Talk:Political correctness/Archive 6

POV and self-awareness
The fact that many people who are critical of what they call "political correctness" are oblivious to their POV (such as Same Spade above) does not make their lack of selfawareness an example of NPOV.--Cberlet 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from ad hominems (and hypocrisy), discuss the article and not the editors on this page, thanks. Sam Spade 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, your lack of self-awareness that you have a highly biased POV about this topic is the major problem at this point. Your bias is palpable and vivid in the above paragraph, and you do not seem to be able to step back and see it; nor are you willing to engage in a debate over the merits. You cannot see your bias, and thus construct it as NPOV. It is a closed loop. The concept of "political correctness" was invented as a frame by conservatives out to bash progressives. The concept was first employed to attack liberals and leftists in colleges. These facts belong in the lead. When I cite conseratives and progressives backing up my claim, you sweep them away while refusing to provide cites for your point of view. Then you get self-righteous and claim this is all an ad hominem attack. --Cberlet 19:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Lets simplify. Your asking me for a citation as to the origins of this term, correct? Sam Spade 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Partly. I am asking you for a citation as to the origins of this term, and a definition from a mainstream source of what the term means and how it came to be used and by whom.--Cberlet 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * . Sources don't have to be "mainstream" btw, they just need to be cited. Either way I think The American Heritage Dictionary is pretty mainstream. Sam Spade 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the quality of published sources is debated here at Wiki all the time, so the claim that material just has to be cited is patently untrue. Most of the sources cited or linked to on this page are conservative to ultraconservative. I added the cites to the progressive books. Editors here are constantly advising that dictionary definitions are insufficient. But even if we accept The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms definition (not from the main dictionary, thanks), it raises the issues I am discussing.
 * "Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies."

The other definition is better at showing the struggle over meaning:
 * "Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
 * Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters."

That is a more NPOV definition. Compare it to the current lead.
 * "Political correctness describes the attempted erection of boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct.
 * "The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly.
 * The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or any other protected group.
 * Now compare it to my suggested lead:
 * "::"The concept of Political correctness is based on the claim that some on the political left seek to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and conduct. The controversy erupted in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998). The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is often used mockingly or disparagingly. The most common usage for the term is to describe the alteration of language so as to not be objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, disability, or other status.
 * That's an NPOV lead. It is based on the arguments made in the 1991 book by conservative luminary D'Souza. If you disagree, cite an actual source that has probed the issue in depth from a scholarly perspective (such as the folks I cited). A popular dictionary definition from the Internet does not count.
 * Then we can turn to how this page is overwhelmingly a laundry list of conservative bashing of the left based on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. --Cberlet 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since no discussion has resulted from my request for cites to defend the lead, I am editing the page.--Cberlet 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Intro
(I assume what was previously here is not needed. Please add back if it is.) The introduction PLEASE RESTORE MATERIAL THAT WAS CUT Actually, you rudely demanded a cite, and then ignored it when it was given to you. here it is again: "This expression was born in the late 1900s" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politically%20correct).

Want more (I thought the dictionary was good enough, but I guess not..)?

[3] (http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html)

[4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml)

[5] (http://individual.utoronto.ca/alexander/pc/)

Shall I revert your intro, or place a factual accuracy dispute header? Sam Spade 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * NM, I rewrote it and placed a dispute header. The dispute header can be removed as soon as things settle down, and we have a moments concensus. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise. I am relatively new here. I humbly beg forgiveness.--harrismw 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Avoid self references
The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report. The cites used for writing the lead include the following: An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind
 * [ The Origins of Political Correctness],
 * Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
 * An individuals website at the University of Toronto with no identification other than "Alexander."


 * I removed the above as inappropriate for a wiki article. Merge whatever you can back into the article, but avoid self references, and please consult NPOV. Sam Spade 22:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Citing The Poverty Law Center for anything related to the Right is like citing the Nazi Party for anything relating to Jewish culture. Some phrases such as "white nationalist Pat Buchanan" or claiming that the term has anything to do with anti semitism.I don not know this Lind character or if he is an anti semite, what I do know is that the SPLC is by no means a respectable civil rights organization. It has been criticised by the NAACP and other groups for doing more to fund raise than fight racism. There is a reason that the word controversial is written after every mention of SPLC.

Guy Montag 05:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There was no self reference, it was an accurate summary. And, the footnote for the first sentence was false, the page linked turns up no such underlying text.--Cberlet 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Read further down. Sam Spade 22:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I went to the footnote from your version and there was no mention of a comic or the 1920s. The dictionary definitions on that page have no connection to the text you wrote for the lead. It is all from the Lind article or variants snatched from it.--Cberlet 23:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no mention of a comic, nor the 20's, you are correct. there was however a mention of the origin of the term, in the late 1900's. Look @ entry sourced by The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997. Cripes, politically I'm a left leaning centrist, but fallacious conversations like this make me want to join the christian coalition!. Sam Spade 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The term became an issue in the late 1990s. That's what the cite supports. Nothing else. What comic strip? You cannot cite a sentence with multiple claims to one cite that does not cover all of them. It's not appropriate as a citation. The Frankfurt school fled Germany in the 1930s. All your other cites are to right-wing sources and an anonymous person on a campus. Anyway, it all tracks back to Lind. Lind is the basis of your lead. I asked for published cites from reputable sources. You provide nothing of the sort, and then claim to be a left-leaning centrist and rely on the work of a right-wing ideologue with a theory that most scholars reject as a crackpot right-wing conspiracy theory. The lead I wrote was based on a conservative book by D'Souza in 1991. Have you even looked at this book? Have you looked at any printed source on this matter. Do you just rely on the Internet for research?--Cberlet 23:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I cut my text pending an answer.--Cberlet 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a mediator or some such, I'm hard pressed to keep from cursing at you :) Sam Spade 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you should restore your old lead, and then we both should give it a rest for a week. :-) --Cberlet 00:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm... do you think a RfC would help? Or a [article in need of attention] header? You seem to be being pleasent all of a sudden, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. Sam Spade 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A requested comment
Unfortunately I don't have any time to address the problems with this article myself right now, but since it's been put on WP:RFC, I will comment all the same: I think it's a quite weaselly right-wing POV piece casually covered with some see-through "NPOV" phrasing. I hope it gets the drastic collaborative rewrite it needs for real NPOV. I'll try to be back to help later. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I would like to make a comment on this topic. First of all I don't think the topic should be deleted. Wikipedia serves as encyclopedia of a kind, so nobody should torn the pages off. On the other side, encyclopedia entry should contain definition, origin and samples. What I find is political debate club and propaganda clash. What about deleting all that and creating simply a information entry? (I am not an native English speaker so I was looking for some relevant information on: what PC means, how, when and by whom is used + simple examples devoid of opinions). Simple note on (the controversy surrounding PC is advisable, but at the end, not the beginning of the article. Beata &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.213.203.154 (talk &bull; contribs) 27 Oct 2005. note that this comment and the response that follow are interjected into a discussion from about 5 months earlier.
 * No chance of the article being deleted, don't worry about that. As for writing the first part of the article entirely within the context of accepting the terms of those who claim "PC" is a real phonomenon: to take a more extreme (hence clearer) case, imagine if our article on phlogiston went 75% of the way before saying "by the way, no one believes this any more." Or to take a more loaded example, imagine if our article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion waited till half way to say it was a hoax. Or to take examples that are more parallel, consider Labor theory of value, or intelligent design. Sometimes, you have to discuss the controversy right from the beginning. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that it ought to be deleted, as this is a topic that is inherently POV. Other than a definition (and good luck to anyone who even tries that), there is nothing that can be said that isn't POV.  I would ask that anyone find a single person who will claim to be in favor of political correctness, per se.  If no one says, "I want our speech to be politically correct," then all we're left with is, exactly as you've said, Bishonen, an insult.  If no one self-identifies that way, you've got a pejorative, and there's no point in trying to have an article on that. Geogre 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not? We have articles on plenty of them, even Asshole. Sam Spade 16:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, the reason we shouldn't is that there is no there, there. I.e. it is a signifier of without signified.  There is no actual group or specific behavior to point to, because there is no group actually in favor of political correctness.  Instead, there are people who claim that other people are for political correctness, but that means that this article should, like nigger, be not about any purported reality, but instead about the history of the usage of the term, the goals of those who employ it, the social stresses that might account for the usefulness of the term.  I.e. it would be an article about a phrase, and not a phenomenon, or about the phenomena behind people wishing to insult in a particular way.  The closest analogy I can think of would be "Revisionism."  Once, there was a real thing called "historical revisionism," and it was a good thing.  Then there were the two Communist Parties in the USSR and China calling each other "Stalinist/Maoist Revisionists" as insults, and then the pejoration of that got carried over to historical revisionism so that today "revisionism" is used as a term of opprobrium.  The difference is that once upon a time there really were people who would call themselves revisionists.  I can find no such for political correctness. Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with Geogre, and would like to see this article deleted. Putting it on VFD was my first thought, except that I just can't imagine any consensus to delete. We've still got the irredeemable racism-magnets List of ethnic slurs (read that talk page!) and List of ethnic stereotypes, which have both been VfD'd, I think  (I think so&#8212;I may not be remembering the details right, as there are presumably complexities to do with their mutual relationship,, but there's certainly been VfD'ing), so how's the community ever going to agree to delete the inherently rather less offensive Political correctness? I think we're stuck with it, and should clean it up. Deep-clean.--Bishonen | talk 16:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow! Even though this potential deletion debate seems to be over, I just have to put in my 2 cents and say I had a hard time reading this.  I actually rubbed my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things.  I couldn't imagine someone suggesting this article should be deleted but there it is in black and white.  I don't think I've ever heard anything so ridiculous in any talk page as to offer as a reason that an article should be deleted that "this is a topic that is inherently POV.  So what?!!  Without conceding that the term "political correctness" is even one of them, why shouldn't objects that are of only one POV not be included in Wikipedia?  If anything, I'd make a case that POV or controversial topics should get priority articles in wiki as they need a counter-opinion(s) expressed.  And here you are thinking that it should be deleted?!!!  Wow.  If I didn't know better, I'd say this was a ridiculous attempt to just have a great anti-liberal truth expunged from wiki.  So your conclusion is you're "stuck with it".   Wow, indeed. (mouth still agape) Lawyer2b 02:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I think it's going to be inherently POV, and there have been deletions of articles like that (List of Republican celebrities, and I saw Dumbest man of 2001 yesterday that I hope is on VfD).  If there is going to be a real article, it's going to have to be (in my opinion anyway) about the emergence of women workers, the advent of academic Feminism, the Black Is Beautiful movement, and the reinterpretation of harassment laws in the US all combining to make this term a favorite for those who feel that their powers and perogatives have been eroded.  That's a long, linguistics haul, I think, and it would nearly be original research (that someone in a Linguistics dept. needs to do).  Geogre 18:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can imagine an excellent and NPOV article on this topic, but this sure isn't it. Roughly, the outline of that article would be:
 * A brief definition of how the term is used in contemporary political discourse.
 * A brief history of the use of the term ("correct line" in Marxist parties ==> in-joke on the left ==> criticism of the left and of identity politics).
 * A few examples of the sort of language shifts (etc.) that have been described as politically correct.
 * Critique of the concept (mainly as an effort to lump together several diverse agendas)
 * Some discussion of overt campaigns for "inclusive language"
 * Coda, return to use of the term, this time with more of a focus on how it has passed into popular usage.
 * -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the current lead:
 * "Political correctness is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900's, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920's, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism. The concept is said to be particularly embraced by advocates of certain forms of identity politics, especially gay rights, feminism, black power and the Disability rights movement."
 * The current lead is an example of the controversy over the term political correctness and why critics of the term claim it is a framing construct of far right ideologues. The lead is based on the work of William Lind, (note there is no attribution which raises the issue of plagiarism). William Lind is an ultraconservative analyst who is increasing straying into far right antisemitic and racist conspiracy theories about a concept he calls "cultural marxism." See the article at the SPLC Intelligence Report. The cites used for writing the lead include the following:
 * --[ The Origins of Political Correctness], An Accuracy in Academia Address by William Lind
 * --Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times an article posted on NewsMax.com, a right-wing website awash in conspiracy theories.
 * --An individuals website at the University of Toronto with no identification other than "Alexander."
 * So the current lead only reflects a far right view of the issue rather than an NPOV approac. This is not appropriate, yet SamSpade continues to revert all attempts to make the article NPOV. This situation should be discussed.--Cberlet 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've commented extensively on this Talk:Political_correctness above. Besides what I said there, there is nothing in the link cited in the lead to back up the claim about a comic strip that it is apparently intended to bolster, and also: how can something begin in the late 1900s (in the sense here, clearly, of late 20th century) and then be developed at a school that was closed down by the Nazis in the 1930s? This doesn't even make good nonsense. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see this is no longer the lead paragraph, but it's still there, and it's still close to nonsense. Neither the comic book thing nor the Frankfurt School claim make any sense. Since no one has seen fit to reply to me, I am going to remove this nonsense. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I tried to fix it by citing it to Lind. See below. I agree it is nonsense, but it is Lind's nonsense. --Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See Lind essay here. --Cberlet 13:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I see, it was so compressed as to have become incoherent. Lind also doesn't get any more specific on "a comic strip" than referring once to an unnamed comic strip; I see no reason to believe he is right. Also, the claim about the Frankfurt School is part of an elaborate case Lind is making, more an opinion-piece type of thing than a scholarly argument from a quick read. I wouldn't object to a good summary of Lind's case in the article, but, with all due respect to all concerned, this confusing paragraph was worse than useless. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * And now I see that you (Cberlet) say much the same below as I just did here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations

