Talk:Political correctness/Archive 14

"The 1990 article by Richard Bernstein was quite influential:[8][32] "
And this comes from where? "Quite"? This needs to be dealt with by attributed statements. I can't find it in the first source, although I can find it in the 2nd (the web version of an article) However, van Heteren says "The first articles on political correctness in the New York Times appeared at the end of the eighties. John Wilson notes that an article by Richard Bernstein in 1988 “compared a conference on liberal education at Duke University to the tyrannical ‘minute of hatred’ [sic] described in George Orwell's 1984."*2 The mass media use of the term “PC” is generally attributed to this article, but Loma Weir, in a word search on the database Infomart of six “regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers”, found no less than 153 articles in which the terms “politically correct” or “political correctness” appeared between 1 January 1987 and 27 October 1990.’'The 24 December 1990 issue of Newsweek appeared with the words “Thought Police” on the cover as a foretaste of the content of a lengthy inside article by Jerry Adler under the title “Taking Offense: Is This the New Enlightenment on Campus or the New McCarthyism?” This article is often cited as the starting point for the use of “PC” as a derogatory adjective, as it is used twenty-nine times to condemn various manifestations of political correctness, although as Weir has demonstrated, its use had been current in the media for at least three years."

In other words, the idea that the article was quite influential is challenged but we state it as fact. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll modify it to be attributed statements then. Please also read after that because you split a sentence into two and only read the first part. The challenge is to the 1988 article, not the 1990 one. The 1990 one blew the bank. The Newsweek one also appeared in December. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, but my main point still stands as you seem to realise. Doug Weller (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence and just left in the Nexis citations sentence. I can try to find an attributed statement. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I now understand what the problem is. I didn't remember why I had added the other two sources there behind the Nexis sentence, so I moved them up ahead and latched them behind the first part. But it seems the source for the Nexis citations also states the article to have been influential. It uses that word. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

On another page, I forgot to add. I had noted only a single page but a different one had also talked about the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this discussion, but have put a 'clarification tag' on this sentence. 'Influental' is very vague, if the meaning is simply 'spread the term more widely', could the point not be made within the previous sentence. Otherwise the 'character' of the influence shouls be stated, which includes becoming 'derogatory'. Other sources also claim that these articles took the term outside academia, though that is not necessarily endorsed by the 'word search'. There is a flaw in the 'word search' argument, which is that the timeframe overlaps with the NYT articles (but that's OR on my part of course and I state it only as 'background'). Pincrete (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What word search are you talking about? If the first one, it counts 153 from many years. Pay close attention to how it stops at October 27, because October 28 blows the roof apart. It's of course the date of the publication of the 1990 Bernstein article. After that it jumps to 1500. Coincidence? I don't think so. The influential is also used in this context by the Crossroads source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm taking up the suggestion of removing the previous sentence. I'm moving the 1991 NYT article mention to just before the quotes appear. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: What word search are you talking about?. The one referred to at the end of the 'van Heteren' quote given by Doug W above, and partially used in the article. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As in the 153 one like I talked about. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think 'influental' is meaningless unless the nature of the influence is noted. I also think that Weir's 'word search' is meaningless divorced from the point that Heteren is making. My reading of the two is that Heteren is arguing towards This article is often cited as the starting point for the use of “PC” as a derogatory adjective giving Weir's search as evidence that it previously was not derogatory. I am neutral as to whether this point is worth making, but very un-neutral about misrepresenting Heteren's argument or OR by borrowing bits from it while leaving its overall substance 'on the cutting room floor'. I have already noted that due to 'time overlap' and not comparing like-with-like (NYT & provincial Canadian papers), Heteren/Weir's 'proofs' are more indicative than conclusive (we can bear that last point in mind, but not include it in the article). Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add influential in what way tomorrow. And your bit about "derogatory adjective" is talking about the later Newsweek one and neither of the Bernsteins, please read through more carefully. There also is no time overlap but on the 1988 one because the search ends October 27. Weir is well-sourced and worth mentioning. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re 'derogatory', apologies you are right, Newsweek not NYT. I still don't understand the point of including 'Weir', nor 'influental' without context. There IS a time overlap if the 1988 NYT is counted, though as I've said, it would be OR to point to it.Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep writing influental? You've seen me write it influential numerous times? The word in the article is influential???? And I wrote I'll add the context tomorrow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Typing error noted. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the introduction of the article entirely, only to be mentioned in the 1990s section?
NOTE: RfC discussion on this topic is in the section below link added by:Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the introduction of the article entirely, only to be mentioned in the 1990s section?

As it stands, I think so, and I believe it's claimed mostly by WP:OR that he popularized the term.

I realized earlier that a lot of editors have mixed up two books of Dinesh D'Souza. He has two books titled Illiberal Education, with the political correctness one released in 1992. The 1991 book doesn't contain the term even once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 0 Alright, I have multiple sources which use the term in 1991 or before, before he ever did:


 * http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all "Published: October 28, 1990 - IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct - Richard Bernstein"






 * http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html "Published: May 5, 1991 - Political Correctness: New Bias Test? - Robert D. McFadden"




 * http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/political-correctness-and-the-suicide-of-the-intellect "June 26, 1991 - Political Correctness and the Suicide of the Intellect - Harvey C. Mansfield"




 * http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=192context=law_lawreview "January 1991 - Political Correctness and the American Law School - Steven C. Bahls"


 * In fact, the popularizer of the term is most likely the 41st president of the United States, George H. W. Bush:


 * http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en




 * The 1991 NY Times article above also refers to this speech by the president. Other magazines have referred to the NY Times article.


 * The sources referring to Dinesh D'Souza talk about his 1991 book. In the main source used, Schultz, Debra L. (1993). "To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the 'Political Correctness' Debates in Higher Education," the book being referred to is:


 * The 1992 book is 32 pages long and only seems to be based on a speech of his. I think this is the entirety of it:
 * http://ashbrook.org/publications/illiberal-education/


 * Some may argue against this. Note that the attribution of Dinesh in the introduction was edited in by one of the arguers. Their common argument will be providing sources that don't attribute the term to D'Souza, but simply mention that he had a book about censorship at campuses. They won't mention the 4 notable books that did this before. If not that, his website which says he talked about political correctness in 1991, except he didn't use the term.


