Talk:Political correctness/Archive 19

The origin of political correctness
The article didn't say political correctness originated with critical theory of the frankfurt school. Why not? renegadeviking 11:20 am 12/18/15

Because it did not originate from them - see the history section for earlier quotes. Zezen (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A) The term did not originate there B) That the thinking originated there is a claim, dealt with here. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The centre of the revert war!
Since Aquillion had with such good faith made an entire section just to attack me personally, allow me to retort.

Aquillion has (refer to the larger lump of text below for more sources):


 * Edit warred in a tag-team with Pincrete for 5 months for the lead to state it's only a pejorative when the article did not state that as the only use before their appearance: 663263923
 * Edit warred in a tag-team with Pincrete to change from "ordinarily pejorative" to "primarily pejorative": 687795863
 * Edit warred in a now-reverted edit to change the history section entirely to focus on his favorite theme of conservatives, even though the conservative use began in as late as 1991: 688345283
 * Removed mentions of the term from quotes to lessen the view that it's used non-pejoratively: 688081028
 * Removed sources that state it's not mainly used pejoratively: 685752707
 * Changed source quotes to his own words that lessen the role of sourced popularizers, to shine more light on his conservative popularizers: 688068321
 * Constantly accuse editors of grammar mistakes yet constantly break sentences himself for absolutely no reason: 688346276 ("one author used the term in 1995 "conservative correctness", arguing,") and 685330688 ("writing in 2001, wrote")
 * Add any mention of conservative and the right where he can: 688065671 yet remove any mentions of left-affiliation: 684879822

'''Also, of Aquillion's and Pincrete's close relationship: ''' The two have met before May 2015: 653573744 yet they also happened to start regularly editing this article on dates May 20 2015 and May 24 2015 respectively. The last time Aquillion had edited the article before that was in 2007. He made I believe exactly 50 edits to the article between May 2015 and September 30 2015. I now notice that during this time he managed to even edit war with people other than me, who first appeared on September 30. Pincrete made 65 edits to the article in the same time period.

On October 29, the last edit on the talk page was by me at 5:09 and the last edit on the article itself happened at 6:16 by me as well. On 12:09 Pincrete writes a message on talk, and then at 12:18 Aquillion lets loose his massive edit which isn't a revert. Aquillion's edit must have taken more than 10 minutes to make. Also note that he didn't only edit the lead like he claimed. Aquillion had last edited on October 27, Pincrete on October 28. There both just happened to go check up on the article at the exact same time? I'm assuming the other didn't simply message the other that Mr. Magoo has edited again, leading to both appearing? Also note that a minute after his massive edit Aquillion writes on the talk page: 688064521 — "Anyway, what do you think of my edits to it? I think that this captures the parts you're talking about while addressing my main concerns. The core issue is still that the page lacks any real sources or discussion of any non-pejorative modern usage." He removed 9 of my sources, 2708 characters worth. He kept all of his 8+ sources. The only sources of mine he kept were the ones he thought were the most fitting to his view. Obviously it was a blatant act of an edit war and not some "capturing" of anything I talked about. He also then comments that the page lacks sources of non-pejorative usage, after he removed 9 of them. Some time later as I revert his edit, he writes: "please don't make sweeping reverts to absolutely everything! If you have a specific objection, raise it on talk and fix that part." Just before he had made a massive removal of 9 sources and a minute after that appeared on talk page to ask what I think about his edits.

Later he reverts it back after I reverted his edit: 688084549. At this point he must feel uncomfortable, since even though the earlier one wasn't a full revert, it could be seen as one. One has to watch out for WP:3RR, since it leads to a ban with a high likelihood. After his revert, I didn't revert the focus of the argument at the time — as in the lead — anymore, but I changed the 1990s section back since that change I couldn't accept. It stood like that for a while, until Pincrete then made a massive revert and changed everything back to the version Aquillion had edited. His change was a minute after one of my edits and exact to the earlier Aquillion version of the article, which means Pincrete had went to view the entire page's source at the time of Aquillion's edit, saving it to a text file and then had simply copypasted that over the current version of the article. Note that he hadn't saved the article at the time of his own edit: 681108321 but at Aquillion's which had made a bizarre year change that all the sources except one with a typo clearly were against, as even NYT's own page for the article in question stated 1990: 688108321 and 688109654.