 * This sentence now avoids the serious plagiarism of the work of William Lind in a previous version:
 * "According to a series of essays by ultraconservative ideologue William Lind, political correctness, is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900s, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920s, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism."
 * I still think it is an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant, but if SamSpade wants it in the text, he needs to avoid the issue of plagiarism of Lind's work.--Cberlet 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty. Sam Spade 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What you did, Sam Spade, was take a very idiosyncratic and original set of claims by William Lind and slightly rewrite them. That is plagiarism.  There is only one original source for these claims. If they are to be made here on Wiki, they need to be properly cited. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the concept of plagiarism. I properly credited the paragraph and left it in the text. It is clear from a number of examples that you do not understand the concepts of proper citation or plagiarism. These are not hard to learn, and I encourage you to do so. Intellectual honesty includes understanding the role and form of proper citation and the requirements for avoiding plagiarism.
 * Now someone has deleted them because the paragraph was largely incoherent. I happen to agree. Try taking some key points from the Lind essay, summarize them, and cite them, and place them in the text someplace below the lead. Then we can discuss them properly.--Cberlet 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Whats that? Is that me citing my sources? Are you criticizing my lack of inline citation, or what? Inline citation (such as D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998) is frowned upon on the wiki, as you must have noticed. Citations and references are normally provided at the bottom of the page. There are a number of interesting policy pages outlining the principles of this, such as Cite sources. I obviously consider your stooping to false allegations of plagiarism intellectually dishonest. Sam Spade 21:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Sam, that's actually not you citing your sources. Inline citations aren't discouraged, they're very much encouraged in a case where there's any doubt which source goes with which part of the text (and here there's more than just doubt). The policy has been in flux until recently, following a lot of discussion about reference standards in Featured articles, which are now very strict, so I don't blame anybody for not being up-to-the-minute on it. But there's more: it's not you citing sources in any sense, it's you adding an external link. (It got doubled btw.) The section "Sources" is for stuff actually used in the article, while the section "External links" is for (online) further reading. This article also has a third section called "Further reading", for printed further reading. The third one is fine, but "sources" and "External links" are not. "Sources" only has one item in it! Those "External links" that are your sources need to be moved there. The reader doesn't have any way of knowing which they are. Btw, there's now a simple way of providing invisible inline references/footnotes which are apparently now preferred for Featured articles (though after trying for 20 minutes to locate the link to the page about it, I give up).--Bishonen | talk 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Note to SamSpade: If you look not at the diff, but the actual article version, you will see that the lead as written by you in both versions still had no cite. At one point the lead you wrote had a cite to the wrong source (a dictionary definition that had no relationship to the paragraph you wrote). When you take an idea that is original to a single identifiable person (William Lind), summarize it and rephrase it slightly, and do not cite it to that person, it is plagiarism. I realize that you do not seem to understand the concepts of citation and plagiarism. Anyone can make a mistake. I tried to prod you on this discussion page into dealing with the issue several ways, and you ignored me.
 * As for my inline citation, I posted those cites because you repeatedly deleted or reverted many edits I made on the main text page until I added the cites and asked you for cites to back up you claims. I will be happy to remove them.
 * The page seems to be making forward process. Could we please just move forward with the editing?--Cberlet 21:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lying and slandering, is this how you conduct yourself professionally as well?


 * politically correct


 * Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies.


 * Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.

Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.



I gave you this reference at least twice:



(here I clarify my source for the intro in a pretty obvious manner as well)

It backed up the sentence having its origin "in the late 1900s". You, and another, refused to understand that rather important, encyclopedic fact, as well as the dictionary citation for it. Now your trying to willfully deny my source citing for the old intro. I'll make sure to give it an inline citation when I reinsert it. I demand a formal apology for your allegations. Sam Spade 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SamSpade, please calm down, You made some mistakes on proper citation, and now are fulminating over it. Your cites and lead paragraph were a mess of bad citation and borrowed heavily from Lind without proper citation. I called you on it and you refused to budge. Now you are rewriting history. In some cases your lead paragraph was almost totally incoherent, but it clearly was based primarily on the work of Lind. It was never properly cited--as in a reference to Lind in the context of the paragraph where his work was summarized. Not a cite on the discussion page, not at the bottom of the article page with no link to the lead paragraph, not mis-cited to a disctionary that contained only a tiny shred of the original source (which was Lind.) We all make mistakes.  It is fixed now.  Let it alone.--Cberlet 23:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you wern't so busy trying to be obnoxious, you might want to reflect on your own copious errors here. If your saying my intro was less than perfect, thats one thing, but the lies and slander strewn above are something else entirely. Sam Spade 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SamSpade, for two months you have reverted edits, deleted my text, treated me like dirt and generally rufused to discuss the obvious right-wing bias of this page. You have inserted outlandish right-wing opinion without cites as serious material. You inserted a paragraph of material that was clearly based on the work of William Lind. I gave you an opportunity to slide out of that error and you ignored it. Now take some responsibility for your actions. Your mistake is obvious. I am sorry that you now have to deal with the fact of your errors. I am willing to write it off as a simple mistake. We all make mistakes.  Take responsibilty for your mistake and move on.  I fully realize you did not understand the issues of proper citation and sourcing. Now you do.  Learn from your mistake.  Stop whining. --Cberlet 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Typical. You can insult, abuse and slander all you like, but as soon as I clarify the facts (as I do above, in detail) you try to hush things up, and suggest I am "whining". I do not "whine", I present the truth early, often and in the right place and manner. Sam Spade 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now SamSpade is seeking informal mediation. I think we are making progress on this page, and if formal mediation is sought, I will cooperate. Otherwise, let's keep editing--Cberlet 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked into Cberlet's claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed he is right. Cberlet is a noted journalist BTW, knowledgeable in dealing with concerns about plagiarism. The passage in question was wholly derivative and was presented without attribution or quotes, hence it constituted plagiarism. Since Cberlet's claim was accurate, well-founded and detailed and directs us to a significant policy violation, there are larger issues to be considered here. What to do about this instance of plagiarism? FeloniousMonk 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about you take it to arbcom, since cberlet has already refused mediation twice. Or, you could try Copyright_violation. Sam Spade 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A mistake was made, and it has been fixed. Could we just please move on? I am out of town for the next several days.  I hope I will return and find this matter has faded into memory.--Cberlet 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Multiple mistakes were made, and nothing has been fixed, and no apology offered. I've been studying footnotes, and will fix the article shortly. Sam Spade 08:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--Cberlet 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Examples
Markaci: It might make sense if you read the article and numerous examples of politically correct inclusive language. NIV Inclusive Language Edition Nobs 02:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You added a quote to the article without an explanation, and nowhere in the article is the NIV Inclusive Language Edition mentioned. I read the list of explanations, and come upon a Bible quote &mdash; to me it didn't make sense, so I removed it. Since you know more about this edition of the Bible than me, I suggest that you include an explanation with the quote. &#8212;Markaci 2005-05-10 T 13:45 Z


 * How's this: O vain man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? became You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? in the 1996 NIV Inclusive Language Edition of the bible, James 2.20 (this relevent text to the article is lifted from the Conclusion in the link: "The politically correct/gender-inclusive agenda is usually associated with people who are liberal, theologically 'free' or neo-orthodox in theology.") Nobs 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added that. Now when I read it, it makes sense in the article. :-) &#8212;Markaci 2005-05-10 T 16:42 Z

Suggested revisions

 * Lose the Stalin quote. What does that have to do with political correctness at all?
 * Likewise, remove the Bill Maher anecdote. How did that incident relate directly to political correctness?
 * Take all of the accusations of Orwellian thoughtcrime/doublespeak/etc and merge them into one paragraph in the criticism section.
 * "Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced." like "migrant" and "illegal alien"? The analysis in that line is a comfortable one, but sadly without empirical documentation. Can someone show me a list of these 'elaborate' PC sayings?
 * Consolidate the criticism section in general. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in there, most of which repeat variations on the claims of censorship and left-wing propaganda.  -Sean Curtin 01:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * someone removed the stalin quote. I actually think that (even though I had never heard of Bill Maher or anything to do with the show) is an example of language that is Italic textnotItalic text politically correct, but is perceived as by others.  Will attempt third revision.  Will not at this time attempt fourth.

Criticism of PC from the left
I added a paragraph about criticism of political correctness from the left. Feel free to move it around, put it somewhere else in the article, or modify it or whatever, but I think it should be addressed. As written, the article seems to give the impression that PC is only a charge leveled at the left and that the right (and a few comedians) are mainly the ones using the term as a blanket political epithet. There's more to it than that and it deserves a mention somewhere. There is a very real concern that social class and labor have been replaced by "white skin privilege", ecology has been replaced by "environmental justice", color-blind socialism and a safety net by postmodernism, investigations of government wrongdoing replaced by blanket rejection of "conspiracism", fighting organized white supremacist groups replaced by claims that mainstream society is itself inherently racist, homophobia replaced by "heterosexism", etc. Kaibabsquirrel 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this has helped matters at all. This article needs less text, not more. dlf 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why there's the stress on the "leftist" usage of P.C. ?

I'm sure the P.C. is "politically indifferent" governmental new-speak. Just take a look at the article about the Ukrainian film director A. Dovzhenko, and you'll be shocked to learn how the Brits dubbed his documentary filmed in 1943 : they replaced the word "Ukraine" with the word "Russia" just in order to appease Stalin. Was Sir Churchill a "leftist"? I don't think so.

(Not a user) G.N. Boiko-Slastion, Aug.22,2005

Even a phrase like "the left" is inherently ambiguous and, some would claim, reflects bias. There is no real, discrete, thing as "The Left" or "The Right". Removing the following non-neutral phrase: "On the left, "political correctness" has primarily been used to mockingly dismiss their own more doctrinaire and zealous allies. " Issues: "on the left"; "doctrinaire"; "zealous".... -- Serge Dupouy 21:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten the page based on some suggestions above, but have tried to keep all the major points and some debated blocks of text in the article for this rewrite. The text is now grouped in more logical blocks. What becomes clear with this edit is that those who reject the idea that "PC" is a real problem have very little text on this page compared to the critics of "PC." This page could use a lot more cites to more reputable sources on many sides of this debate. Anyway, I hope the rewrite will make the next round of editing easier. I really did try just to move stuff around and consolidate repetition in an NPOV way.--Cberlet 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert
(This material was moved from above.)--Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "politically correct" (often abbreviated "PC), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.

is terrible. I am changing it now. It is not just a term used to criticise and criticism is not the main use of the word. If you have a problem with the changes, please tell me here. --harrismw 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is addressing points from below. A definition from a dictionary,
 * 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
 * 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

Looks more like what I had then what is there now. I repeat "criticism is not the main use of the [phrase]". Unless you happen to be a right-wing. --harrismw 06:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

End Insert

 * Yes. Cberlet's first paragraph went like this:

''Political correctness is the term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to erect boundaries or limits to language, the range of acceptable public debate, and certain forms of conduct. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form "politically correct" (often abbreviated "PC), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.''


 * This was changed by Harrismw to this:

Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.


 * I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to criticize a way of using language. Cbernet's formulation is admirably precise, but I think it may be rather complex for an opening, so I've simplified it a little:

''Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. The term most often appears in the adjective form "politically correct" (often abbreviated "PC), and is generally used disparagingly or mockingly.''


 * I optimistically removed the "forms of conduct", hoping that they aren't that important compared to forms of discourse, because having two terms rather than three makes the sentence a lot easier to read. Please just reinsert the conduct if I was wrong about that. Oh, and I don't see any point in talking about a predicative adjective. "Politically correct" is quite commonly used attributively also, as in: "That's a very politically correct remark." Bishonen | talk 03:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a section called intro above. If you could please repeat your problems up there.  I'll also address them up there.  --harrismw 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I'm new here! Bishonen | talk 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refresher course on policy

 * YIKES! Please carry on one substantative conversation at a time at put it at the end of the text, not up in previous sections. That's a Wiki convention to keep editors from going nuts. After reviewing previous comments on a talk page, it is easier for everyone if the current discussion is at the bottom of the page. Please DO NOT repeat comments in different sections.  Having said that, the current edits and discussion show a lot of thought.--Cberlet 12:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. NEVER delete comments from a talk/discussion page (except in rare circumstances involving personal attacks). It is considered a form of vandalism. The comments on talk pages are permanent and archived to preserve all text and the flow of the discussion. If you have deleted comments from this page, please go back and restore them. The proper method for dealing with a talk page that has become too long is to archive it, or ask someone else to archive it. Sorry to be the policy police, but this is a contentious page and Wiki policies need to be observed along with courtesy. --Cberlet 12:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro again
OK, so back to the discussion.

Harrismw wrote:

Political correctness is using language that is meant not to offend or discriminate on the basis of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. It is commonly used disparagingly, especially by those on the right of politics.

Bishonen wrote:

I'm sorry, but, no, it just isn't, please let's start the article right. PC isn't a way of using language, it's a term used to criticize a way of using language.

I agree with Bishonen, because for most scholars on the left, the term was an invention of the political right to bash multiculturalism. If you read the history section, this is easier to see. Many dictionaries have simply adopted the right-wing POV without seeing the complexity of the issue. Some on the left use the term "politically correct" to describe their attempts to deal with systems of oppression, but this is VERY problematic, given that the primary master frame for the term is to mock these political ideas.--Cberlet 12:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh...edit conflict with Cberlet. Yeah, I'm not new on the Wiki, just on this page, so I thought you guys must have agreed on a non-standard way of organizing the discussion here. With relief, then, I go on talking here as per usual, responding to Harrismw latest post:


 * If you look at the History section of the article, you will see that, yes, PC has been used in a straight-faced way at certain times, though at those time it was a much more marginal and little-used term than now. Now otoh it's a term of disparagemement, a slur (with the even more marginal exception of "a tiny subset of writers" who have "reclaimed" it). I can't help it if your dictionary is living in the past (dictionaries notoriously do lag behind current usage, AND dictionaries can have agendas, too): the intro should reflect how the word is used today. The time for historical definitions and tiny subset definitions is later, in the body of the article. I hope still more editors will join in this discussion, as our disagreement isn't really over a few lines in the introduction, but goes to the heart of the article. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am newish to Wikipedia thus I didn't realise that I broke a convention when I did what I did, sorry :). Any way,  I got the definition from answers.com.
 * It may be the case in the US that the term is only used negatively, however, at least in Australia as far as I can tell the term is used mainly in the first sense (from the dictionary) (except again, by right-wingers - many of whom are racist).
 * It is interesting to note that language has all ways been curtailed. At one stage you were not allowed to blaspheme. (By User:Harrismw, who forgot to sign.)