 * Okay, discuss. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 1 An RfC is supposed to be clearly and neutrally phrased, this is neither.Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2 What specific points are being disputed and therefore what is the question of this RfC? Is it the word 'popularised', then suggest another that more accurately reflects the role d'Souza's books played in the 'PC in education debate'. Is it that d'S was not the only 'critic' of 'illiberal' trends in US higher education, suggest a broader phrasing then. Is it that the 'education debate' ITSELF was not a significant feature of the widening of the use of the term 'PC' in the US. It matters little whether he himself used the term once, if it was widely used to 'summarise' his criticisms, by both his 'friends and foes', though in that case a better description should be found. At present you want to include G Bush's 'one-off' use of the term in the lead, but remove any description of the 'education debate', that Bush's use was a response to, despite that 'education debate' featuring prominently in virtually every source you cite. There may be flaws in the present wording, but they are not remedied by simply excising the content. Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 3 Alright, I made it more neutral. But note that only the first 3 lines are the RfC. Anything after that is pretty much a single huge comment, except I didn't wish to input a dozen different comments for it. I noticed how others had done similarly on the RfC, making the actual RfC bit short and sweet and then adding a much more detailed description following up, obviously of their view. I added "Comment 0" to make it more clear. Note that the beginning should also contain my view on the matter, so even the first 3 lines can't be absolutely neutral. Dinesh D'Souza may have had to do with the debate, but so little that he doesn't belong in the introduction in my view. For there are many who are more influencial than him: The New York Times, the journalists and the president himself, most notably. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 4 I took up on your suggestion and kept Dinesh D'Souza in the introduction, but removed the word popularized. I noted that he influenced the term using similar language. In addition to the president, the sources have constantly stated the NY Times articles to have been the most important popularizers. I also noted the constantly appearing The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, which is even mentioned by Dinesh multiple times. It kept appearing in our sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is 'you', which suggestion? Don't answer that, it is intended to point out that an outside editor coming to this RfC is almost guaranteed to find the content incomprehensible and will leave without contributing. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that state that the NYT articles are the most important part? That's the key part of this entire argument!  Those are the sources you need to present.  Currently, you've only linked to the NYT articles themselves, not to anyone saying they were important; all they say is that GWB used the term, not that he sparked the debate. --Aquillion (talk)
 * It was posted earlier by Fyddlestix but yeah you're right I should add it as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 5 I found an incredible source which claims The New York Times to have popularized the term — just like the Berman book says — as far back as in 1988. The journalist is the same as in the 1990 one, Richard Bernstein: Political Correctness in Context: The PC Controversy in America


 * There are now two books which explicitly claim The New York Times to have popularized the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First use does not equal popularise. The article itself notes many uses prior to d'Souza (et al), if you object to the specific term 'popularise' (which is anyway a vague one = took out to a broader public), suggest a more precise phrasing of the role d'S took in the 'education debate' and the role the term 'PC" took in that debate, and the role that debate took in 'popularising' the term. Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker, by making this into a confused-off topic mess, which never even identifies the question, you have virtually guaranteed that no outside editor will bother to comment. If you want to discuss matters OTHER than the RfC, please do so in the relevant sections.Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It states that PC term in wide use is generally attributed to the New York Times article and its writer Richard Bernstein, who also made a similar article two years later. And the Berman book states that the whole national debate began from a New York Times article. The New York Times articles are also the earliest wide use examples of the term in use to be easily found. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It states that PC term in wide use is generally attributed to the New York Times article and its writer Richard Bernstein, who also made a similar article two years later. And the Berman book states that the whole national debate began from a New York Times article. The New York Times articles are also the earliest wide use examples of the term in use to be easily found. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That is ONE source that attributes to NYT, numerous sources put d'Souza (and others) at the centre of the 'education debate'. The debate itself is anyway the key issue, the character of that debate, the issues being discussed/argued over, and the effect it had in introducing and defining the term. This isn't a 'pissing competition' about who was first/most central. The whole issue is easily solvable by phrasing 'passively' eg 'the term entered mainstream use as a result of (description of debate and key players and when). Nobody to my knowledge has ever put G Bush as a major contributor to that debate, he belongs in 'history', at most, marking a point that the term had acquired general acceptance (as he himself says). Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One? There are two books which attribute it to NYT but of which only the incredible one specifically investigated who came up with the term itself, and the articles again are the earliest example of wide use of it we can find — obviously being evidence of popularization as well. You have a single source which places only D'Souza at the center and it's the tiny paraphrasal on the Phyllis website — which isn't even used as a source in the article. The rest first mention it on like page 10 after mentioning numerous other things before. Your main source, Schultz, mentions Bloom foremost, after which it mentions two other books before D'Souza, which finally it says was as talked-about as Bloom. Only as talked-about as Bloom, who came 5 years earlier. You don't think Bloom is more the center of this? I also noticed that Bush is mentioned in the history section by someone else before. I didn't edit that in. They also used a source I haven't used. That's how notable Bush's speech is, because it was noted before. I went back in edit history to find out when exactly it was added. It was added in 2006! The introduction originally didn't go into specifics about who came up with the term, which is why it likely wasn't added to the introduction before now. If you remove the origin specifics from the introduction then that includes removing D'Souza. I also noticed you put in clarification needed behind NY Times mention for the subject, which is already mentioned to be political correctness? Isn't the declaration needed entirely pointless when the subject is already mentioned? But for now I think the Schultz source should be moved up a sentence because it foremost mentions Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and note that the GHWB quote in the history section is another quote, but from the same speech. The one in the introduction is him using the specific term political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think the "more" mainstream you added is extremely clumsy. I mean "more mainstream"? Really? It was underground before and now it's entered "more" mainstream? You don't think it just entered mainstream? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 'More' was intended to avoid any (pointless) disputes about defining PRECISELY WHO was responsible for, and at precisely which point the word became 'mainstream'. More sources draw attention to the role of the books than to NYT, so NYT would probably lose that competition. Possibly they draw attention because NYT was reporting the debate, the books were influencing the debate.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But the sentence is about the term, on which none draw attention to the books, but the articles. The debate's in books, yes, but not the term. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re:The debate's in books, yes, but not the term, yes that is why I tried to avoid any suggestion that they used the term ('response to'). My phrasing may be improvable though. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment 6 Many of the new sources aren't mentioned in this RfC. Maybe it's time for a new section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

talk You should close (and'hat'?) this RfC. Otherwise you guarantee confusion to any new editor coming to the discussion. Where are they expected to reply and about which proposal? Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC said that if you need to close it, just remove the tag. I'm not sure if the noticeboard close is meant for RfCs. I also looked at the RfC page and this disappeared from there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker apologies, yes you have effectively 'closed'. I still think that it is going to be confusing to 'incomers' who will simply read the section headings at the head of the page. I suggest something is done (hatting?) to point people in the right direction. If you don't know how to do that, I will do so for you with your 'say so'.Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why bother, these sections are on the fast track to the archive. It won't take long before what began all of this is in the archive. I removed the RfC from the title, no one even commented here. It's basically our normal discussion with "Comments." And personally, the purple messes up the text on my monitor, making the text hard to read. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring, time to stop
I'm involved so won't take any Admin action, but both of you are at or over 3RR. I'd advise a break until tomorrow. Talk here, don't edit. I'm not saying they aren't good faith edits, but 3RR applies to good faith edits. Doug Weller (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No war is happening right now. There's basically concensus on these minor matters, which no one even really cares about. There was a brief throwdown earlier about the lead when you suddenly stepped in, but it didn't even go over a single revert. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That is misrepresenting the situation, there is on your part repeated 'sneaky' addition of political 'labels', (which was seemingly settled some time ago, that they served no useful purpose). Repeated removal of d'Souza from the lead (where he has been for months and whose removal three long-term editors have expressed opposition to). The same absurd argument is repeated, that there is no consensus to KEEP d'Souza (+ variations on 'if I can't have Bush, you can't have d'Souza). The RfC is open and that is the place to put your arguments (and another one about 'labels' if you wish).Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Repeated repeated repeated and nothing you do is of course repeated. I feel like the pot is calling the kettle black. And everything was declared in edit summaries. You add edit summaries like "ce" and then edit a bunch of stuff. You don't think that's sneaky? Again, the pot calling the kettle black. I placed no arguments here; just shows that any venue you find you'll go badmouthing me. You also remove a lot of stuff often without any concensus. I add without concensus but with sources, you remove without concensus and without sources. Also, I don't see any of these other editors. Are you going to call one to come toot your horn now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Point to one instance of me repeatedly inserting content which I had good reason to believe did NOT have consensus? Or removing content whose presence I had reason to believe DID have consensus. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've added sneaky-beaky changes like this to the lead which completely change the meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=prev&oldid=665442797 The removal I don't even have to bother with because that took place even today. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I mean if it "disadvantages" someone it's more like libel and lawsuit material than the matter of political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh dear me, you went back to June to find that! Can you explain to me what the difference is between 'upsetting' someone and 'offending them', the former is a pallid version of the second and is almost a tautology. Do you seriously think that 'to not offend or upset any group of people in society'  is better or more accurate than 'to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.' Policies about ensuring equal access to public services etc., (whether you agree with those policies or find them 'excessively calculated'), for the disabled, for women, for particular races or other social groups, are designed to ensure these people are not 'upset' are they?