Pincrete also never ever removes any part of any edit of Aquillion's. I believe a single time he had changed one word of Aquillion's to a synonym.

The two are acting as a revert tag-team to avoid WP:3RR. They attack any lone editors who disagree with the current state of the article.

Here is a collection of talk sections made by different editors who have disagreed with the two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Regarding_Modern_Usage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Pejorative.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#How_did_this_article_devolve.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Extremely_biased.2Fone-sided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Congratulations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Not_pejorative_in_my_part_of_the_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#.22politically_correct.22_used_sincerely_with_its_literal_meaning

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker, time to come back to planet earth I think! Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weren't you supposed to have stopped participating for now because of your car accident, like you wrote? I guess you just wanted sympathy points, then. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should look up the word 'may'. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discusion of content

 * Let's go over these one by one, then!
 * The lead, and whether its modern usage is primarily pejorative. We've discussed exhaustively above, but the vast majority of sources that cover its history agree that its modern usage is pejorative; nobody has come up with any usable sources discussing significant non-pejorative usage.  I removed dictionaries, yes; as I stated above (and as we discussed at the time!), dictionaries are not generally good sources for things that require significant secondary analysis like this.  Even beyond that, some of the dictionaries that people have found list the US usage of the term as pejorative.
 * Significant conservative usage goes back to Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, as you've pointed out repeatedly yourself. Most of the sources discussing the term's history mention that book as core to the conservative push for the term (eg. discussing the conservative think-tanks that bankrolled both his book and, later, d'Souza's.)  This isn't "my theme", it's what most sources on the term's modern history say, even the ones you're relying on yourself -- the term's usage, at least in the US, is mostly a product of liberal / conservative culture wars.  Bernstein was likewise weighing in on that culture war in the context of higher education; there's still nothing in the modern history section that implies any significant usage outside it.  Even the quotes which you've added (while I find them a bit redundant) just underline that the word is a flashpoint in the culture wars.   Again (and I think this is the core of the dispute), you've repeatedly argued that you don't feel that the term is primarily pejorative, that its modern usage wasn't popularized by conservatives, and so on; but (despite the huge amount people have written about it) you haven't found even a single decent source that presents an alternative history to that.  You've pointed out a bunch of bits in the history that we've overlooked, but all of them are still unequivocally described in the sources as parts of the core conservative project to start a culture war over education and, later, the media as a whole by using the term to encompass what they viewed as liberal bias.
 * Regarding the other quotes, my feeling is that the scattered usages you've inserted essentially amount to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You can't use quotes to try and imply that the term has significant non-pejorative usage; you need a secondary source discussing it.  Using primary sources to lead the reader to a conclusion that isn't in those sources is WP:SYNTH, so it's worth rewording them to avoid that.
 * Likewise, the fact that the term is particularly used by right-wing sources to criticize what they see as bias in the media is well-documented. We can cover their accusations (and we do), but there's no real dispute in the sources about who uses the term and why, so it's appropriate to say so.
 * Grammar mistakes are there to be fixed! Just fix them.
 * Beyond that, I don't know what to say to the rest, so I won't reply beyond pointing you towards WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. My section above wasn't meant to attack you (even if I did express frustration with some of the way sweeping reverts have caught stuff I'd think was uncontentious things); I'm mostly just highlighting the bits of the stuff I'm in dispute with you over that I disagree with, and why. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you have no sources stating it's primarily. There are many sources which state it has gained such a connotation in addition to what it used to be, but none claim primarily. Two obviously ultraliberal sources dedicate very short sentences to it stating it's a pejorative — they are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED. You removed 9 sources of which none were dictionaries. The dictionary would be tenth.
 * But Allan Bloom wasn't a "conservative" as we know the term. He held academically traditional views as to what should be taught in schools. He was against educational change. Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG.
 * You call academic sources defining the term as something akin to a philosophy and not as a simple pejorative "scattered usages?" Mind you the literally dozen sources I gave you were from the first two pages of the academic search engine I used.
 * The term's use by people other than "conservatives" is well-documented as well. Finally, not as a source but as an anecdote so don't bust your balls: on Monday I saw/heard Colbert use it non-pejoratively on his new talkshow. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since no one has ever questioned that the term is also used by non-conservatives and since the article has never said or implied that it wasn't, what's your point? There may be a 1000 trained parrots somewhere that use the term incessantly, that does not alter the fact that the term was notably used in the '90s by educational and social conservatives, in relation to 'the education debate'. If any other group of users have been studied as to their usage, that also could go in the article (Maoists in the 1930s is documented but not in the article). Even your own NYT articles use the term 'conservative critics', using the term as far back as 1991, that is the context in which the term is used in NYT. It simply isn't logically consistent to argue that the term was almost unknown before NYT, but its use before then is somehow 'equal' (and continues to be so used today). The article charts fairly clearly the pre-1990-ish usages (could be expanded if we weren't going round in circles with the same arguments).


