Trash and insult me all you like, the two words are still not synonyms. User:Sam Spade 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::The two words are not synonyms. Agreed, The rest of your prose is right-wing POV about liberals. That was clearly the point of my comments, which you, as usual, are trying to sidestep by drawing a stinking red-herring across the path. Fascists in the 1930s made the same complaints about liberals and morals and sexual "laxity." Hitler used to write about it. With fascists it was sometimes a way to mask issues of sexual repression or even repressed homoeroticism. Perhaps we need a page on that topic and the role it plays in generating fears among rightists about "PC". In the meantime, this page has an improved lead, and much of the pointless listing of so-called "PC" language has been trimmed. I was not trying to insult you, merely offering a factual observation based on my 30 years of research into the ideology of the political right. --User:Cberlet 00:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Taken care of?=== All right, I have changed the text to read simply "those on the political left," which will, I hope, defuse the "progressive/liberal" usage issue for the time being. I feel we lose nothing as a result of this, because more general terms are properly placed in the introductory paragraphs, and can be expanded and detailed further into the article. Now then, while I generally do not involve myself in others' conflicts, I would say (about the immediately above comments): I definitely agree with Cberlet that I understand "liberal" and "moral laxity"(!) to be in no way synonymous. On the other hand, I would point out that Sam Spade's spelling indicates that he is from a country outside the United States ("generalised"), where the term may have a different connotation or even a completely different meaning. Therefore, I would suggest that we all give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to avoid flames. That way, we can come to a compromise and get a page up on Wikipedia that we can all be proud of. Sorry if that came off as parochial, I just want everyone to be buddies. User:RiseAbove 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Everyone to be buddies? I'm sure you don't mean to patronize anybody, RiseAbove, but abandon that dream, it will not come to pass. (If it did on this particular page, I'll even admit I'd be a little weirded out. Notice how many archives it has..?) What we can more reasonably hope for is for everyone to be civil. The word ''liberal'' has more, not less, positive connotations in Europe than in the US. IOW, the claim that "liberal is suggestive of moral laxity" is even more of an extremist position when it comes from a European. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Heh, okay, so I'm a dreamer. Imagine all the people... ;-) However, I would respond by saying that word "liberal" in French, for example, actually refers to "classical liberalism" (i.e., what we often call libertarianism or, ironically, laissez-faire here in the States). In England, the Liberal Democratic Party holds, in some cases, more conservative views than the more leftist Labour Party (though, in some cases the opposite is true). Anyway, my point is that Europeans don't necessarily have a single viewpoint as to the meaning or connotation of the word "liberal," (i.e., we can't say for certain that it's more or less "positive" than it is here), and that we should try to be tolerant and give people the benefit of the doubt. But hey, I could very well be wrong about that. User:RiseAbove 06:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Incidentally, a point of rhetoric: this is an international encyclopedia in English, not a US encyclopedia, so you might want to make a conscious effort to avoid privileging a US viewpoint in your own use of language, as in "we" versus "Europeans", "here in the States" versus "in England" (notice how I avoided saying "here in Europe" in my own post?). That's a form of POV that many contributors are sensitive to. They might even think you had by the end of your message gotten an American "we" so firmly established that you're saying "we Americans need to be tolerant of those people". Nobody likes to be tolerated. Some people might say I'm splitting hairs or going off at a tangent here, but you're a linguist, you know these effects and implications matter. The article is Americentric enough as it is. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 14:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Well, I must say I was a bit taken aback by the above. It's rather disturbing to be accused of prejudice because of a sentence asking for tolerance. I've done my best to try to smooth over conflicts here, but I think it's better if I just remove myself from the equation at this point, before I get accused of anything worse. I would, however, respond that "[n]obody likes to be tolerated" is a rather confusing statement. Toleration is the best we can hope for from those who disagree with or outright dislike us. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. We have no right to expect those who oppose our views to give them credence or accession (or, moreover, to "like it") merely because we believe that we are right and they are wrong. We do have the right, however, to expect them to tolerate those views and treat us with intellectual respect, just as we should tolerate theirs and take care to treat them with respect. Therefore, whether or not people "like" to be tolerated is, I would say, utterly immaterial. I would also point out that the generalizations that Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans, or that "liberal" is a more positive term than "conservative" are at least as POV, ethnocentric, and -ahem- politically incorrect as my use of the pronoun "we" to stand for a particular perspective on this page. ::I would also say that, despite Cberlet's statements to the contrary, I do feel that the primary problems with this page are the large amount of POV text, coupled with the extremely ambiguous writing which is clearly an attempt to obfuscate that POV. Cberlet has admitted that he self-identifies as a "progressive." Perhaps it would be best to get someone who self-identifies as a moderate or who lacks a strong feeling about this issue, or politics generally, to captain this page. Alternatively, the issue could simply be approached as a linguistic phenomenon, which might help defuse some of the political infighting. To support this viewpoint, please see Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated." Both of those sentences focus on the language and rhetorical aspects of the phenomenon, and either would make a MUCH better first sentence than what is up on the page now. Anyway, I wish everyone here the best of luck getting this page ship-shape. I may be back from time to time, who knows? User:RiseAbove 18:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm sorry, and surprised, that I appeared to be accusing you of anything at all, that was not the intention. I must have sounded aggressive without meaning to—I thought I was being helpful, but obviously not. :-( I meant to be talking about language and the way it will do its own implying—by no means ascribing "prejudice" to you. I honestly do not see that I claimed, even remotely, that "Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans". It is certainly not what I believe. User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 21:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==First