 * I'm going to have to disagree with Bishonen. Political Correctness if definately not universally used in a mocking way.  It may definately be a POV issue depending on what circles people are in.  Up here in Canada I've seen it primarily used two different ways.  The first similar to Harrismw definition - used to say taht someone is trying to use langauge that won't offend.  The second used as a critism of somebody taking non-offensive language too far.   In neither case have I seen the term used in a mocking fashion.  The world "misguided" is definately POV because depending on the context of the word, the speaker doesn't neccessarily think the use of PC langauge is misguided.


 * My suggestion would be to change the first sentence to "Political correctness is a term used to describe or criticise attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The terms "politically correct" or "P.C." are also used."


 * If I don't hear anything in a few days I'll make the edit myself if noone beats me to it. Granite T. Rock 18:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Viewpoint of critics of "PC"
Heartfelt thanks to Cberlet for writing a version that can be used for editing the article towards a better state. With his rewrite, it becomes easy to see just how bad paragraphs 2, 3, 4 under "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"" are! These nuggets and snippets need to contribute to some kind of coherent account, or narrative, or analysis&#8212;they need to make sense&#8212;or they need to go. It would even be better to have one of those dreaded "trivia" sections, where such "examples" of nothing in particular can be collected. I've removed these three paragraphs. That may seem drastic, and I add hurriedly that I don't want to delete any text at all; I've put them below for easy reference, bolded and italicized, with comments on what I think is wrong with them. I hope people will restore them to the article, but please not without clarifying them. Mystifying or incoherent material isn't any use. Presumably somebody understands their purpose&#8212;the original author, or somebody else (or everybody except me..?).

'In the United States, some public school systems consider bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. These guidelines can be used in the construction of tests that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate.'

How is that a viewpoint, or from a viewpoint? And, while I'm not a US resident, is it really the case that US schools merely "consider" bias and sensitivity guidelines? I was assuming many or most schools would already have them, and indeed the article Bias and sensitivity guidelines says they do. If there was some hint of the opinions expressed in the "considerable debate", it might become clearer what point, or what side of the debate, the paragraph is meant to contribute to. "Within the industry"? What an enigmatic way of putting it. The schoolbook industry..? Why not a clearer reference to it? Surely there's plenty of debate elsewhere? Incidentally, what exactly is the subject of considerable debate&#8212;customizing tests, buying schoolbooks, using these particular guidelines, having any guidelines?

'A recent situation at the Los Angeles Times is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term pro-life in the sense of life-affirming. However it is Times policy to use the term anti-abortion in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different and had nothing to do with abortion. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged .'

Qué? Very illustrative? It's a joke about the stupidity of computers. (A reasonably good joke IMHO&#8212;well, in a mild way.) If somebody can rewrite it so that it appears how and why it's illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech, please put it back.

Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for French Language) of the term "political correctness" as "nouvelle orthodoxie" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term.

Now this is an interesting fact. I do believe it may be relevant to the article, and I hope someboy will put it back with a clarification of what it's an example of (let alone an "ironic" example). Bishonen | talk 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(
24.130.117.205 has added a list of "Popular and Oft-Used Politically Correct Terms and Euphemisms", apparently without noticing that there already was one (under the better heading "Examples of language modification"). The lists should be merged, and 24.130.117.205's POV use of "in place of", implying that the older terms are intrinsically more rightful than the new, needs to be removed. I'll return and take a shot at a merge if nobody else does, but I'd rather a native and resident Anglophone did it, in view of the fast-moving shadings of offense in the "default" terms. ("Mentally impaired" has shifted from PC to older and rightful? Interesting. An article with any pretensions ought to mention this kind of shift, which goes on all the time.) Bishonen | talk 10:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Politically correct terms?
I've two issues with this (actually three if you include the american-centricity of it): Are some of these terms used? Secondly, in what way are african-americans not american? -- Joolz 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Plus sized" - how often is that said or used? Is "mentally challenged" PC? What about mentally ill? Is latino a PC term? - in what sense is it PC?
 * Aren't Pro-Life/Pro-Choice/Religious right all terms used by the supporters not because they're PC but because they put a more positive spin on their views?
 * Well, Be Bold, Joolz, please do the merge, and remove the terms you have a problem with! People are adding to that list all the time now, obviously without reading this discussion, so, at a minimum, there ought to be one list rather than two (and please lose the POV misformatted heading, also). Bishonen | talk 00:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

American really isnt a nationality nobody is from the American continents(including "native Americans" Dudtz 7/23/05 10:28 PM EST


 * "from" in what sense? Ancestrally? How far back? Native Americans appear to have been in the Americas 8-10 millennia before Indo-Europeans were in Europe. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reading this article has taught me that defining political correctness is actually pretty hard to do. It's easy to give examples of it but not to actually define it concisely. --Nerd42 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

these are uncited, and probably uneeded
They argue that what they see as defending victims of oppression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance or censorship. A rejoinder by critics is that leftist political correctness does exist, as a crusade on behalf of the hypersensitive that can be compared to the objections of monotheists to "insulting" God with criticism of monotheism.


 * I don't have much more to say at the moment, I'm waiting for the page to die down before preforming a much needed overhaul. This was a featured article at one time, you know... ;)


 * Sam Spade 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Overhaul your attitude first - we are awaiting mediation on this page. This page needs an overhaul to remove the conservative bias. Please do not begin a major edit without discussing specifics first. That this was once a featured article is ludicrous.--Cberlet 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The steady trickle and the incoherence
Personally, I doubt that this page will ever amount to anything deserving to be called an "article", the way it attracts a steady trickle of unsourced POV contributions, often inserted at points where they detract from coherence. I've removed the contribution of 206.54.124.160, please NPOV it and return with a source if you wish. 67.114.128.37, please provide a reputable source for your addition, or I'll remove that. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rm addition of 67.114.128.37 per above, feel free to return it with citations and NPOVing. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, merging the lists of examples
Please see my note "The article now has two lists of PC terminology :-(" from 13 June above. Nobody has merged the lists as I asked. Nobody has protested against the idea of merging the lists, and nobody has had a word to say in defence of the second list, in response to Joolz' criticisms of it. OK, I'm going to do a somewhat drastic merge, removing not just overlap but dubious terms as well. If you wanted it done differently, change it. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done: I merged the list aggressively, i. e. I removed glaring errors, under the original heading of "Examples of language modification" and took the opportunity of taking out long-standing examples from the older list of, well, anecdotes, mostly unsourced, which weren't primarily about language at all. This left a pared-down and pretty good list, something that hasn't been there in a long time. I drop the erronoeus items into the well of silence (find them in the History, if you like), but paste below the motley collection of examples of... well, again, I don't know what they're examples of, that's the trouble. The section for them, IMO, would need to be named something like "Unsourced anocdotes and pointless trivia". :-( Here they are, put them back if you can find a context for them (and cites!)--Bishonen | talk 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC):


 * Nativity play replaced by an "End of Season" play as suggested by many teachers according to a UK survey.


 * A West Yorkshire school in the UK banned books about pigs because they claim it will offend Muslim children.


 * In 2002, the UK Labour Government advised schools to replace traditional "Sports Day" for "Problem Solving" exercises to avoid humiliation by the children's parents.


 * Supposedly in March 16th 2003, the banning of hot cross buns during Easter in some UK schools. In a newspaper, the councils claim that selling them will offend Muslims, Jews, or Indians. Almost a month after the claim, the newspapers apologised in the following statement:


 * Where council catering managers were quoted as saying that hot cross buns were not being served for whatever reason, this was not of a consequence of any council policy. We apologise for any confusion.


 * Refusal to distribute a Christmas charity cd in a hospital in Scotland because it would offend non-Christians. First Minister Jack McConnell considers this to be "political correctness gone mad". --Bishonen | talk 10:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A plea for sanity -- Historical Usage of the Term
I'm new to this page -- just happened to stop by and be depressed by its state. I see some of the above editors working hard to NPOV and make sense out of this page, and I see most of the IP address people and some wikipedians just writing whatever the hell they feel like. I'd like to join the former group, if I might. I would say this: please, please remember that political correctness, in spite of the fact that it has "political" in its name, is NOT a political subject, but a linguistic one. While it may be motivated by a political purpose (and that can be addressed within the article), it should first and foremost be approached as a linguistic, rhetorical and/or grammatical topic. If you think PC is great for society, great. If you think it's bad for society, that's great, too. Neither opinion matters at all for the purposes of this article. Thinly veiled attempts to inject biases are quickly spotted by the intelligent reader and are likely to evoke the opposite of the intended effect -- not to mention defeat the purpose of a wikipedia article in the first place. Anyway, that's my two cents. RiseAbove 00:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of scholarship on this topic, and very little of it is used by editors in this article. Some say the issue is linguistic, some say it is political. Opinions seem to trump scholarly cites in this article --Cberlet 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be a separation of the Article. One for the linguistic meaning of the term and its traditional usage in language study.  The other for the left-right arguement of the term and its popular usage.  This term may well be suffering from semantic drift and we should address this accordingly.  aCute 4 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)


 * Can you give 3 citations for the existence of a "traditional usage in language study"? -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 17:18 (UTC)


 * Fred Shapiro, Associate Librarian at Yale Law School traced the use of term "politically correct" back to (1) U.S. Supreme Court used it in 1793 Chisholm v. Georgia. Other documented early use of the term include (2) 1936 H. V. Morton "In the Steps of St. Paul" and (3) 1955 tr. Czeslaw Milosz "The Captive Mind".
 * http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US8/PC/pc-orig.html
 * http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/qyd/media.html#usa
 * http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001114
 * There has been a semantic shift in the term "politically correct".
 * Around and before the early 20th century, "Politically Correct" used to refer to choosing language that offends the least.
 * Then, around the 60's, "Politically Correct" becomes a philosophy about promoting social tolerence and equality through language.
 * Finally, around the 90's, "Politically Correct" becomes a satirical remark of left-censorship and their insistance to use only politically correct terms.
 * aCute 7 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Worth A Try
I've tried to get a start on a better introduction, keeping in mind that this article, if it's going to be encyclopedic, has to distinguish between the term "PC" (the rise and use of which is worth recording for its part in the "culture wars") and the concept of "PC," which is in dispute. I wouldlike to continue weeding out the drek here.

It's worth thinking about an allied term like "feminazi." Such a word deserves a short entry: "a derogatory term for feminists or others who promote the social equality of women." It would not be encyclopedic to list under that entry a number of feminist arguments and their refutations. The same applies to "PC," although its uses has been more complex. I would like to delete examples that do not serve the puprose of illustrating a point (sigh) and add some subtlety to the description that steers awy from the left/right dichotomy. (Its users are now more likely to be libertarian in slant that socially conservative.) -- 68.40.200.167


 * I tightened up the language, made it a bit more balanced for the conservative side of things (sigh) and moved the cite to a better place in the paragraph. Otherwise, it it indeed a better introduction. --Cberlet 13:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 68.40.200.167, I'm not sure if you intended to take out my copyedit of your intro. I won't change it back, but please check it out: don't you think those were improvements? Bishonen | talk 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem; sorry. 68.40.200.167

Editorial Questions
1) To what standard of grammar do we want to conform this page? There is a relatively large number of grammatical, dictional and rhetorical errors here, but the page seems to be frequently altered and reverted, which can tend to make copyedits pointless.  I'm a big grammar Nazi, but am I merely sticking my finger in the dike by attempting to fix these?

2) What is the difference between liberals and progressives? If there is no practical difference (and I'm not saying there is or isn't), we can remove one or the other to augment concision, which this article (especially the intro) badly needs.

3) I switched the "especially" in the second paragraph to "including." Was there a specific reason these forms of identity politics were chosen as especially wont to be accused of political correctness?  If so, I think there needs to be a parenthetical citing some stats, or a sentence explaining why.  Also, is multiculturalism a form of identity politics?  Maybe I'm understanding it in the wrong sense...

4) The first sentence seems to imply that political correctness is disparaging efforts to do what most people consider "good" things, such as "raising awareness" and "eliminating social and political biases." This strikes me as rather POV, in that I infer that political correctness is working against (or at least not taking seriously) these "good" goals by mocking them.  I would rather the first sentence, at least, addressed the issue in a more clinical manner.  Cberlet suggests that it can be considered both a linguistic and a political phenomenon, and that's fine, but shouldn't the article lead with the linguistic aspect?  If for no other reason, simply because it's easier to avoid polarizing the reader right off the bat.

That's it for now. More when I get to the meat of this bad boy. RiseAbove 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Criticism Added
I added the following:

"Some conservatives would also view the us of many 'politically correct' terms as liguistic cover for an evasion of 'personal responsibility' (Such as 'children at risk' where previously 'juvenile delinquent' may have been used.)

Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory. Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society."