 * The article is about a term, not a phenomenon, partly because the phenomenon is indefinable EXCEPT in terms of the ways that it has been used - recently mainly for the purposes of criticism. Apart from 'far-lefters' using the term 1930-1990-ish and their friends using the term ironically (which is in the article), there are no sources documenting extensive use of the term OTHER than critically. Even some of the dictionaries state 'derogatory'.


 * There are many ways that the article could be more complete, including making it clearer what the critics mean when they use the term, including making it clear what Bloom's ideas were that caused it to be involved in the use of the term, however at present we are going round and round in circles. The


 * On a final note, Hutton is currently, Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, so what? His role in this page is simply 'British journalist', which he also is. If there is something offensive, inaccurate, biased, irrelevant or unsourced about describing Bloom's book as a 'conservative critique', suggest a better (widely sourced) one. Bloom himself is not characterised at all at present, neither is there necessarily any need to do so SO LONG AS the contents of the arguments in his book are accurately, briefly described as they impact on 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of bothering to point out your innumerous straw men (pretty much all of what you argue against aren't part of my stance — for example I've stated earlier that the article's about the term and now you try to argue it back for some bizarre reason), I'll just point some things out. The phrase's use by people other than conservatives as non-pejoratively is well-documented like pointed out by your sources. The NYT article states the term is used by conservatives and liberals both. The term's modern use was almost unknown before NYT, not the term. You had one dictionary separate British and American usage and in the American usage it was stated derogatory — in the British it wasn't. In that case we should write to the lead that the term isn't used pejoratively in Britain, but as a description for the philosophy. And Hutton wasn't a principal when that quote was added and he also certainly wasn't in 2001 when he gave that statement. In addition, I looked back and originally Hutton and Toynbee were prefaced with labeling of "left-wing commentators," which has been since then removed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'bizarre reason' for me pointing out that the article is about the term, is that several times you say the article should be about the 'philosophy', I presume you are using the word in its everyday use, mode/manner/attitude of thought. Where are the sources describing it thus? Eons ago I suggested that it would be good to have more of what d'S etc., and those discussing their ideas meant by 'PC'. That is I presume what you mean by 'philosophy', the 'mindset' that they characterise as 'PC'. Having such additions would be good, but they would necessarily be characterised as THEIR opinions, you seem to want to characterise those opinions as objective fact, by even suggesting it should be about the 'philosophy', a 'philosophy' which has only ever been defined by its critics?


 * The numerous WP policy objections to reliance on dictionaries has been pointed out already many times, however the utter absurdity of deducing from an absence of 'derogatory', that the term is NOT so in UK, and asking to have that included in the lead is breathtaking. I think a strong sourced case might well be made (not reliant on dictionaries), that the term is ESPECIALLY derogatory in the US. However the article body needs to fully endorse that point before any change could be made in the lead.