 * So, I take this as a 'no', you can't point to any instance of me edit-warring against consensus. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was one I wanted to point out. You've had plenty of similar others. And you can't disadvantage someone without it being pretty much libel and lawsuit material. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another case I'd especially like to point out is one where Pinc removed Aqu's edit which I supported. Aqu had added a such for both Toynbee and Hutton, after I had argued for much stronger labels. Pincrete then removed the latter, obviously against concensus. About the labelings: Now, I had originally read the article and found it very badly written. At first I thought it were due to all the labelings I saw and then Toyn and Hut missing them, which is why I fought so much for them. Later due to some random editor's (who by the way obviously supports my view on the matter) lead edit, I noticed it was mostly the lead that was badly written — though parts of the main article as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As has been said many times, if you feel you have a case about the behaviour of other editors, WP:ANI is the place to go. If I have misunderstood the concensus about the 'labels', I will remedy the situation. The compromise, as I understood it, was to attach a 'such' (ie such a critic), to Toynbee. I am strongly opposed to labelling anyone, unless it is necessary to understanding the context, especially when the labelling is 'crude', such as 'left-affiliated'.Pincrete (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources provided mention the word "pejorative"
None of the sources provided mention the word "pejorative." Pejorative is completely unsourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a paraphrase of the larger text of the five sources already there, all of which describe it in terms that make it clear it's pejorative. Nonetheless, if you want sources that use the term 'pejorative' specifically, I've added two. I can get more if you want, but it's already the most extensively-cited part of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The second one you added doesn't have the word, and the first one is an incredibly biased source because it writes that many critics use the term to encompass a wide range of matters but then it tries to argue against this, so that only the pejorative connotation is retained. In fact, it seems like the writer of the article would like to it that even though the term is not solely a pejorative, he wants it forced to be so. I also notice you brutally edited against concensus and removed the "ordinarily" entirely. Valereee questioned the pejorative use (and added the citation needed) and so I have. Many others on the talk page have also questioned the pejorative. I will obviously revert this edit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also find it funny that you two appear 15 minutes apart, and after I mentioned yesterday you've been gone long and that I don't see anyone supporting Pinc around. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources provide the citation requested. From Stark:  "Unfortunately, "Political Correctness" has become a pejorative label — even when used to describe..."  From Roberts:  "Of one point, though, we can be certain: the ferocity and breadth of the assault has given 'political correctness' an unquestionably pejorative connotation..."  Objecting on the grounds that you don't agree with a source's logic is unreasonable; even if the source were WP:BIASed, we can use biased sources, but in this case you're essentially just saying that you don't want to accept a source because you disagree with it.  Regardless, since you insisted, I've added another source (Vincent, "What is “political correctness”? The origins of the term are now rather hazy, but it is clear that, whatever the original meaning of the term, it is now used in a pejorative sense.")  You can't remove sources simply because you object to what they're saying or because you disagree with their logic; if you feel that they're making a mistake, find other sources that disagree, and we can cover the disagreement, or determine which side in the debate is more mainstream and which is WP:DUE more weight. --Aquillion (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with 'pejorative', though the most frequently used descriptor is 'derogatory', which is also more generally understood. If a change were made, I suggest 'derogatory' with a piped link to 'pejorative', since we don't have a  'derogatory' page. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the "is an ordinarily pejorative term" doesn't sound like proper grammar. I added em dashes to properly point out the break in the sentence. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and the style of usage I learnt was that the breaker is always an em dash and never an en dash, and comes with spaces. Depending on your location in the States this varies. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 'A ordinarily' is better is it? It's usually 'an' before a vowel. The dashes are unnec, commas would suffice, though I don't see the need for either. The sentence is perfectly grammatical in UK usage (what is the grammatical difference from 'Michael is an uncommonly fat boy'?). Do US editors feel the change is an improvement? Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's a parenthetical statement, it's not spoken normally but with a pause. If you look at em dash usage you wouldn't use an here. Commas aren't really meant to be used like this even though you sometimes do see it from people who don't know em dashes are used for it. They know such a possibility of sentence formation exists but they don't know how exactly to mark it so they use commas instead. In the boy example the uncommonly fat is the focus itself while in our sentence the focus is that it's the "a term that is X" as in the subject and its follow-up description. The addition of ordinarily pejorative is a quick mid-sentence sidenote. I tried switching ordinarily to other words like commonly in my mind but it still seems broken without the em dashes. Which is better, ordinarily or commonly? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the rating description here you can see an alternative style with double en dashes used in a similar situation. I just happened to stumble upon this. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Easy on the reverts please. I've blocked one editor - more reverts may lead to more blocks. This dispute may be a good candidate for WP:DRN. --Neil N  talk to me 19:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's funny how I get blocked yet Aquillion doesn't, when he's been doing the exact same as I have. You can see the multiple times he has reverted twice per day, stopping before the infamous three reverts. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

 * nb edit conflict with preceding section.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you are knowingly edit-warring. Three editors Aquillion,Fyddlestix, and myself have pointed out that there is no consensus for adding the 'left' labels,.

You also seem to misunderstand the need for consensus and the use of sources. No one needs consensus for what is already in the article, WP is predicated on the basis that what has been there for a while HAD the consent of editors, addition, removal or alteration needs consensus. If you are not happy with what is there and cannot persuade fellow editors to change it, WP:RfC or WP:DRN are open to you.

Regarding sources, the existence of a source is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. I could probably find sources that described d'Souza as an adulterous, Catholic, Indian-born divorcee, innumerable sources that described Hutton as a noted academic economist, Toynbee as an atheist, feminist award-winning journalist. Perhaps I could find sources for everybody's favourite food or the Dixie Chicks politics or average bust-size. We would not consider including any of these, because they would be irrelevant to understanding, which is the main purpose of describing people and what they are saying, not to 'label' them.