Because I felt like not all the criticism of the "PC concept" necessarily came from the true right of the spectrum (for instance, I would not agree at all that 'feminazi' is an 'allied term'--some level of mocking of 'politically correct' is much, much more widespread and acceptable in the American mainstream), and I thought in general that the lightweightedness of this section posed NPOV problems. -- stancollins 20 June, 2005

"Progressive"
If one does happen to hold the belief that the way in which language is used colors personal and political opinion, then surely the use of the word "progressive" to describe one side of the political spectrum would be objectionable, since it connotes something vaguely scientific, or at least uniquely forward looking, about that side of the debate. In that context, especially on this page, it poses NPOV problems. I decided to put it in quotations. -- stancollins 20 June, 2005


 * I tend to agree with you, stancollins. I would rather we just said "liberal" or "left-wing."  As I suggested above, I'm not sure the term "progressive" even adds anything if we've already used liberal.  Then again, I could be wrong about that... RiseAbove 19:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As a person who has written for "The Progressive" magazine and who considers himself a progressive, it is a bit strange to have people claiming the term has no meaning. Progressives and liberals are both on the political left, but the terms are not identicial in meaning. The quotation marks are POV.--Cberlet 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming it has no meaning. If you'll see my questions, above, I was just asking what the difference is among a liberal, a progressive and others on the political left.  As someone who has not written for "The Progressive" magazine, and is just some guy off the street, I was left wondering.  If there is no meaningful, immediately apprehensible difference, perhaps it would be best to just go with "those on the political left" for the sake of concision and ease of understanding...  And I agree with stancollins that the use of the word "progressive" can frequently have a POV effect, especially on a psycholinguistic level.  However, I also agree with Cberlet that the quotations can have a similar effect.  Thus, I would suggest circumlocution to solve the problem.  Further, I think a lot of the introduction to this article is rather rife with psycholinguistic (or, more simply, implied) POV points that could benefit from being looked at (please see my questions, supra).  While it may be unavoidable, it is clear between the lines that this article has an agenda, and I think that's not ideal for Wikipedia.  Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.  RiseAbove 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, maybe solve the problem by just using "those on the political left" ?--Cberlet 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, liberal is suggestive of moral laxity and generalised openness to change. Progressive suggests only positive change, rather than change for its own sake. A true progressive can often appear reactionary, if they are defending decency against an onslaught of moral relativism. Sam Spade 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What outlandish POV right-wing ideology. Liberal = "moral laxity" -- "onslaught of moral relativism" I've seen similar sentiments on quasi-fascist websites.--Cberlet 23:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Trash and insult me all you like, the two words are still not synonyms. Sam Spade 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The two words are not synonyms. Agreed, The rest of your prose is right-wing POV about liberals. That was clearly the point of my comments, which you, as usual, are trying to sidestep by drawing a stinking red-herring across the path. Fascists in the 1930s made the same complaints about liberals and morals and sexual "laxity."  Hitler used to write about it.  With fascists it was sometimes a way to mask issues of sexual repression or even repressed homoeroticism. Perhaps we need a page on that topic and the role it plays in generating fears among rightists about "PC".  In the meantime, this page has an improved lead, and much of the pointless listing of so-called "PC" language has been trimmed. I was not trying to insult you, merely offering a factual observation based on my 30 years of research into the ideology of the political right. --Cberlet 00:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of?
All right, I have changed the text to read simply "those on the political left," which will, I hope, defuse the "progressive/liberal" usage issue for the time being. I feel we lose nothing as a result of this, because more general terms are properly placed in the introductory paragraphs, and can be expanded and detailed further into the article.

Now then, while I generally do not involve myself in others' conflicts, I would say (about the immediately above comments): I definitely agree with Cberlet that I understand "liberal" and "moral laxity"(!) to be in no way synonymous. On the other hand, I would point out that Sam Spade's spelling indicates that he is from a country outside the United States ("generalised"), where the term may have a different connotation or even a completely different meaning. Therefore, I would suggest that we all give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to avoid flames. That way, we can come to a compromise and get a page up on Wikipedia that we can all be proud of. Sorry if that came off as parochial, I just want everyone to be buddies. RiseAbove 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone to be buddies? I'm sure you don't mean to patronize anybody, RiseAbove, but abandon that dream, it will not come to pass. (If it did on this particular page, I'll even admit I'd be a little weirded out. Notice how many archives it has..?) What we can more reasonably hope for is for everyone to be civil. The word liberal has more, not less, positive connotations in Europe than in the US. IOW, the claim that "liberal is suggestive of moral laxity" is even more of an extremist position when it comes from a European. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, okay, so I'm a dreamer. Imagine all the people... ;-)  However, I would respond by saying that word "liberal" in French, for example, actually refers to "classical liberalism" (i.e., what we often call libertarianism or, ironically, laissez-faire here in the States).  In England, the Liberal Democratic Party holds, in some cases, more conservative views than the more leftist Labour Party (though, in some cases the opposite is true).  Anyway, my point is that Europeans don't necessarily have a single viewpoint as to the meaning or connotation of the word "liberal," (i.e., we can't say for certain that it's more or less "positive" than it is here), and that we should try to be tolerant and give people the benefit of the doubt.  But hey, I could very well be wrong about that.  RiseAbove 06:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, a point of rhetoric: this is an international encyclopedia in English, not a US encyclopedia, so you might want to make a conscious effort to avoid privileging a US viewpoint in your own use of language, as in "we" versus "Europeans", "here in the States" versus "in England" (notice how I avoided saying "here in Europe" in my own post?). That's a form of POV that many contributors are sensitive to. They might even think you had by the end of your message gotten an American "we" so firmly established that you're saying "we Americans need to be tolerant of those people". Nobody likes to be tolerated. Some people might say I'm splitting hairs or going off at a tangent here, but you're a linguist, you know these effects and implications matter. The article is Americentric enough as it is. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I must say I was a bit taken aback by the above. It's rather disturbing to be accused of prejudice because of a sentence asking for tolerance.  I've done my best to try to smooth over conflicts here, but I think it's better if I just remove myself from the equation at this point, before I get accused of anything worse.  I would, however, respond that "[n]obody likes to be tolerated" is a rather confusing statement.  Toleration is the best we can hope for from those who disagree with or outright dislike us.  Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance.  We have no right to expect those who oppose our views to give them credence or accession (or, moreover, to "like it") merely because we believe that we are right and they are wrong.  We do have the right, however, to expect them to tolerate those views and treat us with intellectual respect, just as we should tolerate theirs and take care to treat them with respect.  Therefore, whether or not people "like" to be tolerated is, I would say, utterly immaterial.  I would also point out that the generalizations that Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans, or that "liberal" is a more positive term than "conservative" are at least as POV, ethnocentric, and -ahem- politically incorrect as my use of the pronoun "we" to stand for a particular perspective on this page.
 * I would also say that, despite Cberlet's statements to the contrary, I do feel that the primary problems with this page are the large amount of POV text, coupled with the extremely ambiguous writing which is clearly an attempt to obfuscate that POV. Cberlet has admitted that he self-identifies as a "progressive."  Perhaps it would be best to get someone who self-identifies as a moderate or who lacks a strong feeling about this issue, or politics generally, to captain this page.  Alternatively, the issue could simply be approached as a linguistic phenomenon, which might help defuse some of the political infighting.  To support this viewpoint, please see Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated."  Both of those sentences focus on the language and rhetorical aspects of the phenomenon, and either would make a MUCH better first sentence than what is up on the page now.  Anyway, I wish everyone here the best of luck getting this page ship-shape.  I may be back from time to time, who knows?  RiseAbove 18:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, and surprised, that I appeared to be accusing you of anything at all, that was not the intention. I must have sounded aggressive without meaning to—I thought I was being helpful, but obviously not. :-( I meant to be talking about language and the way it will do its own implying—by no means ascribing "prejudice" to you. I honestly do not see that I claimed, even remotely, that "Europe and Europeans are uniformly more liberal than Americans". It is certainly not what I believe. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First phrase
First phrase of the article is pretty complicated grammatically. I am not even sure what it means. Is PC used to eliminate biases? Or it is used to discourage efforts to eliminate biases? "Other forms of representation" - representation of what? Also, is it really true that "political correctness" is used to "discourage efforts to raise awareness" about biases? I would think its main purpose is to avoid offending people who may be sensitive about some issues. [Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker, and it might be just my lack of understanding] --Vlad1 04:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more, Vlad. English is my first language, and I find that first sentence rhetorically confusing and semantically ambiguous (not to mention more than a little POV, depending on how you read it).  I had changed it to a sentence defining PC solely as a grammatical/linguistic concept, but this was reverted back to its current form.  I believe (though I am not sure) this happened because the editors came to a consensus that PC is better treated as a political movement than a linguistic phenomenon.  While I disagree with this approach (in part because I believe it is likely to generate major POV problems), I realize that Wikipedia operates under a democratic system, and I want to accomodate everyone as best I can.  If you'd like to take a stab at it, Vlad, go for it.  My biggest suggestion would be to avoid modifiers as much as possible and stick to kernel items only for the opening sentences.  Adjectives, adverbs, etc. tend to inject more POV and ambiguity than do simple nouns and verbs.  That's my opinion, anyway.  RiseAbove 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a linguistic movement. It was not called Political Correctness--it was an aspect of leftist multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. The term Political Correctness was transformed by U.S. conservatives around 1990 into an attack on multiculturalism and anti-oppression movements. It originally was aimed at college curriculum, the linguistic part was just a small aspect of the original criticism.  We are not so much arguing about POV here as attempting to accurately reflect the history of the struggle over the term. That so many people think it is all about language is a problem of approaching the subject as if it had no history and no political content.  I have cited several major books on the subject, including one by a conservative. I have repeatedly asked for people claiming Political Correctness is primarily a linguistic issue to cite substantial published works rather than biased right-wing websites. Please find a scholarly or substantial mainstream journalistic work that supports your arguments and then edit.  But editing based on opinion is not going to last very long on this page.  Please note that I have asked for mediation on this page to intervene in my disagreements with Sam Spade. --Cberlet 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * According to RiseAbove,
 * ' Dictionary.com's definition of the term: "n., avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." or an even simpler one from Merriam-Webster: "n., conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated." '
 * Here is why an encyclopedia is different from a dictionary. What if a dictionary defined "Tax and Spend Liberal" as "conformity to the belief that governments need to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs." How about this: "Pro-life" defined as "conformity to the belief that life is sacred and opposing the murder of unborn children. These are a bit hyperbolic to make the point, but not much.
 * Nobody is arguing against the idea that the term "Political Correctness" is used a certain way by a certain group of people. What is at issue here, is the well-documented fact that the meaning of the term was transformed in the early 1990s by conservatives who wanted to attack what they claimed was a rigid liberal orthodoxy that had hijacked college curricula, and was forcing students and others to not use certain language that was considered insensitive or oppressive. The books and journal articles I posted in the references section make this clear. It appears that few people editing this page have bothered to actually read books or journal articles on the subject, and instead rely on the Internet for their information--or rely on ultra-conservative or libertarian sources which are highly biased.
 * Using this concpet, then, the definition of "Tax and Spend Liberal" would be more accurate as "the complaint by critics that liberals have a tenedncy to overtax citizens and then waste money on needless programs."
 * Thus the proper definition here for "Political Correctness" would be something like "the complaint by critics that persons on the political left seek to limit language that is seen as insensitive toward some group; and also seek to impose boundaries on certain public language, behavior, and even ideas." --Cberlet 12:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at, but I don't think that what you suggest quite works. We wouldn't define "Crime" as "the complaint that one or more persons have violated the norms of their community."  We could define it as "An action that violates the norms of a community sufficiently that the constituted authorities are authorized and directed to punish it."  We would probably go on to say that, "The term may variously describe a specific action or the legal definition of a class of actions that are similarly characterized and punished."  So, I would propose beginning with something slightly different:
 * Political Correctness is any attempt or desire to limit the terms of discussion on the basis of social or political norms, rather than a concern for free inquiry. Since the early 1990's the term has been used in the United States by commentators on the political right to criticize what they perceive as left-wing attempts to enforce doubtful ideas.  The characterization is generally rejected by its alleged practitioners, who claim that they are merely attempting to increase civility and tolerance by campaigning to eliminate expressions that they believe are offensive, inaccurate and/or outdated.  Partly as a result of this conflict, as of 2005 the term is rarely used outside of pejorative or humorous contexts.
 * Not perfect by any means, but I believe that an interested person with no dog in the fight would actually be informed by that, which is a reasonable test of NPOV. The first sentence describes what people who use the term in good faith think they are describing.  The second documents the dominant serious use without characterizing the claims, and the third does the same for the response. Robert A West 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Except, there never was a "Political Correctness" movement in this sense. And people who argue for language sensitivity seldom would say they do not defend "free inquiry." After some collective editing, this seemed like a good compromise:
 * "Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate."
 * As a compromise it was descriptive and yet problematized the term. The rest of the paragraph has lots of merit.--Cberlet 19:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion of the absence of a movement, although I must admit that my source is personal experience, which is inadmissable for inclusion in the article. In the 1980's I had dealings with activists who sincerely and openly held the position that certain lines of inquiry were politically wrong, and must never be explored.  These positions were very apparent on Usenet at the time, but appeared elsewhere as well.  While I found the goals to be sincere and high-minded, I expressed strong opposition to what I then described as a tendency toward "political truth".  Robert A West 19:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that a concrete example might help. In those days I liked to raise hypothetical ethical questions (probably because I liked the program Ethics in America.).  One involved a scientist who studies the relationship between race and the ability to envision complex geometric forms, which arguably bears on fitness for certain high-value jobs.  He expected to find no significant relationship, but found one instead.  He re-checks his results, and is now convinced that his results are accurate and will withstand the most searching objective review.  What should he do with the information?  The most common civil answer I got was some form of, "Suppress it, or alter the data to give the result we know is correct.  Since we already know the answers to all such questions, there is no place for further inquiry."  The writers were unapologetic about their opinion that some subjects were just off limits.  Now, a few nuts on Usenet doth not a movement make, but offers some insight into the Zeitgeist.  Robert A West 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Few people dispute that there are people who support censorship of unpopular ideas. What is so very frustrating here is that most folks are more than willing to say that these people populated a "Political Correctness" movement among liberals and leftists.  There never was a "Political Correctness" movement. Berman in his edited book on the subject does a good job of talking about the ideological and cultural tendencies that were criticized under the ubric of "PC," but he notes that there is almost no substantial evidence to back up the claim that these people used the term "Political Correctness" to describe their work, or that there ever was a coherent movement that promoted "Political Correctness." Here is my oft-repeated challenge. Find me a serious article or study that has located a "Political Correctness" movement in the 1980s. Otherwise, the term is accurately described (based on my research in a dozen books and articles on the subject by leftists, liberals, and conservatives) "Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate,"  or something like that.  So I issue the challenge again, and in a few days if nobody has found such a study, I will put my lead back up, and I will add quotes from Berman and other serious writers to back it up in the body of the article. The current lead is far too POV against critics of "PC" (and I do care about NPOV) becasue it makes assumptions about their intent.--Cberlet 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trying to resolve the debate on this page
I have just read this article through several times, and can see both positive and negative on both sides of the several arguments taking place on the Talk Page at the moment. From the introparagraph, I'm curious to know why the concept of political correctness is introduced in a disparaging manner? It gives a negative impression to the term, and also overshadows all instances when the term is used to describe that most people understand it to mean, trying to readdress what some consider to be impolite speach because it demeans them as a person. For example, in Canada, there was a big issue when there was a female primie minister for a few months because the word ministre in French is masculine, so should they say "Madame, le premier ministre" or "Madame, la première ministre". It was finally decided to address her as "la première ministre", but this is just an instance of trying to match the gender of a term to who it describes. For example, as a male English speaker, I would not like to be referred to as a waitress instead of a waiter.