 * Your also miss the point about Hutton's status is. Hutton was a noted academic economist when he wrote the quote, he has been many other things as well, none of this is stated in his description here because it is irrelevant to his views on 'PC', he was writing as a political journalist, no more. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Times says that it is used as a "sarcastic jibe", which supports the argument that its modern use is pejorative (and which is covered already in the article.) Beyond that, though, we need better sources than editorials; we have numerous academics and historians, published in peer-reviewed journals and reputable publishers, going into extensive detail on the term's history.  If you feel that they're wrong, you need to provide actual competing descriptions of the term's history with comparable weight.  WP:RS gives the most weight to high-quality secondary sources (to the views of historians, academics, and so on), which on this topic are essentially unanimous as far as the term's history goes. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It states it has become a sarcastic jibe as in it has attained such a second definition. No one disagrees with this. The issue still stands that the other definition as a simple philosophy of avoiding offence isn't even mentioned in our lead. And I just stated that the extensive histories repeat the exact same that it has two uses. If you feel that's wrong, you need to provide sources stating so. And not the two ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, which sources do you feel are WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED, and why? We both agree that I've provided sources supporting it; if you feel those sources aren't good enough, then you have to say why in more detail -- you can't just say "they're obviously fringe and biased!" and leave it at that.  What makes you feel their views are fringe?  What makes you feel they're biased? --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some week ago I noticed there were no sources even containing the word "pejorative" and you went to find sources for this use and you found some very questionable ones. These are your strongest link with pejorative use and they are obviously WP:BIASED; as much of what they write is contrary to most of our sources. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary how? Questionable how?  I don't feel that they contradict our sources; they seem entirely mainstream to me, and typical of what most sources on the subject have said.  --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The other stated the term isn't perceived pejorative enough and he stated that he wants it seen solely so. If that isn't WP:BIASED then nothing is. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Magoo, if you feel sources are biased, and other editors do not agree WP:RSN is the place to go. There experienced editors will evaluate whether the source is RS and whether the text is a fair representation of the source(s). Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloom is described as a conservative in all of the sources that discuss his role in the term's history; and the fact that he was part of a conservative push regarding the term is highlighted almost everywhere. For example, Schulz details how his book was founded by the conservative John M. Olin Foundation; likewise, Sparrow says that "this notion of political correctness gained currency through the writings and activities of a number of high-profile conservative and neo-conservative authors in the United States such as Allan Bloom, Dinesh D'Souza, Roger Kimball and Nat Hentoff, sometimes with the benefit of funding from conservative Christian think-tanks." Jeffrey Williams -- a source you added, if I recall correctly -- likewise describes Bloom as a neoconservative and highlights the fact that his book was funded by a conservative think tank.  Most of the other sources say similar things; and none of the sources you've added or pointed to actually describe any significant competing history.  I get that you feel that you've heard the term used in other ways based on your personal experiences (although, again, Colbert is a comedian, so I suspect whatever use you heard was ironic), but you simply haven't managed to really come up with sources that support your views; you can't just declare every source I provide to be 'obviously ultraliberal' and then provide nothing yourself.  These sources are all credible, well-respected historians and scholars published in reputable journals; you might not like or agree with what they say, but there is no reason to doubt that the histories they describe are accurate, and as academics writing about the term in particular, they're among some of the best sources we have.  What's your basis for describing them 'obviously ultraliberal' and WP:FRINGE? --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, academic conservativism means academic traditionalism as in against educational change. Like I wrote above: Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG. And just because Bloom received funding from a "conservative" doesn't automatically make him one. And this is besides the point anyways, because his book began the debate not the term. If Bloom was conservative then that concerns the debate not the term. If you want to create an article for the debate, then go ahead. And like typical of you, you state I claim "everything" ultraliberal even though I only stated two sources were plainly ultraliberal and biased. If they were to be balanced then you'd have to introduce ultraconservative and biased sources as well which is ridiculous. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's described as a neoconservative in particular in most of those sources, which is a type of ideological view; and they specifically mention that his book was funded by a conservative think-tank -- that is, an organization whose goals are to advance ideologically conservative causes. Bloom's involvement in this topic is as a neoconservative author funded by a conservative think-tank, as highlighted by most of the sources that discuss his role in the term's history in any depth; therefore, we have to go into detail on that in the article -- omitting it would violate WP:NPOV by leaving out something that most sources highlight as a key aspect of the history.  Likewise, if you feel that some of the sources in the article are "ultraliberal and biased", you have to support that statement; as far as I can tell, we have multiple mainstream, reputable sources describing the term's modern usage as primarily pejorative, and multiple mainstream academic sources describing how Bloom, d'Souza, and other such authors pushed the term into the mainstream, funded by conservative think-tanks; no sources really seem to contest or disagree with that.  There are some sources that elaborate on it, adding additional points to the history, but you have yet to produce a single source that contradicts it directly.  (In fact, reading in more detail, only one of the three sources on Bernstein goes into any depth on political correctness itself; and that's Dorothy E. Smith, who describes him as a neoconservative and describes his article as initiating the "deployment of neo-conservative PC" -- that's something we ought to cover in the article, too, since it fits in with what the rest of the sources say.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He is described neoconservative in none of them. Where did you come up with that? And just because the funding from a social conservative coincided with an educational traditionalist doesn't — again — make them the same. Again: Using words like conservative is ambiguous, breaking WP:DISAMBIG. You have yourself removed many mentions of left-affiliations. Now any vague connotations of conservatism must be applied? Bizarre how that goes. And again there are none stating primarily pejorative. There are two ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED ones which dedicate short sentences to the term defining it was pejorative and that's it. That's contrary to most sources which note the many uses of the term. If we are to add notes of conservativism then Toynbee and Hutton must be noted to be notable leftists as well. Hutton describes himself as left-wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I specified which sources describe him as neoconservative above; I even quoted one at length; these are sources discussing his role in this topic specifically, which means that we have to go by what they say and highlight it the way they do. And, again:  Why do you feel those sources are "ultraliberal WP:FRINGE and WP:BIASED?"  We don't need sources saying pejorative specifically (we can paraphrase and summarize; the entire article focuses on pejorative usage), but I provided two because you asked, and you have yet to identify any real problems with them.  We currently cover Toynbee and Hutton as examples of liberal commentators on the subject, but we've explained this to death -- the key issue is how the sources that discuss someone's role on the topic touch on them.  Bloom and d'Souza are constantly discussed in light of their political views and their funding from right-wing think-tanks; Bernstein is discussed as popularizing the neoconservative usage of the term.  --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You named three, yes, but they don't describe him as neoconservative. Again, where did you come up with that? And I didn't describe these three as ultraliberal. You were the one to claim I stated all sources to be, but I pointed two which weren't these. The article currently doesn't label Toynbee or Hutton. I've tried to add labels to them but you've edit warred them out. You want to add what you deny from others. You're trying to add multiple conservative labels, one even where something even slightly linked to a conservative would be unsourcedly "neoconservative." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&curid=23214&diff=689312058&oldid=689215551 This now sub-sectioned text was moved by me to the prev. content discussion]. The reason for doing so is that this text is concerned with issues in the text, whereas the section heading and initial content of this section, is solely personal accusations. Such accusations have no place on the talk page and should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:SPI if you believe they have substance. Failure to do so on your part indicates that you know your allegations have no substance, but nonetheless believe that you have a right, to repeat them, this is trolling. I invite you to delete the latest batch, and we can continue the content discussion. However there is no point in continuing ANY discussions whilst PAs continue. WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not 'optional extras', they are absolute and unconditional requirements of any editor contributing to WP. There are no circumstances and no editors who are entitled to exemption. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section above by Aquillion accusing me of all sorts of things and mostly spreading disinformation and distortion about my actions is solely personal accusations as well. I only created this section in response like I wrote. And your move doesn't function in the slightest because he talks about points in this section, which when moved makes no sense. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Magoo and McBarker I see no PAs as you claim in Aqu's post, it appears to be a civil attempt to establish what the content differences of opinion are, I don't know whether everything he says is true, if any parts are wrong, you might have spent your time more constructively pointing them out in a civil coherent fashion.