I was initially reluctant to revert your today edits, because I did not have the time to work through them to see which might be 'legit', however when I realised that you had replaced a well-supported description of d'Souza's book with your own interpretation of it, I had no hesitation. Strangely, we don't rely on editors or authors to write summaries of books, otherwise we'd soon have someone claiming that Mein Kampf is a book by a very nice man, that doesn't mention anti-semitism anywhere!Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I second the call for WP:DRN. I see a number of persuasive arguments on this talk page ignored or reverted, despite reasonable sourcing. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've pointed out multiple times the article vastly overlabels anything as conservative and right-wing. But you keep ignoring this. Your points about "favourite foods" and so is an obvious straw man. You once even yourself edited out one right-wing to appease, but then Aquillion edited it back. You accept it, because it leans towards your bias of labeling all of the right and removing all labelings of the left. It can't get more clear than this. I already wrote how nothing I will ever suggest will be accepted by you. I've pointed out how your sources don't have anything like what the article contains. And the change to the introduction wasn't originally mine, but I saw how biased it had been after the edits made it vastly more neutral. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove some of the right-wing labels, go ahead and point out which ones you think aren't well-supported or relevant. The one you've focused on (d'Souza) is extremely well-sourced in terms of both its applicability and its relevance, but we can discuss the best way to frame and describe it if you want. --Aquillion (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of them, if no left-affiliations are allowed either? The point was that both should be listed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Right' and 'left' (and 'liberal') are mostly used to denote broad groups. Individuals are identified only where context demands. When you 'counted' you omitted 'labor leader' and 'Marxism'. Simply counting isn't much of an indicator of neutrality, especially since the term PC is mainly used by critics, who are mostly social/political conservatives. You say higher above that you have never complained about 'conservatives', now you are again complaining of over-use of 'conservative'. I challenged you above to provide a BETTER brief description of d'Souza's book, which was sourced and imformative.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also didn't count "libertarian" or "Republican" either. Both by counting and looking at the article, any conservative's or right-winger's affiliation is way more easily noted. I mean the Daily Mail is noted to be conservative twice, but The Observer's affiliation isn't noted! The most obvious missing affiliations are those of Toynbee and Hutton, latter of which described himself left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing one of the DM's descriptor's. BTW the DM is Conservative, (ie it supports that political party), both Observer and Guardian have no party affiliations and vary from election to election as to who they endorse, that they both tend to be socially more liberal is probably true, but is not a fixed ideological position. They are liberal mainly in the UK sense of the word, in the US the word is almost synonomous with 'left wing'. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article on The Observer does say they take a liberal plus democratic stance on most issues. Daily Mail seems to be as right-wing as The Observer is left-wing, as long as you don't pay attention at the quality of either journal. And removing one of two is petty, when you add none for the other. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'liberal' has a different meaning in UK. 'Republican' is used once in the article (quoting a 'South Park' spin-off term). We don't mention either the 'Observer' or 'Guardian' except to attribute one quote and within refs, so why would we characterise them? Do you also want all refs to contain 'political labels'? If we were half as biased as you seem to believe, we would be leaping on your 'liberal plus democratic stance' description. I have already said that both papers are broadly socially liberal, (but not necessarily Liberal), in English usage, liberal is almost a synonym of 'moderate', 'broad-minded', 'reasonable', so I'm not objecting because the word is pejorative, or because it is 'political'. I'm objecting because it does not aid understanding in any way.Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marxist was also used in similarly silly fashion as Republican. I see you removed the mention of The Observer entirely for some reason? The point there was to simply be a brick in the wall of the great countdown of number of mentions of either side, it wasn't particularly notable or important. I enjoy arguing and I'll go on about anything if you let me. In addition to being here I'm also arguing on forums with people who like the Star Wars prequels, bleh. If only there was an article that claimed they were culturally important. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to Edit warring ?
Mr. Magoo and McBarker, you know there is no consensus to remove d'Souza from the lead and you have opened a RfC about it. You know there is no consensus to attach labels to Hutton and Toynbee (especially silly ones like 'kin', are they cousins?). We don't attach labels to NYT equally, Why? Because they are unnecessary to understanding the context and because NYT is primarily thought of as a paper, not as a mouth piece of any position.

There were good additions within your series of edits, I hope I or you will restore them during the day, but using them as a 'mask' to edit war is wasting everyone's time. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You were the one who started removing my edits which I have added days earlier and which you agreed with for days? You are the nut one here? There isn't concensus to your additions as both me and valereee oppose your and Aquillion's bizarre changes to the article, even if they happened months back when we weren't around. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker, what needs explaining further? One doesn't need agreement to keep the US constitution, you need agreement to add to, remove from or rephrase it. A similar principle applies here. I'm sure Jefferson etc. didn't ask your or my or anyone's permission to phrase it how they did. Your no consensus for what happened six months ago arguments are as silly and as far away from WP policy as my silly example. (I don't recall valereee supporting any of your arguments) Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The constitution wasn't written either 5 months or 2 days ago. It was written 227 years ago. The article was created over 10 years ago. Val also didn't support "mine" but I agree with some of Val's, which disagree with yours. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr. Magoo, 5 months ago constitutes a long term stable version on WP. The same principle applies, for fairly obvious reasons, an editor cannot come in and claim 'I wasn't here when this was written, therefore there is no concensus'. It is up to that editor to establish concensus for his changes, the stable version is presumed to have had agreement, (if you are unable to so persuade, there are mechanisms for 'outside mediation'). I'm sure 'Val' is old enough to speak for himself if he wishes, especially since it is stretching any evidence beyond breaking point to claim that he supports many of your 'arguments'.


 * Recent edits, where there is not a concensus for changes, the 'default position' is to return to the last stable version, lack of concensus cannot be used to revert to your own favoured version, which has never established ANY concensus or even support apart from yourself, as here. I have a compromise proposal, which I have meant to make for several days, which I hope accomodates all long and short term objectors, I have not made it so far, as I am spending an inordinate amount of time explaining BASIC principals of policy.


 * this edit is what is called a WP:POINTY edit, certainly a 'pointy' edit reason 'Since we're adding off-topic notifications, adding one here as well,'  ie 'you can do it so can I'. Instead of answering why there is an entire paragraph (including publicity material from the publisher), with no discernible connection made to 'PC', you leave this tag. Is the tag claiming that the sources do not support the connection between D'Souza and PC or what?


 * this edit, check out WP:Common names, we don't on WP refer to 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', even less to longer versions of that name, the common name is either UK, GB, or 'United Kingdom'. In the case of book titles, we would almost always omit any sub-titles. Deliberately 'piping' the link in order to include the lengthy sub-title is a perverse variation of policy.


 * this edit giving this edit reason 'Since D'Souza mostly talks about victimization in the sources, I added it as the firstmost thing'  … … this appears to be missing the point 'by a mile'. I matters nothing what D'Souza 'mostly talks about', (which appears to be OR) within the sentence he 'condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums. Does he condemn victimisation as being due to 'liberal efforts', and more importantly, do the sources say that?


 * Why development? if you mean more than spread, towards 'how' it was being used/seen, the meaning attached to the term, then what do sources say, otherwise 'development' 'begs a question', which it does not answer.