That being said, this article also attemps to characterise the issue over what is politically correct and what people find respects them as people to be a clash between liberals and conservatives. This article is written with a fairly strong American bias, but I am American, and even then I have never heard the issue really being characterised as a liberal/conservative issue before this article. Some scholars may disagree, but to me I think it has a lot more to do with trying to encompass all the realms of possibility for the situation. For example, children are now asked to have their "Mother, father, or legal guardian" sign their report card, not just their father.

Also, the list of changes in "politically corect" terms is not really beneficial unless the reasons why they were changed are explained. For example, the progression from the term Negro to African-American is treated way too nanchalantly, and hardly even mentions the fact that the word negro had become an insult.

I'm very interested in trying to clean this page up and remove political bias. Thank you! Páll 23:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Compare My version, the last version that had featured article status, and the current version. Sam Spade 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be comparing. Is this a version of the article you put forward as the best among others? Páll 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And now? Sam Spade 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Páll, the reason the concept is introduced in a disparaging manner is that it's a disparaging concept. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Páll, you say, "I am American, and even then I have never heard the issue really being characterised as a liberal/conservative issue before this article." I find that statement flabbergasting.  I have been debating this issue since before the term Politically correct entered the common argot, and it works pretty well as a proxy for right/left political views in other matters.  Find an editor who insists that even pages use the masculine and odd the feminine forms for persons of indefinite sex, and that person at least thought of voting for Nader.  Show me someone who insists on using "sex" for people and "gender" only for grammatical constructs, and you have found either a pedant (c'est moi!) or someone who most likely voted for Bush.  (Me, I'm a self-described "Radical Centrist.")  Robert A West 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with this version?
 * "Political correctness is censorship based on the social mores of the times. Born from a comic strip in the late 1900s, and developed at the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, Germany (which later became known as "the Frankfurt School"), in the early 1920s, political correctness (or PC) has been a central ideological component of all forms of state communism, and most forms of radical leftism.".
 * Well, for one thing it is plagiarised from the work of William Lind, and while this appears to have been unintentional, it is not a good idea to repeat the mistake.
 * Second, William Lind's work on "political correctness" and liberal orthodoxy as "cultural Marxism"is one of the most right-wing critiques ever penned on the subject, and has been described as both a conspiracy theory and antisemitic..
 * We are trying to find a compromise lead that is fair, not replace the lead with a highly POV right-wing interpretation. However, as a lefty, I can look at the current lead and see it is overly biased toward my point of view. So I will attempt to find another wording based on some previous edits.

And then folks can tinker.--Cberlet 13:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Side Question
Someone needs to cite this material to some published research. It appears to be original research as written. If this is a widespread belief, that should not be difficult.
 * "Also, there is a widespread belief, not necessarily restricted to the political right, that words are crafted after the fact to correspond to specific things or actions in the 'real world', and thus that a "rose by any other name" is still a rose. Most terms referred to as 'politically correct' by this line of thinking would constitute attempts to either hide some 'obvious truth' in the strong form, or change a common belief in the weaker one, that is not actually likely to go away with the switching of terms. These people would cite as evidence the repeated switching of words as the new terminology becomes as derogatory as the old, and occasionnally even 'cycled' back to previous terms formerly considered derogatory.  Such an effort is likely to be considered by these people as doomed and vaguely comical or quixotic, even if not dangerous or deleterious to society."

If this is a widespread belief, finding a cite should not be difficult.--Cberlet 13:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. Robert A West 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First sentence again
OK, but a minor point: as a teacher of writing skills, I'm really against hitting the readers with such an involved, complicated first sentence, even just while we're waiting for more thorugh-going rewrites. To cram so much into the first sentence can easily put people off from ever reading the second. I'm reinstating the first sentence that I wrote a while back (shortened from one by Cberlet). Bishonen | talk 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been accused of writing in overly-complicated ways. :-)  So the cleaned lead is better. I do think it is useful to the reader to mention the terms politically correct, and P.C. so I tacked those at the end of the sentence. --Cberlet 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, and that inspired me to look them up: P.C. is a dab page with, ahem, this definition of political correctness: "referring to a topic that people are scared to talk against because those of influence accept a specific position". (Well, I've changed it.) Bishonen | talk 15:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.C. Terminology
Regarding a post made on 15 Jun 2005, yes, "plus-sized" is frequently used in the media; "mentally challenged" is P.C. because everyone with a brain is mentally challenged from time to time, inc. people like Stephen Hawking, but the term is applied to people who are mentally retarded/disabled/handicapped; "mentally ill" is not P.C. because it accurately describes what it portends to describe; "latino" is P.C. because it has become synonymous with "latin," and the two are used interchangably quite frequently-- French, Italian, Rumanian and Portuguese are as Latin as Spanish, yet Latino is only supposed to be applied to Spanish-speaking people or people with Spanish surnames; and yes, African American is P.C., because it is used in place of "black," while most blacks are not American (some say the NBA is 78% African American without taking the time to consider how many non-American blacks play in the league, for example)... also, North Africans are "African" yet most are not black, thus a North African-American is not considered "African American."

Cryptico 25 June 2005

Pointless trivia put back in illogical place: taking it out yet again
I appreciate that nobody can face reading this whole talk page before editing the article, but it's still a little frustrating to remove low-quality bits after careful argument (please see my long note, some ways above, headed "OK, merging the lists of examples"), only to have them silently put back without improvement, cites, talk page argument, or even edit summary. I'm taking out the same bunch of "examples" again, please do not return them without making some attempt to address the concerns I've expressed. For instance: they're pointless; they're uncited; they're structurally misplaced (what is a school not serving pork doing in a list of "language modifications"... ?). Bishonen | talk 7 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Continuing earlier edit
Aha, I think I see what happened when those bad examples mentioned above and various other stuff got reverted. 68.40.200.167 notes that s/he "continued earlier edit" on June 20. Perhaps you had a whole earlier version in a text editor, and pasted it in without realizing you were taking out everything Cberlet, RiseAbove and I had done since? Bishonen | talk 7 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Irony
From the article: "Fat person becomes large or larger person, or person of size." Person of size sounds to me like a parody of person of color. Is there any citation for a non-humorous use of this expression? -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
 * iawtc --24.251.143.179 04:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

From the first version on Wiki
I found this line in the very first version of this article and I think it should be included somewhere in the final version:

"However, the critics of PC have themselves been accused of using the word as a kind of smear term which itself acts as a form of thought control, much in the way that red-baiting was used in the 1950s. Proponents [of the term PC] have also been accused of hypocrisy for denouncing mainstream religions as judgmental, while themslves engaging in perceived "bashing" of groups such as whites, males, corporations, and others."

I think it lends a lot to the understanding of how language is used to promote POV. (anon 13 July 2005)


 * I mostly just find it poorly written. If you think these ideas are missing from the article, though, there is a fair chance they should be re-inserted (better worded, I hope). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Viewpoint of critics of 'PC'"
The old quote unearthed just above shows that the notions of "critics of PC" and "proponents of PC" have a long history in the article. I'm sorry to see it, as they don't make any sense. I've taken a shot at getting rid of them in the section "Viewpoint of critics of "PC"". I retained the information and the arguments, but attempted to inject logic and to remove the perhaps unconsciouos POV. In the Lead and the History section, "Political correctness" is defined as a term that mocks politically selective language (correctly, IMO). But in the section "Viewpoint of critics of "PC", by contrast, PC is used as if it was a neutral, descriptive term: and thus it gets to have not only "critics" but even "proponents". That usage is incoherent in relation to the rest of the page, and it also projects a conservative POV. The section is supposed to describe criticism from the right, it's not supposed to embody that criticism by using the term in such a way.

I've cleaned up the secion, shortened it a little, and changed the title to "Criticisms of political language choice". I've replaced claims about mental processes--"critics believe X"-- with claims about arguments made--"critics argue X"; taken out emotive language like "plain embarrassing" or "jargon"; and removed a sentence I couldn't understand, "The allegation is that the theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people." I've kept the term PC as far as possible, i. e. I've kept it where it makes sense but replaced it where it's misused. Neutral replacements like "conscious/deliberate political language choice" unfortunately sound woefully clumsy and stilted, but at least they're logical. Please edit further, but please don't put the old POV back. "PC" is a slur. There are no "advocates" of a "theory of PC". Bishonen | talk 14:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples or comprehensive list
Three to five entries would offer readers some "examples" - but we've got 36 entries! Are we going for the comprehensive treatment? Should we spin-off "List of PC phrases"?. -Willmcw 04:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I would say that many of the recent additions are simply wrong. I have never before heard "personhole cover", not even as a joke, though I'm sure it has been used as a joke. As for '"Problem" or "conflict" became "issue"', maybe, somewhere, sometime, but it's hard to say what that has to do with PC: I don't think that anyone seriously claims that every case of euphemistic or timid speech constitutes political correctness. '"Undertaker" became "mortician," and now "grief counselor"'? A grief counselor is something entirely different than an undertaker/mortician. Also mortician is a less euphemistic usage, because it has mort (death) in its etymology. I could go on, but my point is made. I'd be inclined to just remove all of these recent additions. Has any standard been set on this page for how we cite something as an example of purportedly "politically correct" usage, since the concept itself is, to put it mildly, contested? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I took out "personhole cover". I don't think we can stop that list from always growing, though. People are always going to see it and think "Hey, I've got one, I can help Wikipedia by adding it!" But we can invite these contributors to research and source their additions, and I hereby do so. If that doesn't happen, yes, we remove them, I agree. I've researched the latest one myself, "minimally exceptional", and then I took it out. An anon had added it to the paragraph "A cripple became an invalid, and proceeded through a long sequence of euphemisms, including disabled, handicapped, then disabled again, people with disabilities, differently abled, and physically challenged (the current term in the United States)", and claimed that "Some people" prefer minimally exceptional. No, they really don't. I googled for the phrase and got 57 hits, none of which considered the phrase to mean physically challenged, or crippled. All said it meant mentally handicapped, or stupid. Secondly, none of the 57 used the term in good faith, all of them mocked and scorned it. A majority used the phrase "politically correct" in discussing it. I'm taking it out; please let Some People rest in peace, or bring me a reference. Or input the phrase as the latest POV joke on the subject, if you must. (Several of the google hits mentioned it along with the old joke "vertically challenged" meaning "short".) Bishonen | talk 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that ever-growing lists of that are POV-magnets help Wikipedia. In fact, I just nominated List of euphemisms for VfD.  Perhaps the title should be "Short list of important examples with citations," to discourage nonsense-edits. Robert A West 17:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Anytime there's a list, people will want to add to it. A better way might be to put the examples, if needed, into the text where they can each be discussed. Examples that we don't need to discuss can be omitted. -Willmcw 22:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

And the recently added passage beginning "Indoctrinate and inform have yielded to 'educate'" strikes me as little more than propaganda. Is this an encyclopedia article or an opinion piece? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's an opinion piece, Joe. I just saw the same addition, and it was kind of the last straw for me, I find I'm all burnt out on writing "thank you so much for your lovely contribution and here's why I'm deleting it" notes on this page. Anyway, this steady trickle of POV anons all seem to be one-strikers who don't read the talk page, so discussing here feels a bit pointless. I may be back some day, but I'm taking a break from PC as of now. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My removal of "examples" reverted again
62.252.128.18 has reverted my removal of a number of supposed examples of language modification without explaining why. I feel a bit like Sisyphos when he saw that boulder roll downhill again: I've already argued the case for my change twice on this page, the latest time was here. I ask again that people don't simply revert without discussing the concerns I've expressed. Not serving pork is not an example of a language modification, is it? Nor are the others. Please don't put them under an erroneous heading. If you want them in the article at all, please explain what they're supposed to be examples of. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You folks are very stuffy and rather crabbed in your outlook. Tsk tsk, you don't approve of some of the more outlandish PC formulations? Striking too close to home, perhaps? If Wikipedia is to be an encylopedia, then shouldn't articles contain the most comprehensive amount of information possible? Isn't "encyclopedic" synonymous with "thorough" or "wide-ranging"? Just because you haven't heard of a particular example doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I for one have certainly heard the term "personhole" on a number of occasions. And the adoption of "issue" in lieu of problem is a textbook example of the underlying forces that drive PC. It isn't inevitably confined to matters racial or ethnic, but rather the desire to disguise, deceive, falsify, soothe, so that we a) don't know what's really going on and b) those with and power and influence (corporations, the military AND feminists and the universities) can go ahead and do as they please and inflict their will. If something isn't downright vandalism, libelous, in violation of copyright or utterly irrelevant, I don't see what right you have to go around deleting it. Maybe someone else besides you would find it worth a look. --Bamjd3d


 * We are deleting it because it is piling on a lot of text that detracts from the central focus, it is bad writing, it is bad editing, it is POV, and it unbalances the article.--Cberlet 21:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The examples list is way, way too long. Examples are supposed to illustrate the point, not serve as a comprehensive list.  I suggest that it be shortened to two or three entries at most.  A comprehensive list of examples of political correctness (assuming that belongs on Wikipedia) would be more properly reserved for a seperate page; an article describing political correctness does not need more than a handful of examples.  Aquillion 01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Particularly odd inclusions

 * The "War Department," together with the "Navy Department" became the "Defense Department." (This was back in 1947.)
 * "Civilian Deaths" became "Collateral Damage."