 * It is clear from your reply that you do regard yourself as the exception to the AGF rule and do regard yourself as entitled to make very serious allegations about other editors repeatedly on talk as part of a battleground mentality and strategy. So be it. Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I was just highlighting the differences and the areas we seem to disagree over, asking you to explain the areas where you're reverting me while trying to provide my reasoning for the areas where I'm reverting you. We need to try and focus more on the specific bits of text we disagree over, on what sources we can find to support them and how we can rewrite it into something we both find acceptable.  One thing (since you've mentioned it a lot of times!)  You've said I removed non-dictionary sources; I'm still not sure which ones you meant!  Could you specify them so we can figure out what happened?  The only sources I recall intentionally removing were the dictionaries, though some other ones may have gotten lost in the shuffle.  (I mean, the lead is overcited, so we could pare it down a bit -- but we can talk about which sources to remove after we've reached an agreement on how to summarize things, at least.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote I have done this and that — which I haven't like you describe — and without explanations — even though I've always explained. Instead of talking about the points you focused on me. I've constantly explained everything but you ignore all of my explanations. You're not interested in even the slightest of my suggestions. Not even the most miniscule. Where as I've bent numerous times. You're even trying to forcefully remove the mention of Bernstein entirely, maybe barely mentioning him in 1980s — even though he's probably the single most important person in this article. You don't like the fact that he's a reporter and not some hardcore neonazi conservative biblethumper. And on October 29 you removed 9 sources from the lead. All of them mine; none of them yours even though you had almost as many overcitations in the lead to prove a point. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made it clear that I do think Bernstein has a place in the history, but ultimately, the attention paid to his articles is just one event; we have to cover and summarize the overarching history. Just about every academic source that goes into depth on that history describes the term's modern usage as tracing back to a series of books published by conservative think-tanks; just about every academic source focuses on modern debate over the word as as culture war pushed by these organizations as a way of addressing what they felt were liberal biases in the media and academia.  It's silly to suggest that the spike in usage following his articles on the controversy is more important than the entire rest of the history and its usage of the term.  And, again, please assume good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like stated, the article's about the term. He's the single most important person when it comes to the modern usage. And just about every source we have trace the source back to leftists and then media and then conservatives. You'd have to provide sources stating it wasn't originally used by leftists if you don't think so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the sources, taken collectively, indicate that he's the single most important; some don't mention him at all, and most of the ones that do just describe him as "influential" at best -- as the person who kickstarted the neo-conservative usage of the term.  (I do think that we need to go into more detail on that aspect, of course, since it's in the sources and not covered at the moment -- if I read Dorthy E. Smith's description of his place in the history correctly, he was one of the people who introduced it into the neo-conservative vernacular and, as one of their standard-bearers, solidified their usage of the term as a line of attack in the culture wars.)  And I don't disagree that much of the early usage was by liberals, but I feel that calling it a "previously liberal term" implies things that aren't really implied by the sources.  Scattered ironic usage by liberals doesn't make a term a "liberal term"; I feel that by saying that it is, you're committing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR based on that early usage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you must provide sources proving otherwise because we have multiple mainstream, reputable sources describing so. And if the term was previously mainly used by liberals then how was it not previously liberal? That is completely illogical. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources describe him as influential, not as the single most important person in the history; there's a key distinction. Likewise, there's a difference between a term being used, ironically, by liberals and it being a "liberal term"; the latter has implications for its meaning that the former does not, so I feel that if we want to call it a "liberal term", we should find sources stating it as such specifically rather than just synthesizing it out of your reading of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Two state that it began from his article. Some state only influential. And even then these are sources that specifically researched the term's history. One of your sources with the pejorative label is an opinion piece which wants the term to be known as solely pejorative even though he states it's not. It doesn't bother to research the term's history a bit. Using the lack of mention of Bernstein in sources like this isn't a source at all. If you have sources stating Bernstein wasn't notable or someone else specifically was over him, then provide them. And again, the term was previously used mainly by liberals so what in the world is wrong in stating that the term was previously mainly liberal? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aqu used the word 'liberal' ill-advisedly. Sources clearly state that the term had fairly marginal use among Communists, Maoists, 70's feminists, new left, and a few other 'radicals'. To describe that group as 'far left', 'radical left' or some other term would probably be justified, accurate and source-able, but to extrapolate from that that the term had general 'liberal' use is pure synth and a distortion of what the sources say. I would have no objection to 'the previously obscure far-left term etc.'. But I don't think you would want that since you seem to want to by-pass the numerous requests from you for sources that point to a widespread, liberal, not critical use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we have in the quote simply the left and you left out 80's feminists. Then if you look at many sources not included in this section but still talking about the history — like Marilyn Friedman and Jan Narveson, they simply state the left. The 1970s section could be edited to include their definition as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'New left' (which included some radical feminists), 'Far-left', 'radical left' are not synonyms of 'liberal', anymore than 'conservative' is synonomous with 'far-right' or 'neo-Nazi'. It is crude to suggest that they are. Most sources refer to 'new left', (or detail the groups). Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Hall quote we have simply the left. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Balance of sources? Even 'the left' is not a synonym of 'liberals', even in US.Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pointing out it's not an absolute synonym is just hazy rhetoric, distracting from the fact that it's pretty much the same thing: "More recently in the United States, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for Democratic and Republican, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism respectively." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the laziness lies in not using the most accurate term. We don't call 'neo-nazis', 'conservatives', we don't call Marxists and other far-left people 'liberals', to do so borders on intentional misrepresentation and is unnec. .Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But the term liberal isn't even being used. You changed it to far-left. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The origin of political correctness
The article didn't say political correctness originated with critical theory of the frankfurt school. Why not? renegadeviking 11:20 am 12/18/15