 * Incidentally 'Hughes' notes use of the term (with its present meaning) in NYT on May 11, 1986 “There’s too much emphasis on being PC.” In the same period The Independent (UK paper) noted (November 11, 1989): “We thought we’d be accused of not being PC.” He also notes the term being used 'in conservative journals such as Commentary, the New Republic, and The New Criterion, as well as in the national weeklies:'  prior to 1990. He also records 'literal use' of the term among 'radicals' (mainly feminists), as I recall, in the mid-'80's. Given all that, I think it would be wrong to place TOO MUCH emphasis on the NYT articles. That they were significant, is I think supported, that they were in any sense 'primary', is not.Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All I added were the em dashes. Other than that the version stood there for months. And the second's not pointy because I learned about the off-topic mention for the first time there. If we can add such things then I'm adding them as well. For the third you linked "common names" which is ridiculous, for the book has no commonly accepted name. The full name was used in the critic source. The subtitle is also a good description on its own. By the fourth point I notice your arguments are getting worse and worse. "Do the sources say that?" Yes, I wrote in the edit description they do. Anything else? After that you only mention something incomprehensible about development. You also point too much emphasis on NYT after you quote NYT to have again been the popularizer of the term. Don't you see the illogicality in your arguments? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the lead, only to be mentioned in the main article? 2.0
Should Dinesh D'Souza be removed from the lead, only to be mentioned in the main article?

The man's importance to the term is dubious. The term's had widespread use before he wrote the first Illiberal Education in 1991, which doesn't seem to even use the term. The second one isn't that notable, a mere 32 page speech-to-text. Obviously he should be mentioned in the article, but in the lead? I don't think so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the current wording of the lead:


 * The term  (Political correctness) had only scattered usage prior to the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times.[6][7][8][9][10][11] The phrase was widely used in the debate about the 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom,[3][12][13] and gained further currency in response to conservative author Dinesh D'Souza,[3][13] who condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action and changes to the content of school and university curriculums.[3][5][14][15]


 * Virtually all sources identify D'Souza's writings and views as being pivotal to the debate about higher education within the US in the 1990's, during which the term 'PC' entered popular use. Whether D'Souza actually used the term himself in his book is largely academic, and we do not imply that he did. A similar number of sources identify the ideas in Bloom's book as influential in the 1990's debate, around which use of the term 'PC' coalesced. The current phrasing of the lead is 'work in progress', since the distinct role of Bloom and distinct character of his books is not currently identified and should be. Bloom and D'Souza's books, are frequently spoken of 'in the same breath' in relation to PC, such as the comment that their two books "captured the press's imagination" in popularising a debate about 'PC'. In order to justify removing D'Souza from the lead, I would need to be persuaded that D'Souza's writing did NOT significantly contribute to the 1990's US public debate about 'PC in higher education', or that that debate was not central to 'defining' the modern use of the term. No evidence is provided of either. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, they don't. They identify Bloom foremost, like the most central of your sources, Schultz does. Even D'Souza himself attributes much to Bloom. And the "captured the press's imagination" is fairly unsourced as I asked for the part where it's mentioned and whole sentence, yet haven't received it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead does not give pre-eminence to the role of either, (which is a 'was it John or Paul who contributed most to the Beatles success?' question, ie much more fruitful to identify what the contribution of each was) neither should the lead give pre-eminence unless sources are fairly overwhelmingly clear about that. The argument that you are NOT making is that D'Souza's contribution was NOT significant. 'Less significant', is a detail, which (if very clearly true), could be covered by attaching a single 'especially' to either's name. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When you read an article on 9/11 you don't see all of the terrorists names in the lead because that would be cluttersome. Only Osama is mentioned in the lead. The ringleader and a pilot Mohamed Atta isn't. The mention of Bush was removed from the lead of this article for the very same reason. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists, I've no idea why Atta etc. are not named on that lead, but doubt that it is AT ALL related to why G Bush is not in our lead. I've seen sillier analogies, but not recently. Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point was that Dinesh's only importance noted by the sources seems to be his 1991 book which doesn't feature the term. Bloom's 1986 book also doesn't and has been stated in most of the sources to have begun the debate. Bloom is much more important to the debate. Dinesh's only link to the term is his 1992 32-page speech-to-text which is sidenoted in a single source. By that time everybody were using the term anyways, like proven by the sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times Bloom (0) or d'Souza (a few) actually used the term 'PC' is a detail. The lead says 'in response to' ie the term was being used in discussions, articles etc. by those discussing these books, the ideas in them, and the broader debate about higher education. Every source (I have read) discussing 'PC', identifies a significant role for d'Souza. Whether Bloom or d'Souza were pre-eminent is a seperate (and IMO fruitless) discussion. You cannot coherently use the argument that Bloom was MORE significant, to assert that d'Souza was NOT significant. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and D'Souza only used it after it had already spread all over the country and was in use by the conservatives. Even George H.W. Bush used it a year before D'Souza. With this logic we should add Bush back to the lead, shouldn't we? And about Bloom: every D'Souza source in the article mentions Bloom foremost, with the possible exception of the one whose full quote you're not willing to provide. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we do not claim that d'Souza was the first, second, nth, main or sole user of the term, what is your point? What we claim is that both Bloom and D'Souza's books and ideas were central to the debate in the 1990's in the US, principally about education, during which 'PC' was much used as a term. Every book on the subject (which I have read) makes that point, varying little in how they make that point. Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't but it's still central as to who had a hand in the origin. From Bloom sprout both the debate and D'Souza himself. From the debate sprout the NYT articles, mind you before D'Souza. The 1988 article also focuses on Bloom, so Bloom was also likely central to the early NYT articles; meaning they sprouted from him. D'Souza is like a third wheel to Bloom and NYT. If I were to exaggerate a bit it would be like mentioning Donald Trump or Ben Carson. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, all of the sources have got it wrong is your argument? And I imagine than when they refer to D'Souza's book, Errrrr, they are referring to his book, the one that topped the best-seller's list, not a speech he gave or anything else. Or did they also get that wrong? Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of what I'm saying. And the references are again to his 1991 book but not the 1992 one which actually features the term and is a 32-page speech-to-text. Also, Bloom was the top best seller for four months. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  'How many times Bloom or d'Souza actually used the term 'PC' is a detail. The lead says 'in response to' ie the term was being used in discussions, articles etc. by those discussing these books and the ideas in them.'  The 'Hughes book' refers to D'Souza about 70 times (mainly quotes from his book), Bloom is cited hardly at all. Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by detail? And likewise "in response to" Bloom, who came years earlier and began the debate. And I checked the Hughes book and it mentions Bloom many times. In its beginnings section it begins with Bloom and then goes through 2 other books before finally mentioning D'Souza. It keeps mentioning Bloom before D'Souza. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean by 'detail' has already been explained and is obvious. The number of times either used the term themselves, is clearly irrelevant to how frequently the term was used by others, when discussing their books and ideas. Even if you could prove that Bloom was MORE important than D'Souza, that would not be an argument for D'Souza not being significant. You are right, Hughes' first and second mentions of their names both put Bloom first, that is for the simple reason that the first mention is a chronological list and the second an alphabetical one, and 1987 was before 1991 and B comes before S.