How are these "PC"? Given that the claim seems to be that "PC" refers to the jargon of the Left, how are U.S. military euphemisms "PC"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

They seem to follow the idea of newspeak, but aren't really the kind of things that are derided by right-wing pundits and tabloids as "PC-mania". Instead they are accepted and used. I was just noting this, not arguing for inclusion or removal. Slizor 13:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a number of the people anonymously contributing to this article are lacking a decent grasp of what PC actually means (or rather, is purported to mean). If Wikipedia flags every example of language modification as PC, the article will end up looking like a complete joke, and I'm starting to think that might be the intention of some of the contributors. ("It's political correctness gone mad!" yawn). That would be a shame, as the majority of the writing is of suh a high standard. Slizor's point about newspeak is a good one, maybe the article should be reworded to make it clearer that it covers a phenomenon, not a list of examples.

Also, the repeated inclusion of the Factoids about the historical origins of the term also continues to puzzle me - we don't say the Renaissance originated in ancient France because that was the first time the word was used.illWill 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the percived usage of those words was to supposedly make the words seem nicer. Johhny-turbo 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Political Correctness Movement?
What evidence exists to support the claim that a significant number of people openly embrace the term "political correctness?" Evidence! Published material in reputable publications. It is a myth. Part of the dispute. Please do not rewrite the lead until there is a discussion here with cites to reputable published sources. We have had this discussion repeatedly. We can have it again, but there has to be some cites before the opening text is replaced.--Cberlet 17:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. What about a paragraph near the top that mentions the controversy over whether there really is some segment of humanity that favors political correctness? I'm fairly skeptical that such a group exists, myself. --electric counterpoint 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Irony
Is it just me, or does the fact that the term "Politically Correct" is apparently considered to be Politically Incorrect(the neutrality dispute) on Wikipedia?Karmafist 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume you meant "does it amuse anyone else that the argument surrounding the Wiki entry on this phenomenon has devolved into a battle of who can be more politically correct in the context of Wikipedia (ie: who is the more NPOV / righteous about citation)" in which case the answer is yes, I'm amused.--Khaighle 05:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Genocide" became "ethnic cleansing."?
who posted the note: "Genocide" became "ethnic cleansing." ? that´s actually not correct, the two are different terms and have not been replaced. see the recent calling of the war in Darfur by the U.S. State Department as "genocide", not "ethnic cleansing". unless anyone objects i will remove that part of the article... Gryffindor 22:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - in fact I noticed the same thing and was on my way in to remove it. If you don't mind, I'll take care of it now. (Objectors are asked to reference Naimark's Fires of Hatred. --electric counterpoint 21:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds good thanks alot. Gryffindor  21:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * "ethnic cleansing" as it took place in the Balkans in the 1990s would be considered genocide by today's standards. The original intent of the term was to disguise the genocidal behaviour as the deliberate relocation and separation of feuding ethnic groups, presumably to discourage just such genocidal horrors.  As such, it's only "politically correct" from the point of view of someone who's in favour of the genocide.  Now there's irony for you.--Khaighle 05:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No kidding. The trials in the Hague are on counts of "genocide" not "ethnic cleansing", correct? Gryffindor 18:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Collateral damage
I have noticed another one that "Civilian deaths" are now "Collateral damage"? But doesn´t collateral damage go further than just deaths, by also implying "damage" in a sense of damage to a person´s body as well livelyhood and property, not just civilian casualties? By implying that the term "civilian deaths", which is still used in the media today, has been completely replaced by "collateral damage" would be misleading and should be removed as well? Gryffindor 21:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have read some of the other terms and see some problems here, not just collateral damage.


 * "Problem" or "conflict" became "issue."
 * Problem is still used, as is conflict, as is issue, these are terms with different dimensions. I would propose to maybe reformulate this point, maybe by writing ""Problem" or "conflict" can be replaced with "issue"."


 * "Hospital" became "Health care center."
 * Hospital and Health care center are not necessarily the same thing?


 * "Doctor" or "nurse" became "Health care provider."
 * Doctors and nurses exist, maybe this point can also be changed by saying ""Doctor" or "nurse" can be replaced with "Health care provider"".


 * "Heart attack" became a "cardiovascular event."
 * A heart attack is a cardiovascular event amongst many. This point actually sounds bizarre.


 * Any reference to the area that consists of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as "Greater China", and Taiwan should be referred to as "places", thus avoid taking a position on the political status of Taiwan.
 * Taiwan is referred to as "places"? I completely don´t understand this point here, maybe someone or the user who posted this would be so kind to enlighten?


 * Juvenile delinquents became children at risk.
 * Again, I would recommend a rephrasing, the term "juvenile delinquents" is still very much in use in law.


 * "Anno Domini" (AD) and "Before Christ" (BC) are replaced by "Common Era" (CE) and "Before Common Era" (BCE).
 * AD and BC can be replaced with CE and BCE, but they have not been completely replaced. The current wording of this point is misleading.

Gryffindor 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of you criticism don't hold up. I see this article is talking about an incremental creep of political correctness. Some organizations or some writers get into a politically correct terminology. For instance, the military is more apt to use "collateral damage" but critical media will stick with "civilian deaths". Also, the term "collateral damage" has become embarrasing to the military so that term may have reached a high-water mark and is now receeding. You don't need 100% (or even 50%) compliance to have a term be (or once have been) politically correct.


 * Still, your criticism is worth noting; perhaps some kind of indication of uniformity of political correctness may be useful.


 * WpZurp 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with the anon listmaker. On one point&mdash;Taiwan&mdash;there certainly is an issue of language choice, but it is certainly not the left-political issue implied by "political correctness". Most international corporations have policies against naming Taiwan in a context that clearly implies either that it is or is not a country. For example, a company I have worked for will never list Taiwan in a table column labelled "countries". -- Jmabel | Talk 17:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. What did they refer Taiwan as? However to state in the article that the PC term for Taiwan is "Places" strikes as odd. Maybe a better description or nuancing could be used. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 16:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * What did they refer Taiwan as? They avoid having to use a noun. If you think about it, in most prose contexts, you can just say "Taiwan". But, as I said, they definitely will not place Taiwan in a table labelled "countries" (nor, for that matter, will they place it in a context otherwise including only sub-national entities). The usual solution is to make a list of "countries/regions", containing both countries and sub-national regions; the inclusion of Taiwan in such a list is uncontroversial. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Politically Correct vs Euphemism
A great many of the entries (such as "Collateral damage") are instances of euphemism, but are not "politically correct" by any usage with which I am familiar. This article has enough problems without adding more by inapt examples. Robert A West 02:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At the start of this article, political correctness is noted as:
 * misguided attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate
 * Later, this article notes:
 * However, critics of political language choice argue the new terms are often awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the original stark language ...
 * In the case of "Collateral damage", critics argue that the mainstream press (especially in the US) often uncritically accept Pentagon briefings without sufficient consideration of spin. Thus, the activist indymedia criticized the military for using the term "Collateral damage"; that is, the military was allegedly trying to limit the range of public debate by avoiding the stark language of "civilian causualties".
 * Certainly among the jingoistic segments of the media, such politically correct euphemisms are eagerly adopted which does begin to limit the range of debate. Then, the remaining media is loathe to stand out as unpatriotic (for example in the months after 9/11 but this applies to other situations of other nations also).
 * I find your "euphemism vs politically correct" distinction interesting but I need criteria if we were to create an effective dichotomy. By the "limit ... public debate" criterion, many have argued that "Collateral damage" is an excellent example of "politically correct", albeit political correctness from a right-wing bent.
 * WpZurp 03:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you obliterate the distinction, we can replace this article with a redirect to euphemism and go home. "Collateral damage" was invented by proponents of daylight precision bombing as a term-of-art to describe any damage other than to the intended target.  It has ended up serving as a euphemism, but the term was not invented for the purpose of limiting or guiding debate.  In contrast, calculated neologisms, such as "differently abled" or "womyn", were devised expressly for that purpose.  Robert A West 07:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we can merge the concept of euphemism and political correctness. A distinction between these concepts does persist, namely an effort to manipulate public debate with euphemistic substitutes. In one's personal life, we can use euphemisms for other reasons such as being sensitive to a person's feelings or being afraid to get involved in controversy.
 * In any case, we mustn't be too eager to merge "politically correct" into "euphemism". Wikipedia doesn't include topics on the basis of being rational, scientific, and objective but, rather, on being notable.  Sadly, many people persist in believing in bigfoot which makes bigfoot a notable concept. We can't simply wave a magic wand an eliminate all irrationality in the world.
 * Remember, people will encounter terms like "bigfoot" or "political correctness" out in the media. Wikipedia must provide a useful discussion around such topics. By improving NPOV and banning rhetorical devices and emphasizing cited sources, then, over time, Wikipedia will present informed discussion from all notable sides of an issue. Then, readers can make informed decisions; they can only be inoculated for rather than quarantined from nonsense.
 * Now, let's consider the original and subsequent use of this example of "collateral damage". First, this original use to emphasize "damage other than ..." does arguably reflect a mindset that diminishes and dismisses civilian deaths. Indeed, US military intervention has often been criticized for placing a significantly lower value on foreign life than on US lives as if one US life is worth, say, 100 foreign lives; the activist media periodically notes that the deaths from 9/11 are much lower than the death toll from UN sanctions and in the Iraqi invasion and occupation.
 * Second, regardless of whatever the initial intended use of "collateral damage", English is a constantly evolving language. Thus, original uses aren't necessarily more notable than subsequent uses. Again, people will come to Wikipedia to get a greater context on terms they hear in the media. Rightly or wrongly, people have criticized military briefings for using "collateral damage" as a way to guide public debate and large segments of the media do uncritically accept military briefings without analysis. Thus, political correctness is apt in this case and is a more accurate designation than mere euphemism.
 * So where does this leave your notable comments on the invention/use of "collateral damage" vs "womyn"? If not already in this Wikipedia article, then I urge you to add this information. Your insights are valuable and will help people gain an informed opinion about political correctness.
 * WpZurp 12:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness, as even the definition in the article says, is an attempt to *impose limits* on the use of language. People who use the phrase "collateral damage" don't generally claim anything about others who refuse to use the phrase. They don't say that it's offensive to say "civilian casualties" or that people who use the phrase "civilian casualties" are demonstrating unconscious bias. This disqualifies it from being political correctness; using different phrases oneself, whether as euphemisms or not, is not an attempt to impose limits on others.

"Womyn" is used to suggest that people who don't use the term are contributing to male oppression. Ken Arromdee 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is really key. When people call something "PC", they generally assert an attempt to get people to drop one or more terms in favor of the chosen term.  Thus, an article in Jane's Defense Weekly might read, "The new class of precision munitions is intended to reduce collateral damaage," and intend to be nothing more than precise: the damage to be avoided could easily be to a legitimate target (i.e. a bridge) that the attacker wants to use later for tactical advantage.   The same author might subsequently write with complete consistency, "Malfunctioning precision-guided 155mm shells were blamed for over 100 civilian deaths in Bosnia."
 * Now, if I can just find a competent scholar who shares that view....it is important to cite sources. Robert A West 21:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the part about imposing limits is already in the article. Presumably, either it already has a source or it's already noncontroversial enough not to need a source.  Ken Arromdee 07:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that several of the statements under "Other" are more euphemisms than PC. However collateral damage wasn't on my list. How is "health care center" more PC than hospital?. Or issue rather than problem in the given context? - Zarboki 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph
Hi all,

I know there's been some hashing over the opening paragraph. I made a comment a few days ago but I realized it's burried up in the middle somewhere so it might easily be missed to I'll move an expanded version of it down here.

Given the controversy between is PC a term for mocking or merely a term to describe how langauge should be used I propose the first sentence be changed to:

"Political correctness is a term used to criticise, mock or describe attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The terms "politically correct" or "P.C." are also used."

Personally I've only ever seen the term Political Correct used in the context of either describing how language is used, or as a critism, never as a term for mocking. Technically I would argue PC is merely a description of how somone uses language. People then either mock or critisize (or perhaps applaud) someone for being Politically Correct. The mocking occurs in the way the term is used, and isn't neccessarily inherent in the word itself. For example, if one of my social work peers told me my language was politically correct, I would take that as a complement because as a social worker, it is important that my language is limited so as not to offend. Whereas I might say in response to someone wanting to change the name of a baseball is way to Politically Correct... in which case I'm critisizing the use of PC langauge. Finally, it seems that somepeople here might use the term politically correct in mocking fashion... I won't give an example because I'm not familiar with that form, but I respect that people do use it that way. Therefore, I suggest that all three uses get a mention in the first paragraph, otherwise readers who just want a quick answer and don't have time to read the entire article are at least made aware the term can be used differently depending on the speaker. Granite T. Rock 20:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm actually kind of amazed that someone familiar with the term hasn't heard it used in a mocking way: that's the main way I've heard it used. Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, mentioned in the article, is an excellent example of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Which really goes to show how what social circles someone is in really does affect how a word is interpretted - sheltered life of mine. Nobody seems to be jumping up and down in opposition of my proposal for the first setence.  Does that mean everybody is cool with out.  (in other words speak now rather than complain later!) Granite T. Rock 17:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have any particular problem with your wording, although I doubt it will prove any more stable than half a dozen other lead paragraphs than we've had. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Silly question
does anyone know why people usually refer to PC as a left wing thing, seems odd, when it's PC that keeps the quotation marks around evolution in public schools/universities, when it's PC that forces professors to add the phrase "which I'm not allowed to say is real" before global warming????seems right wing to me


 * I think because in recent history and still today alot of PC language is associated with feminist and other left types efforts to change language. So that's where it's been the most visiable.  I'm not sure what country your in, but given the political polarization in some parts in the states, you'll see that happen in areas where left ideas are quite unpopular.  Up hear in Canada, I don't know anybody that would be afraid to say global warming is real. But your illustration is good in showing how PC seeks to intimidate people for verbalizing certain ideas.