phrase== First phrase of the article is pretty complicated grammatically. I am not even sure what it means. Is PC used to eliminate biases? Or it is used to discourage efforts to eliminate biases? "Other forms of representation" - representation of what? Also, is it really true that "political correctness" is used to "discourage efforts to raise awareness" about biases? I would think its main purpose is to avoid offending people who may be sensitive about some issues. [Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker, and it might be just my lack of understanding] --User:Vlad1 04:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I couldn't agree more, Vlad. English ''is'' my first language, and I find that first sentence rhetorically confusing and semantically ambiguous (not to mention more than a little POV, depending on how you read it). I had changed it to a sentence defining PC solely as a grammatical/linguistic concept, but this was reverted back to its current form. I believe (though I am not sure) this happened because the editors came to a consensus that PC is better treated as a political movement than a linguistic phenomenon. While I disagree with this approach (in part because I believe it is likely to generate major POV problems), I realize that Wikipedia operates under a democratic system, and I want to accomodate everyone as best I can. If you'd like to take a stab at it, Vlad, go for it. My biggest suggestion would be to avoid modifiers as much as possible and stick to kernel items only for the opening sentences. Adjectives, adverbs, etc. tend to inject more POV and ambiguity than do simple nouns and verbs. That's my opinion, anyway. User:RiseAbove 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There was a linguistic movement. It was not called Political Correctness--it was an aspect of leftist multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. The term Political Correctness was transformed by U.S. conservatives around 1990 into an attack on multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. It originally was aimed at college curriculum, the linguistic part was just a small aspect of the original criticism. We are not so much arguing about POV here as attempting to accurately reflect the history of the struggle over the term. That so many people think it is all about language is a problem of approaching the subject as if it had no history and no political content. I have cited several major books on the subject, including one by a conservative. I have repeatedly asked for people claiming Political Correctness is primarily a linguistic issue to cite substantial published works rather than biased right-wing websites. Please find a scholarly or substantial mainstream journalistic work that supports your arguments and then edit. But editing based on opinion is not going to last very long on this page. Please note that I have asked for mediation on this page to intervene in my disagreements with Sam Spade. --User:Cberlet 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::According to User:RiseAbove, :::' Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated." ' ::Here is why an encyclopedia is different from a dictionary. What if a dictionary defined "Tax and Spend Liberal" as "conformity to the belief that governments need to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs." How about this: "Pro-life" defined as "conformity to the belief that life is sacred and opposing the murder of unborn children. These are a bit hyperbolic to make the point, but not much. ::Nobody is arguing against the idea that the term "Political Correctness" is used a certain way by a certain group of people. What is at issue here, is the well-documented fact that the meaning of the term was transformed in the early 1990s by conservatives who wanted to attack what they claimed was a rigid liberal orthodoxy that had hijacked college curricula, and was forcing students and others to not use certain language that was considered insensitive or oppressive. The books and journal articles I posted in the references section make this clear. It appears that few people editing this page have bothered to actually read books or journal articles on the subject, and instead rely on the Internet for their information--or rely on ultra-conservative or libertarian sources which are highly biased. ::Using this concpet, then, the definition of "Tax and Spend Liberal" would be more accurate as "the complaint by critics that liberals have a tenedncy to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs." ::Thus the proper definition here for "Political Correctness" would be something like "the complaint by critics that persons on the political left seek to limit language that is seen as insensitive toward some group; and also seek to impose boundaries on certain public language, behavior, and even ideas." --User:Cberlet 12:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I see what you are getting at, but I don't think that what you suggest quite works. We wouldn't define "Crime" as "the complaint that one or more persons have violated the norms of their community." We could define it as "An action that violates the norms of a community sufficiently that the constituted authorities are authorized and directed to punish it." We would probably go on to say that, "The term may variously describe a specific action or the legal definition of a class of actions that are similarly characterized and punished." So, I would propose beginning with something slightly different: ::::Political Correctness is any attempt or desire to limit the terms of discussion on the basis of social or political norms, rather than a concern for free inquiry. Since the early 1990's the term has been used in the United States by commentators on the political right to criticize what they perceive as left-wing attempts to enforce doubtful ideas. The characterization is generally rejected by its alleged practitioners, who claim that they are merely attempting to increase civility and tolerance by campaigning to eliminate expressions that they believe are offensive, inaccurate and/or outdated. Partly as a result of this conflict, as of 2005 the term is rarely used outside of pejorative or humorous contexts. :::Not perfect by any means, but I believe that an interested person with ''no dog in the fight'' would actually be informed by that, which is a reasonable test of NPOV. The first sentence describes what people who use the term in good faith think they are describing. The second documents the dominant serious use without characterizing the claims, and the third does the same for the response. User:Robert A West 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Except, there never was a "Political Correctness" movement in this sense. And people who argue for language sensitivity seldom would say they do not defend "free inquiry." After some collective editing, this seemed like a good compromise: :::::"Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate." ::::As a compromise it was descriptive and yet problematized the term. The rest of the paragraph has lots of merit.--User:Cberlet 19:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Political_correctness:
Political-correctness
Political_Correctness
Political_correctness
Political_correctness
Political_correctness/Archive1
Political_correctness/Archive2
Political_correctness/Archive3
Political_correctness/Archive_4
Political_correctness/Archive_5
Political_correctness/Featured_article_removal_candidates_results
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