Because it did not originate from them - see the history section for earlier quotes. Zezen (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A) The term did not originate there B) That the thinking originated there is a claim, dealt with here. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Political correctness in post WWI German newspapers
My reverted edit uses secondary newspaper sources which quote a US General's report on crime statistics and analyze German newspapers PC-language when they were dealing with race issues:

During post-WWI occupation German papers were suspended for accusing "French colored Colonial troops" and for having "employed certain terms and expressions which they might better have omitted" due to the current political climate of "exaggerated accusations" against these colored troops and the paucity of independent sources... (plus the ref)

Why is it "wholly off topic" or "original research" then, Fyddlestix? I do not quote German newspapers. Is there a WP policy on using only tertiary or quaternary sources? Please do not revert such sourced edits before discussing it here first.Zezen (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please get off your high horse, Zezen. Nobody has to clear it with you before they revert your original research.
 * Why is it that so many other editors recognize your edits as the original research they are, but you can't? Please, please read the policy carefully and ask questions on its talk page or at WP:NOR/N if you don't understand it. 66.87.115.75 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd put it quite like that, but... from my quick reading of that source, I didn't notice it using the term "political correctness" anywhere.  It could be mentioned on political censorship, but I don't see how it belongs here.  Implicitly asserting that it's related (and that it's eg. an example of political correctness) is original research unless you have a source saying so specifically.  Even listing explicit uses of the term is tricky (because it's original research to collect a bunch of usages and use that to try and research the history yourself); the best sources are academic papers or published books by historians or experts on culture and the like that explicitly detail the history, use, and meaning of the term.  (Since this is such a hot-button topic, actual histories that mention it explicitly are not hard to find!  There's no need for us to try and do our own original research anyway.) But listing examples of political censorship definitely doesn't work; we need, at the very least, some source connecting it directly to the concept of political correctness before it belongs here.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aquillion - Thank you for your civil discussion. You convinced me that a scholarly source is needed here, given that it is a red-hot topic. I will not insist then on it here then.

Non-dear IP or WP:Meatpuppet. Stop wikihounding me to here from the your recent WP:Personal attacks there abusing your anonimity. Zezen (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)