 * As the article states, "the term was &hellip; used jokingly within the left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier &hellip; applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance." It was then picked up by the Right as a club to lower over the heads of the entire Left. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the evolution and global warming examples PC. Avoiding language on the grounds of accuracy (even if you're wrong about its accuracy) isn't PC. (This applies to both sides; a left-winger who uses the phrase "so-called Moral Majority" isn't being PC any more than the right-winger who adds an implied "so-called" to "evolution".) Avoiding language because you believe it's wrong isn't the same as avoiding it on political grounds, even if the belief that it's wrong is usually associated with politics. Ken Arromdee 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Xenophobia/Racism
I removed the line "Xenophobia replaced racism." This does not accord with my experience, and is unsourced. Xenophobia is a much-older term that means "fear of foreigners." The true xenophobe is not concerned with race. While I am sure that someone out there has misused the term to mean racism, I see no evidence of widespread use. Robert A West 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we really should make some distinctions between Politically Correct vs Euphemism. We do not have to remove the list of words and their replacements, but I think a better distinction should be in order. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 19:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Several of us agree, and have tried to replace most of the examples with a few clearer ones, but folks relentlessly come to this page and insert their pet peeve. Feel free to try again.--Cberlet 17:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think we should remove all but three or four examples. Wikipedia is not a place for random lists of information, especially not an unverifiable list that is in many cases highly POV; the only reason to include examples of political correctness here is to help illustrate what it is, and we only need a handful for that.  If people insist (and it seems like they do) we can move them to an external list, but I don't think they really belong anywhere on Wikipedia at all.  There are approprate places to try and list every example of political correctness in the entire world; Wikipedia is not one of them. I would go ahead and do this myself, but given how much resistance it's likely to raise I'd like to make sure there's some support for it here on talk first. Aquillion 17:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncited statement
The following paragraph was recently added without citation. I believe it to be either false or misleadingly vague: "Throughout the 1980s the term was commonly used on college campuses, without negative connotations, as a label describing adherence to the set of values, doctrines, and behaviors that would be considered acceptable and non-controversial among the campus leftist community." Admittedly, it doesn't say what country, and would be technically correct if there are even two campuses where this was the case, but the wording suggests that this phenomenon was general, and I'm pretty certain it wasn't. If someone has citation for such use, I'd like to see it (and would be very curious to know where these campuses were; for example, were they in the English-speaking world?) If no one has citation for this, I believe it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I would notify the person who wrote the paragraph, except that it appears to be an IP with no other contributions. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

If we are seriously going to debate the phrase "politically correct" then lets break down the word politically derives from the latin word poli- meaning  "many" a refrence to a "many number of people". this is where we get the word politics.Now the aspect of of being "correct" is possessing a truth or acting in the correct or enlightend manner.Now when u put these two words together "politically correct",this phrase actually means speaking or adressing people in an agreeable manner. When i was growing up we had another word for this we called it "respect" or treating people with "dignity" or even being "polite".Now this thing my people called "respect" is an interesting concept it has two purposes when u treat people with "respect" 1.It demonstrates your intelligence and denotes an aire of good breeding,good family values, and essentially shows you possess the value of a human being.2.It makes the person you are talking to feel as they also possess these characteristics and value them as human beings.Its also a preventative method in debate to reduce AD HOMINEM attacks and prevents an otherwise intelligent and productive discussion from devolving into a bitter name calling match. As far as "political correctness" being orwellian is not a very logical comparison ,usually orwellian double-speak has an ironic flair to it, a word that says onething but means but the exact opposite,it also possess the quality that it is shorter than the actual words inhibiting the speaker or general populace the ability of independent thought."African-American" is not double speak it is exactly what it says a person of african heritage born in america.and also its possess many more syllables than the old moniker"negro" or "colored".These phrases in themselves can be considered double speak since it reduces a person a human being with a culture a heritage to a mere color.African American is actually more accurate term since all people are colored and no human being on earth is actually "black" or "negro" (spanish for black)colored it gives  u a more realistic impression of a people coming from an actual place the phrase actually promotes thought,for this reason it dosent qualify as double speak.I think the point of my insert here is that the ignorance of our ancestors shouldnt inhibit us from growing intellectually and culturally.At one time it was believed that the earth was flat, should we try to go back to that ideaology because were afraid to sail past the horizon? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.38.73 (talk &bull; contribs) 31 Aug 2005.
 * If that was in any way related to the uncited statement in question, I'm missing it. I will revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the comment by Anon starts out with a glaring inaccuracy. Like "Democracy", "Politics" derives from the Greek, not the Latin.  In this case, the root is Polis (πολις), meaning city, or more especially, city-state.  Robert A West 21:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

PC vs PC terminology ("PC Speak")
Suggestion: Authors are confusing "Political Correctness" in general with what should be a sub-division: "Politically Correct Terminology". Modification of terms and phrases to be more politically sensitive (use of euphamisms) is only one small aspect of what the terms "Politically correct" and "Politically incorrect" refers to.

Background: 'Political correctness' was intended to refer to (critcise or condem, not "mock") the "chilling effect" on public discourse of certain topics. It was not intended to refer to the terms use by comedians (such as the 'you might be a redneck' bunch or Bill Maher); in particular defining use of Politically correct to refer only to simple minded examples of gender-neutral job roles (e.g. "fireperson").

Recommendation: Create a seperate article for "Politically correct terminology" or "Politically correct language".

- Serge Dupouy 21:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Need to be rewritten from scratch
This article is very poorly written, and I agree with the comment about confusion between PC and examples of PC language. The article is disjointed and seems more like a series of sentences plucked from high school essays.

The overall impression is well meaning amateurs writing about the pet peeves. A more academic approach is needed. There is nothing about the Frankfurt school, "critical theory", nor is there anything about the link between PC and environmentalism.

Somebody with a broad knowledge of history/social sciences need to rewrite this article Gtoomey 03:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Many of us have a "broad knowledge of history/social sciences," you just happen to disagree with our views. It is true that there is "nothing about the Frankfurt school, 'critical theory', on this page. There was once material drawn from the right-wing musings of William Lind, from where all such material originates (if it is not from the LaRouchites), but when it was pointed out that Lind then took his views well into the sphere of outlandish antisemitic claims of conspiracy, the material was seen as less useful. There are a number of scholarly cites on the page, and some material is drawn from them. So if you want to start by providing scholarly or notable published cites to back up your claims, that would be an improvement. Please avoid polemic screed from right-wing websites. This page could use some editing, but it has been batled over for months, and represents a compromise. Belittling hard work is not a good place to start.  --Cberlet 13:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Debate edits
Another round of discussion. Please provide a scholarly cite that there ever existed a "political correctness" movement. Even most conservative academics don't make such a claim. Please do not base this page on right-wing polemics. --Cberlet 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly agreed. There has been no evidence presented that there ever existed a "political correctness movement". Censorship movements and language "reform" movements do not happen in silence. They create documentation, proposals, speeches, and so forth. Advocates for hate speech legislation, or spelling reform for that matter, publish papers and write editorials in defense of their positions. If there were a "political correctness movement", then its opponents would be able to point specifically to its works. However, they don't. Why not? --FOo 02:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain why some of my editing was reverted, given that I don't see where I even so much as implied that there was a political correctness movement, never mind saying it outright? I also object to my edit being assumed to have been in (right-wing polemic) bad faith, given that I consider myself to be of an anarchic bent, when I bother with politics at all. IceKarma&#x0950; 03:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the term "political correctness" in its current usage was concocted by the political right in the 1990s as a way to bash the left. This history is discussed on the page itself. Your text implied the existence of a "PC" movement, even if that was not your intent. --Cberlet 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect Edits
OK, I know there is an irony here, but two recent edits creep me out in their lack of sensitivity to what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. I don't care that a "Jew" wrote a song about Christmas. I don't think we need to point out that the term "nigger" is offensive. --Cberlet 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So because of those two issues (the first merely a bit of throwaway trivia, the second a true fact), you threw out everything I wrote? You're a self-defining example of P.C. And by the way, I consider myself a Liberal. I hate the N-word as much as you do. But the points I made about the patronizing attitude taken by some groups, telling others how they should think (such as the NCAA vs. the Seminoles) are absolutely on the money. So, when I get a chance, I'll add some of the more "politically correct" (by your personal standards) verbiage back. Wahkeenah 17:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How very predictable. I am accused of being PC. I found that your text lacked maturity and sensitivity. My opinion. It's called being an editor. I did not think your edits improved the page. My opinion. It's called being an editor. Some of us are tired of people using this page as a dumping ground for their pet examples of what they consider to be PC. My opinion. It's called being an editor. --Cberlet 20:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Examples of politically-correct speech, like all facts and assertions in Wikipedia, need to be backed up by sources. Examples which are not sourced are open to being challenged or removed pending verfication of sources. That's a core principle of this encyclopedia, and the only way to avoid original research. -Willmcw 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like CB has been accused of being PC on other occasions. Imagine that. Apparently I stumbled across a page that's the personal "pet" of a few of you. Fine. Maybe you could include something in the introduction dictating which specific users and/or facts are allowed and not allowed, thus saving money, time and space. Wahkeenah 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good suggestion, which has already been fulfilled. See no original research, verifiability, cite your sources, and neutral point of view. They specify what types of facts can be included. All editors who follow those policies and guidelines are welcome. -Willmcw 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing I have to give this page credit for is having a lot more citations and footnotes than average. Of course, with a controversial topic, it's probably necessary. You wouldn't need so many citations if you were writing about Angelina Jolie, for example. A link to the National Enquirer would probably suffice. Alrighty then, if I can find a good source for a seemingly relevant fact, I'll post it, and cite it, and then wait to see how many nanoseconds go by before you guys clobber it anyway just because it threatens your basic premise. Wahkeenah 23:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at the next topic, it is clear that any edits to this page are a waste of time, because they are going to get clobbered soon in any case. Maybe the core problem is that everybody knows what P.C. is when they see it, but they can't define it? Wahkeenah 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, against my better judgment, I have added back some stuff, including citations for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. If you still delete it, I'll have a pretty good idea what your real agenda is. Wahkeenah 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

List of examples
I'm tempted to remove the entire list of examples. The terms "doctor" and "nurse" are still in use, have not been replaced by "health care professional" and are not considered demeaning or degrading by anyone. I would speculat that "health care professional" is a term that arose naturally as the medical industry grew more specialized, now including people who are neither doctors nor nurses -- they are all, however, "health care professionals". I have doubts that the term "police officer" was introduced to be gender-neutral, etc. In many cases, until recently there were no female cops or firefighters, so there was never a need to consider using a word other than "policeman" or "fireman". Now that there are women in those professions, people use a different word. I don't see how that's political correctness. Similarly, the Star Trek change ought to be ascribed to whoever holds the position that it is politically correct -- is it not plausible that "no man" waters down the sentiment and was changed for that reason? Did Time magazine have any women as "Man of the Year", or did their change occur before a woman was chosen? If so, I don't see how that could be political correctness -- why would you designate a woman "Man of the Year"? The Petsmart commercial is absurd -- is there any evidence for the wild speculation about the reasoning behind the wording of the script for a stupid commercial? The terms "heart attack" and "cardiovascular event" are not synonyms, and are not used that way by anyone of any political stripe. The term "foreign students" is still in wide use, and I've never heard of anyone argue against it -- how is "international students" even purported to be less offensive? Soldier, sailor and marine are definitely in use (I don't think I've ever heard "airman"), but they are of course referred to collectively as "members of the military", since they are, in fact, "members of the military"; the words "soldier", "sailor" and "marine" are not considered offensive by anyone I've ever heard of, nor can I imagine why they would be. The words "problem" and "conflict" are still in wide use, and have not been replaced by "issue" -- all three words have slightly different meanings and have been used differently for a long time, and none of them is offensive to anyone. ESL (English as a Second Language) is the only one of those listed terms I've ever heard used. The word "welfare" has not been replaced by "public assistance", and I doubt that either term has replaced "alms" (which means "charity", not government assistance, AFAIK), and I've never heard of "poor relief". The Taiwan, war department and civilian casualties are simply not political correctness as I understand it, and the Taiwan one isn't even coherent. "Affirmative action" has not replaced anything to the best of my knowledge, and isn't more politically correct than a different term. Tuf-Kat 00:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to move the list to list of politically correct speech or something, then remove anything that can't be cited to a source that actually documents that somebody notable actually said that a given term should actually be replaced by a different term for reasons that were actually related to political correctness. This article's pretty good, until you get to the list of ways in which the English language has changed over recent years. Tuf-Kat 00:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been arguing that we should move or delete the list for a while now. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists of random information; our article on political correctness should address what it is without having that text overwhelmed by a massive list that attempts to encompass every politically correct term ever used, anywhere, by anyone.  Two or three examples worked into the text to illustrate what it is would be enough.  I don't think the list properly belongs anywhere on Wikipedia--it's inherently POV, since different people have different standards of what constitutes political correctness; many of the entries are unverifyable; and it's essentially useless, since there's no indications or guidelines for who is using these terms or how widespread they are. If there is going to be a list, though, it certainly shouldn't take up half the space on an otherwise encyclopedic article. Aquillion 01:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me.--Cberlet 01:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the presence of a list attracts spurious entries. -Willmcw 05:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently you bean-brains haven't figured out yet that the entire website attracts gazillions of spurious entries. While you smack down well-intentioned entries from registered users, countless Ann Nonymi get onto PC's at their local libraries and continually mess around with things and waste everyone's time fixing them. Until you seal that gaping breech in your electronic levee, this so-called "encyclopedia" will never be what it pretends to be. Wahkeenah 06:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that an entry is well-intentioned does not automatically make it a good entry. In fact, I would argue that many of the worst entries for the encyclopedia are well-intentioned; fixing the obvious vandalism is usually a matter of a few clicks, while wrangling a well-intentioned but poorly-executed series of edits into a usable article can often take more work than anyone is willing to put in.  This article is a case in point.  The collective effect of numerous small well-intentioned additions here has resulted in a long, useless list of random editors' opinions on what constitutes political correctness. Aquillion 08:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You've got a point. And what's "good" or not is highly subjective, especially with a politically-charged topic like this one (as opposed to an article on the care and feeding of cactus plants, for example). I had no idea what a hornet's nest I was stepping into on this page. I recall something Tom Lehrer said (in the 1950s): "The reason most folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by 'the people'." The same could be said of this website, which too often is nothing more than a bulletin board pretending to be an encyclopedia. Add to that the low standards of grammar and usage nowadays (not to mention a casual attitude towards vulgarity), and it adds up to a sorry situation. The scariest part, though, is how quickly lots of other websites grab stuff from this site. So when some Ann Nonymous yahoo replaces an entire article with "F.U." it is reasonable to assume that a lot of other sites slavishly copy it. That adds to this site's credibility, yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Wahkeenah 08:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's true, Wikipedia is often nothing more than a bulletin board pretending to be an encyclopedia. But there's a little-known fact about it that most people overlook:  Jimbo Wales can shoot mind-control beams out of his eyes.  That's why so many other sites slavishly copy us, see. Aquillion 00:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For plagiarists, credibility don't enter into it. Wahkeenah 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC

<

Ideology
The heated manner in which this issue is being discussed shows just how much baggage we have, how much our views are affected by our power needs (and I mean that for people on all sides, me too!). It would seem impossible to produce an article not overly influenced by people’s political/emotional agendas.