 * I won't be posting any more in this thread, since it now goes round in circles. Clearly, there are NO valid reasons for removing D'Souza from the lead (ps I overestimated how many cites there are to D'Souza in 'Hughes', not that it is important, since there are many more than to Bloom and I don't think who is MORE significant is either answerable, or important) Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clearly relevant, because the article's exactly about that. The article's not about the debate in the higher education. If you want to create an article for that, then be my guest. Even that would mostly star Bloom. And I already have. All of the sources do. Bloom's book is so important it had its had its own article for 13 years. Dinesh's book is mentioned on a few books and even then its not directly linked with the term, being mentioned 10 pages apart at best. All of the Dinesh sources point out Bloom. Dinesh himself points out Bloom. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

New section on 1980s
I added a new section on the 1980s, because stuff from the 1980s keeps appearing. I think I'll add Allan Bloom to the 1980s section later, which requires reworking of the 1990s section. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I also apologize for my numerous comma and period edits, because according to US rules they go inside the quotation marks no matter what. I didn't know that in Britain they don't necessarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Hey the article's US' was correct. Any article, once the 'main usage' is established, follows that main usage, this article is established as US spelling + usage, BUT we don't alter quotes. Hence I write -ised on talk, but -ized in the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does say that the article should be improved and the issue talked about on talk page, after mentioning that the perspective is from the US? That's why I removed the hey. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was just explaining 'norms', not 'getting at you'. The article's usage is US Eng, but it's subject matter shouls aim to reflect 'outside US' as well. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The whole article is about a term, and the uses of that term. Early days I know, but simply noting the use of the term in the 1980's without (RS'd) analysis of the use of that term (who/how/what context?), is a bit pointless. The 'Geoffrey Hughes' does I think, go into that, he claims (from memory) that the term was predominantly in use among US radicals, notably radical feminists AND as an ironic. He also claims that the term was widely used by Maoists (in China, much earlier) and 'picked up' in the US, where it quickly became ironic. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm adding Bloom there. In addition, I might fluff what exists up a bit. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1980's first, the unintended consequence of moving Bloom, is to detach him from the remarks made about him and d'S, 10 years later which make the connection with PC, this is fixable.


 * Second there are quite a few 'generalisations' in the '80's section, which don't appear to be supported by the sources. Apologies if I am wrong, but claims like 'Many critics have argued it to have been the beginning of the modern debate' is supported by one critic + a book I don't have access to. 'Mass media use of the term is generally attributed to' is supported by one ref from a source I have never heard of before, a study published by 'Universidad Almería', written by a modern language graduate. Several other claims in that section are also attributed to that source (the database search seems fairly trivial anyway, there are other sources saying who/how the term was used at approx same period).


 * The 'academics abusing Bloom' at Duke University story, is actually (according to the source given) written by 'Andrew Ferguson from "The Weekly Standard', reporting something Bernstein is alleged to have chronicled, (no dates/location) and the source is Maarten Maartensz's personal website. Plus what is the connection to PC? Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * University of Almería is a Spanish university. You don't think they peer-review just because they're Spanish? They're not from Mexico or the like. Spain is a highly-developed European country, a member of the EU. I also added more sources and quotes. I also don't know why I linked to Maarteenz's website instead of the article itself, fixed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know where Almeria is. You are missing the point, sentences like 'generally regarded' require either that the majority of writers on the subject have conluded thus,(ref)(ref)(ref) OR that a small number of highly regarded experts (this happens on history subjects), have so concluded, this appears to be neither, several of the 'noted' writers on the subject don't mention Bernstein, so who is 'generally'. It is possible you are right on the 'critics' (I couldn't access one source). I am inviting you to rephrase if the balance of sources don't support these generalities.
 * You don't respond to how a personal website, quoting a journalist, quoting another journalist (without saying where or when orig. journo was printed) is RS? Nor what the connection to PC is. So, some unnamed academics were allegedly pretty loutish about Bloom in his absence. So? Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like we're back to the "your sources aren't enough, you need at least 15 sources to prove your claim" mantra. I found yet another source which claims it was Bernstein's article that popularized the term, will be adding it. Also, your sources don't talk about the origin of the term but the debate. When they mention the debate they foremost mention Bloom. The ones that investigate the term mention The New York Times. It can't get more simple than this. And I did respond by changing the source from the website to the article? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeering story: So, we are now one step closer, one journalist quoting another, without saying where the orig was printed. It still avoids the central question, what is the connection to PC? The answer is none as far as I can see, it MIGHT be relevant on a page about Bloom, but I doubt if it would be given that much weight 'unnamed academics allegedly jeer at Bloom when he wasn't there'. Arseholes some of these academics, no sense of decorum. The connection to PC?


 * 'Sources mantra', no, just informing you of policy and practice, 'generally' generally requires evidence that the belief or description is 'general'. Claims made by a single individual aren't 'general' unless that individual is HIGHLY regarded in their field, otherwise it's 'person X claimed that, assertion Y'. The sources writing about the history of PC aren't many, to the best of my knowledge, none of them has the kind of 'authority' that often accrues around individuals writing about other subjects. I don't know the 'Almeira' source, but if broad claims are being made by her, we expect them either to be attributed to her, or 'backed up' by other sources. The books I was able to check last night didn't mention Bernstein, though they give extensive coverage to the NYT articles of that time.
 * I don't understand the relevance of your point about term/debate. Is it not correct that the NYT used the term in relationship to a debate (primarily at that time within academia) about higher education? Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I might try finding a better description and place it where you removed the jeering story. And Bernstein pretty much is NYT. If you checked books and they had NYT then that means Bernstein. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed 'jeering story' for the reasons given above. I also question the relevance of this  But Lorna Weir, in a word search on the database Informart of six "regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers," found no less than 153 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared between January 1, 1987 and October 27, 1990. refs Heteren+Weir. This is an overlapping time frame with the NYT articles, so they could just have been reporting those. I don't doubt the facts of the research necessarily, but what is the point? Also why 'But' as though it contradicts something earlier. The only earlier it partially contradicts is that NYT first used the word in mass press. Is that a sufficiently important distiction to make, and if it is, could it not be made more concisely? Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is to introduce a differing opinion from the get-go. If you have a better one then provide it. This bit also chronicles the few times it's used which in comparison to the following information in the 1990s fits nicely. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Different in what sense? About who first used the word in print? But the time frames overlap and is it important if we don't know what the papers were writing about?
 * You posted this after, so I'll respond here — please add a tag above as well. And it's differing in as to who exactly came up with the modern use of the term. With that there it specifies that it was used a few times before him, so he's not the inventor per se. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re:this tag 'clarify | date = October 2015 | reason = The source also mentions Bloom and the NYT article, so why is D'Souza being singled out?' . That is what I meant above about 'unintended consequence' of moving Bloom. The sentence was originally attached to both names, which also established Bloom's connection to 'PC', a term not in wide use at the time his book came out. This is fixable, but I suggest not simply by repeating the sentence in '80's. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Different section, don't post this here. And if Bloom wrote in the 80s, that's where he belongs. And can you produce the exact sentence from the source, please? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was explaining why 'D'Souza is being singled out' , because you moved the text that attached him to that description. You can hardly blame anyone but yourself for him being 'singled out' in the remaining text. Page no etc. of the source are in the cite the library assistant has a day off today . Pincrete (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloom wasn't there before? And I still need it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies you are right, Bloom's name wasn't attached to the quote before, (there have been so many 'random' changes recently, it's hard to keep track of them) it could be now. If you need it (the text), I suggest a public library, (though your tag implies you know the contents of the quote). Text-on-demand is not a WP principle. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My tag implies what? That makes me suspicious! What do you mean? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your tag says 'clarify|date=October 2015| reason = The source also mentions Bloom and the NYT article, so why is D'Souza being singled out?'. How could you know what the source says if you do not have access to it or haven't read it? I haven't read it in a long time, and took it on trust that you HAD. Now you appear to be saying that you put the tag on without actually having read the source. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Glimpses of the source are available in which the two are visible. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant?
I have no objection to a 1980's section but the bulk at present (whole first para) is:
 * 1987 saw the publication of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind,[1] Synopsis accompanying the 1988 Simon and Schuster republication: "Bloom argues that the social and political crises of contemporary America are part of a larger intellectual crisis: the result of a dangerous narrowing of curiosity and exploration by the university elites."[2] Roger Kimball called it "an extraordinary meditation on the fate of liberal education in this country."[3] David Rieff wrote that Closing was a morally corrupt book that “decent people would be ashamed of having written.”[4] Many critics have pointed to it as the likely beginning of the modern debate.[5][6] James Atlas wrote in 1988: "'The Closing of the American Mind' has provoked a fantastic amount of debate. Even now, 10 months after its publication, large-scale attacks continue unabated."[7] Critic Camille Paglia called it "the first shot in the culture wars.

