Talk:Political correctness

Facts incorrectness
The article talks about the first appearance, and the fact that the first appearance is in Lenin's book is incorrect, the first appearance is in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) Page 2 U. S. 462. Due to me not knowing much about the subject, I would rather not edit the page itself so I would like someone that knows more about US history to write it. Urish12 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the first use of the two words and the first use in any of its modern meanings. There are recorded examples in US, Europe and Australia of the two words sitting alonside one another - without them having any combined meaning as a term. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC) … ps it doesn't actually say "in Lenin's book" it says "in Marxist-Leninist discourse", ie it became a 'standard-term'. Some sources say it was specifically in Maoist discourse and found its way from there to USSR and thence into Western 'Marxist-Leninist' speech - all the time meaning rigid adherence to "the Party line". Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-imperialism
I believe that the article should be expanded further. I don't understand why the 'Other political correctness' item is removed. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of a classic PC is limited to simple minority discrimination issues. But this cannot fully explain the political correctness of the 2020s. Because PCs in the 2020s are often associated with 'Intersectionality', they are extended from issues, not narrow minority discrimination. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Para below copied from Mureungdowon's talk page:
 * Just to explain, I reverted your additions to 'PC'. I hope my reasons are self-explanatory, the content seems more about anti-Japanism in Korea than about 'PC' itself. I cannot comment on the quality of the content, since I can't actually read the sources, but we have a long-term position on the article that simple 'examples of use' are excluded. This is partly because there are simply too many things that have been described as 'PC', and partly because examples inevitably lead to WP:OR in analysing the meaning/explanation of the example. I cannot say for sure, but your content may, legitimately belong elsewhere on WP. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mureungdowon, I can't add much to what I have already said above. The present article is largely based on book-length studies of the use of the term PC, rather than individual examples of the term's use. So what you need is academic sources of that kind and length saying that the term's use has been extended in the way that you say, and in a way that justifies your addition. The sources for your addition barely mention PC AFAI can see, and are largely a stepping-off point for text about anti-Japanism in Korea. The use of the term in Korea, would anyway be a fairly minor aspect of the term's use in English. As I acknowledge above, I can't read the Asian sources, but I think the addition is off-topic. I am quite happy to be proven wrong if other regular editors here disagree with me. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article. I rather want other users to add more anti-imperialism issue to the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not mention only anti-Japanism in the article. That makes it worse, not better. What you appear to be trying to write seems to be an essay based on uses of the term in a few news sources, rather than a summary of what the best sources say about PC. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoover
Regarding this, the Hoover Institution is an independent conservative think tank. It has loose, contentious ties to Stanford, but isn't part of any of its schools/centers. Reports it self-publishes aren't the same as a manuscript being edited and peer reviewed by Stanford University Press. They're just like any report published by e.g. the Cato Institute or, less charitably, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't seem like we're relying on it for anything, and it doesn't seem helpful as an extra ref IMO. The claim that it's an "academic source" just got my attention. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, if we don't need it! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not found anywhere that the source is available. Likely this means that the citation is not of much practical use to many readers. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, do we have consensus to remove the citation to Duignan @ Hoover? I don't want to boldly delete it if there is still more to discuss. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 18:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Zero objection to removing the source if there's a question about whether it's reliable based on the fact it's an independent conservative think tank [that] has loose, contentious ties to Stanford University Press. That is different from removing it because it's not on Amazon/Marketplace or isn't currently in print. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the citation to Duignan. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)