There clearly is a connection between Bloom and 'PC', but at no point is that connection made, a small amount of this might be appropriate as 'background', but at what point is the connection to 'PC' going to be made? At present it is not made at all (unless 'modern debate' is meant to imply the connection). It seems Bloom's connection to the use of the term is either zero, or so self-evident that we don't need to record it at all.

Also, at present we have some Sim & Schust blurb and some very negative comments, but little info about the relevant content, (ie content relevant to the term 'PC").
 * How is any of D'Souza's stuff related to PC yet mentioned multiple times in the article? The two are highly alike. You're pretty much arguing against your own precious D'Souza. You don't want any D'Souza stuff removed and in fact you want more added, but any contender you'll find a threat to your precious D'Souza. Nigh all of your sources and quotes and blurbs about D'Souza talk about his 1991 book which doesn't feature the term. Then one talks about the 1992 book which does and you consider that justification for the cherry-picked blurbs from the 1991 book. Again I have to mention multiculturalism is briefly mentioned a few times in his 1991 book but "Victim's Revolution" is constantly talked about, as in victimization. In fact, I added it as the firstmost blurb. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The present text does nothing to establish what Bloom's connection to 'PC' was. What elements of his ideas featured in the PC argument and what effects (sourced!). A load of pointless blather about 'your own precious D'Souza', doesn't remedy that. Nor does it address why a publicity blurb is used as a source. You don't seem to have noticed my 'There clearly is a connection between Bloom and 'PC'. What is it? This is largely at present a 'cut and paste' from the book's own page. Some people hated the book, some loved it, yes, true. How/why did it feature in the debate about PC?(sourced!). Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you could use all of those same arguments of D'Souza. But to answer: Bloom began the entire debate. He is described as conservative on his article, which you can add if you want to. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am NOT interested in YOUR opinion, any fool could offer their opinion of the connection. I am interested in the article reflecting what RS have said the connection is. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? WP:CIR is rapidly coming into play here.


 * In the case of d'Souza, that connection is made. Not 'his granny thought it was a lovely book, someone else thought it was horrible while his publisher described it as … ' all of which might belong on other pages, or 'a snippet' as background. I see you still haven't removed the three-mile-long book title. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article already has books referenced. Didn't you just a moment ago write: "Text-on-demand is not a WP principle." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And no connection is made with D'Souza. His 1992 book uses the term, yes, but not his 1991 one isn't which is what the sources talk about. Only one mentions the 1992 one and you won't provide any details about that source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The d'Souza connection which is made, is which aspects of his ideas were connected with the use of 'PC'. They are from sources discussing PC, equally valid would be books about d'Souza, specifically addressing 'PC' as an issue. There probably IS a connection between Bloom and PC (Bloom is one of three names highlighted by Hughes, from a longer list of about 9-10 prominent US commentators, but nothing I have so far read would tie him EXPLICITLY to PC, rather than traditional/conservative writings and views, but I'm fairly certain the connection exists). The d'Souza text doesn't say much, ('caught the imagination'?), about how loved or hated he or his book was, it focuses on identifying which of his ideas featured prominently in the use of the term PC.(sourced) Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Magoo, it's you who is anxious to establish Bloom's pre-eminence within the 1990's US debate, I dispute his pre-eminence, but am happy for his book to be included as ONE OF the foci of discussions. All I'm saying to you, is that the first experienced editor who comes along is going (rightly) to remove most of what is presently in the 1980's section about his book, since the sources don't establish any connection to PC or establish what/why the book's contents became involved with that term. I have other things which I would much rather be doing (such as finishing reading the 'UK story'). If you want your text about Bloom to have a 'hope in hell's chance' of still being there in a few weeks time, you might want to try to fix that. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise "The Bloom connection which is made, is which aspects of his ideas were connected with the use of 'PC'." All you have directly linking D'Souza to PC is something like "a mention of PC on page 3 and a mention of D'Souza on page 15 in the same book." Very same happens in every Bloom source as well (which are pretty much the same sources as used for D'Souza because they mention Bloom foremost). I thought D'Souza was featured because of the debate. The very debate Bloom began. If the debate doesn't matter then D'Souza should be removed ENTIRELY from this article. Every single mention of him gone. The importance of Bloom to the debate has been incredibly well sourced. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Afterthought, responding to earlier posts. You are possibly right to this extent, that the D'Souza TEXT could (briefly) make the connection to the spread of the term and the debate surrounding his book, at present the connection is mainly made in the sources, with the general assertion 'caught the press's imagination' (or whatever it is).
 * Responding to this post, do any of the 'Bloom' sources EXPLICITLY make the connection to 'PC'? They look like a lot of 'person A loved it, person B hated it, Paglia C said this about it twenty years later, the publisher wrote this on the dust-jacket'. None of that establishes ANY connection to the term 'PC', (nor even the ideas in the book which caused it to be part of the PC debate), merely that it was a very controversial book, which was significant in the broader 'culture war'. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, I forgot to add refs from the lead to the subsection as well which were the ones to point out the connection. I must have thought it didn't need to be repeated or something. I'll start adding those to the subsection. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the TEXT is still off-topic. Also the refs are simply attached to the claim that the book was published, not to any claims about content or role. There is no justification for publisher's 'blurb' for almost any purpose. One or two brief descriptions of reactions might be justified as 'background', but that is all there is at present. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the text is on-topic and the refs attached don't simply claim that but do also talk about its role. And where did you get the rule of no publisher descriptions allowed? Made it up on the spot? It happens to be an excellently succint summary, so it very much has use. We've also pinpointed how the book was the most important point in the origin of the debate, so any less information wouldn't be justifiable. In fact more would be needed. I also noticed you removed the subtitle without any concensus even though I've told you not to. You're basically stomping on others' edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'relevant' tag, I don't who did the fixing, but the text now addresses PC. HOWEVER, I'm not so sure that text and refs align, specifically the refs attached to Paglia + Atlas, I don't know what they are supporting, other than that they wrote criticisms. I'm also not sure what the refs attached to the book title support, it's publication?


 * I can't access all of the refs, but I hope that 16 + 29 support that Paglia and Atlas SPECIFICALLY,  have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[16][28][29] as the likely beginning of the modern debate about political correctness in higher education.[16][29]. Otherwise some copy -editing is called for.


 * What I think is still missing is some account of the content, why the ideas were controversial, in this context, what was in the book ?(from a reasonably neutral observer, ie not the publisher).


 * Re; sub-title, See WP:Common name, you can't 'tell me' to override policy and practice, without some good reason. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"The term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"
From:

to:

is an incredibly silly change. It was being noted how in the two quotes the use changes from academic to all life, and the new intro completely nulls that. The new introduction is seemingly simply talking about the first quote along with the second, even though it was supposed to talk about the difference between the two quotes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My edit reason We can't say 'notable' ... the 'context' is still academic (ie about higher education ... clarification tag ... CAPS are normal on dust covers, but SHOUT on the page


 * 'Notable' is OR ... you don't mean 'academic context', since the subject was still 'higher learning', you probably mean 'within academia', but I didn't have a source for that(though I'm sure they exist) ... how is/was the term being 'paraphrased', do you mean repeated/used/applied to new contexts? The orig. sentence doesn't make sense and is barely grammatical.Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I mentioned above that I'll try a maneuver where I'll remove the first sentence and merge it with yours, also pointing out the difference at the same time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny for you to claim the end of the paragraph is OR when it's your own text bit. All I added was that the two quotes are different. That's all I added. That's apparently OR to you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything must be verifiable, not necessarily verified. So, are you disputing that the term 'entered the public arena' or what? If you dispute the 'public arena' fact, I am not opposed to its removal, though it is very verifiable.


 * Your replacement is pure OR, the difference between two quotes from the articles showcases how the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena, is written like an essay, with you 'pointing to' a conclusion. What is not I think disputed by anyone (and is sourceable) is that before the articles, the term was primarily being used within academia (certainly in relation to higher education, not necessarily other circles, feminism for example), after the articles it enjoyed a 'bigger audience'.


 * I personally have no objection to ONE of the two quotes (they aren't very different so what is the 'difference' which is being 'showcased'). The second seems clearer and fuller anyway.Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I didn't replace anything. I added the different bit to the sentence. And "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena" is the core of the sentence, which you added. I added that the difference between the two quotes showcases this, because they follow up right after. Without that addition the whole sentence is just meaningless. And the quotes are incredibly different and if you actually dispute their importance then wow. Also, you claim my addition is OR yet it's not disputable? Didn't you just go through with how your bit isn't OR because it's verifiable? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You appear to be drawing a conclusion from the evidence and 'showcasing' it. That is OR, that is what one does in an essay. The central facts we agree on, the term left academia, entered the public arena (already sourced)- quote confirming the point (why two? I don't see the 'big difference' which is 'showcased'.) … … 1) Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities … … 2) What has come to be called "political correctness," a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.


 * One sentence says 'across the country', one says 'mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life'. The second sentence is fuller, the first adds that the debate is about curriculum. Perhaps I am very stupid today (it happens), but a) I don't see any obvious difference b) unless someone else has recorded the 'meaning' of the difference (not you/me) it's OR. If they have it should be attributed.


 * I think all that is needed is 'entered general use' + quote 2 (just noticed, no. 2 says 'public arena', so we should find a synonym or put it "in quotes").Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So do you with your sentence "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"? Are you simply acting simple right now? Pointing out something from the source isn't OR, like you yourself wrote. And the first one doesn't say "across the country" but "across the country in debates over what should be taught at the universities." You're simply distorting what it said. The second sentence specifically points out it's now being used outside the debate. The difference is vast, very much worth pointing out. Other sources support the change during this time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: 'Pointing out something from the source isn't OR' . Yes it is! Unless the source itself EXPLICITLY pointed it out, in which case it's simply reporting their observations and conclusions, see WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is done? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a source that THEMSELVES points out the difference and say what conclusion they come to? If you can't its OR. It can hardly be OR on my part to use the very expression in the 2nd quote that follows, though I admit I was initially paraphrasing. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a source that states "term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena"? If you can't it's OR. This is how silly you sound. And the latter article specifies "recent", "become" and "also" — meaning change. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Drawing your own conclusions, from sources (or appearing to be doing so, by the manner of phrasing) is OR, if you cannot (or will not) understand that, you need to go 'back to basics' on policies and practice, see WP:SYNTH.


 * It really doesn't matter whether the conclusion is, (or seems to be), so blindingly obvious that a ten year old could arrive at it, it's still OR, (which is completely different from accurate, neutral paraphrasing or summarising).
 * It is the manner of presentation here, as much as the content, which is OR (if the reader looks at quote 1 and compares it with quote 2, an appreciable difference will be seen, which only we have hitherto noticed ). In this instance the OR is doubly unnecessary, since the change that occured is fully reported in quote 2, which omits only the 'curriculum' elements, which could easily be incorporated in a single word into our lead-in text to quote 2, which itself need be only a single short sentence. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No conclusions were drawn. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Update The OR element is now largely fixed in the presentation. There are typos though and clunky phrasing, 'is described as influential to the term.' do you mean 'was influential in spreading the term', the sources support that …… 'At time time it's mainly mentioned in educational context' is I presume two typos + 'educational context' is wrong, you possibly mean 'in academic circles/within academia' since the term continued to be used in 'educational context', throughout the '90s (ie in discussions about higher education). … …  'The New York Times had a follow-up on the topic in May 1991, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena only 7 months after the previous article' the second half (after 1991) of this is almost a repeat of the quote that follows, so why have both? Your words and NYT's words? I still think that devoting so much text to the NYT is unnec. detail though. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How are those typos? Maybe clunky but not typos. I'm also not entirely sure if the NYT article was influential only in spreading the term as Bernstein might have been among the very first to use it in this context, which is a lot more than just spreading. I'll try to describe it better. I also don't think educational context is the same as "academic context" because academic can mean an academic commenting on society even though it was academics commenting only on education. And I think even more focus should be brought to this crucial time period, with light shone over other magazines as well. NYT didn't do all of the work on its own even though it's pinpointed at the beginning of the avalanche. Newsweek for one used "politically correct" in very late 1990 as well and I've been trying to gather sources to mention it in the bit as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 'At time time it's mainly mentioned in (an/its/pluralise?) educational context' … … 'academia' is a loose term in UK which refers to 'the world of academics'. If that usage isn't general in US, 'academic circles'? 'among academics'? … … used 'in an academic context' means used 'when discussing academic matters/acadamies' ie when talking about higher education/places of higher education . It is PRECISELY in the context of discussing 'higher educational matters', that the term continued to be used in the US into the mid 90's at least. What you mean is something like mainly used within the academic community. Possibly the term was ALSO being used later about non-educational, broader social matters(source), but your wording suggests that it ceased to be used when discussing higher education, after the NYT articles. Difficult proposition to sustain I think.Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is from the US perspective so you can throw that UK perspective right out the window, goodbye. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean this is the excuse you've used many times so it's only logical that it applies to you as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the last two posts at all, what I'm mainly commenting on above, is the lack of clarity in the text. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)