Like others who have already commented, I find it hard to understand why the opening sentence suggests that the term is “almost always” used ironically or pejoratively. I have often heard the term used positively. Perhaps this is an American bias: the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press Canada 2001) defines political correctness as:  “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups.”  Given the number of people who perceive it positively, perhaps “almost always” could be changed to “often” or “sometimes”?

To me, PC ideology is used two ways: as an attempt to promote inclusive language, as the article states; and as an attempt to control or claim linguistic superiority over people who use lay language. I have no objection to the former; I even use some PC terms myself. It’s the power struggle behind the latter that causes the politics: many PC users insist that everyone should conform to language that supports their world views, and people who don’t are labelled “intolerant” or “insensitive,” or some other pejorative term. Rather than merely “expressing an opinion about, or making a public argument about, the use of language” (Messer-Davidow, cited in Usage), many PC people adamantly insist you talk their way, and if you don’t, they label you sexist, racist, etc. This attitude, intolerant of people’s words, is what people are often objecting to when they use the term PC negatively.

People resent it when academic-types look down on them with their theories. There really is no greater tolerance inherent in “mentally challenged” (or the current term, “developmentally disabled”) than there is in “mentally handicapped.” I use the latter because I consider it a neutral term, and I prefer to avoid the baggage of PC terminology. I like to convey an acceptance of average people’s language, rather than the kind of high-minded projection of meanings onto everyday language. I also prefer to alternate between “she” and “he.” These are personal preferences, and if we are to be tolerant, we should aim to accept these differences without assuming prejudice or insensitivity that isn’t necessarily there. In my view, “correcting” people is insensitive, and is usually done by PC speakers, not to promote inclusiveness, but to satisfy the need to feel right.

I don’t criticize people’s use of language, or project my own prejudicial assumptions onto their use of words. I try to hear what they mean, not what I am making them out to mean. This empathy seems lacking in both proponents and critics of PC language.

Sorry for rambling. I haven’t made any changes; it seems that there is an editor too ready to erase anything that doesn’t conform with his/her views. But maybe someone can pick up on some of the themes I’ve brought up, and they might affect the article.24.64.223.203 06:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to me? I do not object to material that is cited to reputable sources, I object to uncited opinions and material lifted off of highly POV right-wing websites and plopped into the article as if it representes "fact." I also have issued a challenge for anyone to locate published evidence that there ever was an organized "political correctness" movement, and as yet, no one has. Therefore all claims sugesting such a movement get deleted. If you read the whole page, many of your concerns are actually addressed in the the body of the article. I also made some edits based on your comments here.--Cberlet 15:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So, ah, an ecyclopedia is not comprised of 'useless' lists? An encyclopedia (ne Wikipedia) is, by nature, an alphabetical list. One of the best features of Wikipedia is the 'List of x' articles, IMHO. Just saying...sounds to me like it would be a good idea to move the controversial stuff to it's own list-style entry.

JustinStroud 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A thought on wings and PC
Usually, recently, the "PC" expression is used by right-wingers to defame left-wingers. However, this could be said about any number of defamatory terms. For instance, in current U.S. political defamation, "loony" is more often used by right-wingers; whereas "liar" seems to be used more often by left-wingers. However, few would seriously suggest that only one political affiliation can contain loonies or liars.

It would seem to me that at its root, "politically correct" writing means writing which assumes or supports the correctness of a particular political view. For instance, we may use the words "faith-based" or "sectarian" to describe a religious charity, with each word reflecting a particular political view on it. If someone consistently uses the expression "faith-based charities" and rejects the expression "sectarian charities" as offensive, they are expressing a sort of political correctness. Likewise if a person consistently uses "equal employment opportunity" and rejects the term "reverse discrimination", they are expressing a sort of political correctness -- they are consciously tailoring their choice of near-synonyms to support one political view and reject another.

The term comes into its full relevance when neologisms are introduced by political organizers, propagandists, or "spin doctors" to reflect a particular view. The number of such terms which have been promulgated by political wonks of all stripes -- fascist, rightist, leftist, communist -- over the past hundred years or so truly boggles the mind. And is it any less a matter of "political correctness" (given this broader sense) to insist on the term "pro-life" (rather than "anti-abortion"), or "traditional family values" (rather than "anti-gay") than to insist on "African American" (rather than "black")? --FOo 06:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know about your family, but mine is not traditionally anti-gay. There is quite an assumption in saying that "family values" should mean the values of, say, James Dobson's family. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Family values" is a term typically used only by right-wingers, and it has a very specific meaning. As with Humpty Dumpty, when they use a word, they mean exactly what they mean it to mean, no more, no less. At one public appearance, Christopher Reeve brought up the phrase and said, "We are all family, and we all have value." Right-wingers do not buy into that "socialistic" or "secular humanist" message. Instead, they tend to be social Darwinists. It's the only kind of Darwinism they believe in. It was displayed recently in the Hurricane Katrina non-response. Their attitude is that it's the poor in New Orleans' own fault that they are poor, so they got what they deserved.  The "worthy" people had cars and got out of town, so everything's peachy... except for the poll numbers, but the Bushies don't care, because they aren't running for anything. Meanwhile, they've got to get Roberts on the court so they can help lock in their social Darwinist agenda for the next generation or two.  Wahkeenah 08:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Equal opportunity" and "reverse discrimination" are *not* synonyms. "Reverse discrimination" is a form of discrimination, which is the antonym of equal opportunity.


 * The right argues that affirmative action is the P.C. synonym of "reverse discrimination", a term that is only used by white people. They claim that in America everyone has "equal opportunity", and that the poor are poor by "choice". "Equal opportunity" is still not true, although it's *more true* than it was 50 years ago, which by an amazing coincidence is the point in time that conservatives claim the country started to go "wrong". Conservatives are, at heart, white male supremists, and anything that threatens that power (such as affirmative action) is a target for their wrath (or whining). Wahkeenah 11:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Obtuse edits
I really think the last batch of edits are probably a hoax, but if not I apologize in advance, but the writing was some of the most obtuse and impenetrable I have ever encountered. Can we please talk? As for the snide comment about the U.S. and English language, it does not belong on this page. It's hard enough keeping on topic.--Cberlet 22:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

December 25
What is the problem with the text as written? December 25 was a Winter holiday before it was Christmas. That is easy to demonstrate.--Cberlet 23:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. You are a beacon of light penetrating the apparent ignorance on this topic. :) Wahkeenah 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are obviously missing the point, both of you. The only reason that December 25th as "Winter Holiday" is listed in the "Religious inclusiveness" section is because the people using Winter Holiday are obvioisly only trying to hide the fact that December 25th is a Federal Holiday, noted as Christmas Day on the federal calendar. Company calendars don't just replace "Christmas" with "Winter holiday", but with "December holiday", "Winter break", or other secular terminology. That is why it is better fitting to simply say "the (persons/businesses) often replace the word Christmas with other secular terminology". Winter Holiday is not the federally recognized holiday on December 25th in America, Christmas Day is. Jordain 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we know for a fact that companies call "Christmas" "Winter Holiday"? I've never heard of that substitution, and I can't find much in Google either. Could we first establish the usage? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the company I work for does, for one. Would you like to see the holiday list they publish every year? And it's not just my company. Every year in December, Bill O'Reilly goes on and on about companies doing this, as part of his usual rants about how secular the Christmas season has become. Wahkeenah 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the Calendar straight from the University of Berkeley, California (UC Berkeley), which states that Christmas is "Winter Holiday". []. I e-mailed about this however, and the women who responded seemed apologetic and noted that this would be reverted to Christmas for the new calendar. Jordain 23:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course it will. (Pardon me for channeling John O'Hurley). It can be kind of hard to find useful references to "Christmas" and "Winter Holiday" in Google, but you can shorten the list dramatically by entering "Bill O'Reilly" plus "Winter Holiday", where you will find plenty of references to this issue of the paganizing of what was originally a pagan holiday! FYI, I tried to work your earlier commentary about the fed holiday into the description, but I think it's a bit wordy. Maybe you can improve on it. Ho-ho-ho! *<:) Wahkeenah 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wahkeenah, please note 3RR, whereas you may be suspended temporarily or permanently by reverting more than three times in 24 hours to new material you have presented, without it being accepted by others such as myself. The original material remains until we have reached a decision.


 * Suspended by what, the likes of you? What makes you any smarter than the rest of us? Don't worry, I won't break your precious 3-revert rule, you're not worth the trouble... and by the way, you could start by suspending yourself for the same reason. This website is something else. You hassle registered users all the time for presenting true and verifiable facts, while freely allowing a-nones to post inanities and vulgarities from PC's at their local libraries or whatever. This site has neither credibility nor ethics. And don't start lecturing me about how "popular" the site is. It means nothing. >:( Wahkeenah 00:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just noting some praise I got on another page for contributing... and not for the first time. I am therefore forced to concede that the problem child in this discussion is... YOU. Bye, y'all. Wahkeenah 01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The UCB link is not definitive, since it describe December 26-27, 2005 as the "Winter Holiday". However in other years the "Winter Holiday" included 12/25. -Willmcw 01:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Willmcw, Christmas Day is celebrated as December 26th in 2005 because December 25 is a Sunday, and in the United States a holiday is celebrated on the following weekday (Monday) if it falls on a Sunday (it is celebrated on Friday if it falls Saturday). As you'll note, they state the New Year's Day holiday as being December 29-30th, 2005Jordain 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the task
I've been watching this discussion evolve, implode, revert, and generally chase its own tail for over a month. This article is a significant (and vitally important IMHO) entry, and does not deserve ignoring. But it is also a turf war. What this discussion does deserve are better than good writers; the weaknesses in the writing to date have always (and I say that strongly) --always-- source out of two huge holes in knowledge about *writing* these kinds of articles; the writing level has consistently been at a US middle-school level. Never use categorical statements. Be very clear between definition, denotation, connotation, and usage. Be clear what each of those mean. An encyclopedia never strays into usage, nor does an encyclopedia interpret. An encyclopedia separates out cleanly sections that discuss the attributes--such as usage, connotation, and denotation--as subsets, if at all.

It is clear to me that Cberlet has *written* the better wordsmithing while at the same time having to use flawed and erroneous foundations, and has given a best effort while showing no bias. Cberlet has been eloquent in POV in the discussion forum but has not injected POV in the article itself. Cberlet has consistently been the most careful to NOT elide nor conflate distinctions between what is interpretation, euphemism, bowdlerising, and what is slang and/or innuendo. The work speaks for itself.

There is little that will satisfy NPOV here; the topic is inherently a POV topic. It therefore requires highly responsible writing capability with skills in interpeting research, knowledge of linguistics, and editorial experience with nuance, inflection, and implication. This is not an article for the inexperienced editor, and the truthful person must recuse themselves if they do not possess these skills. SamSpade, in my view, does not convince possessing these skills. This entry also should be restricted against anonymous posting, I believe.

Subsections need to be composed for USean circumstances and European circumstances, because the terms liberal and conservative mean very different things in these to gross divisions of worldview. Because political correctness is founded on the war over dominance of orthodox language, as I take the most comprehensive description to encompass on either "side", this topic will by necessity spawn at least two if not more major cross references to areas of politics and history.

I have other viewpoints, but am tired tonight and will leave those for another time.

PlasticDoor 10:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)PlasticDoor


 * Perhaps you find cberlet so objective and eloquent because you agree with his/her views? It seems to me this war involves many people, but the two most guilty are sam spade and cberlet.  They have been trading insults throughout this discussion page.  Mr. Spade doesn't like PC-ness, and cberlet doesn't like the term PC to describe language s/he employs - if either were at all neutral that wouldn't be so apparent.


 * The article is a mess. The insistence that "political correctness" is nothing more than a perjorative seems absurd when numerous people have written in this discussion that they prefer the term as a way of describing inclusive language.  I have often heard the term used that way.  The term PC has different meanings for different people, and the article doesn't reflect that.


 * An example of the slant in the article as it currently stands: The choice of the word "mock" is POV.  Often it's the case that if you disagree with something, it's mocking, but if you agree with it, it's satire.  Even if you define these terms differently, it's probably fair to say that PC is the object of both both mocking and satire.


 * The article needs to be re-written by someone who doesn't care about PC one way or the other -- and anyone who does care should leave it alone.24.64.223.203 09:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Well, Good Person, you do have something here to ponder. Your observations are insightful. The terms PC and political correctness are all about the problem of orthodoxy, so I doubt it is possible to find a disinterested party who is knowledgeable since these types tend to not understand the very nature of the problem. This isn't a matter of taste, so eloquence is not a question of prettiness or preferring Cberlet by personal bias but one of persuasiveness and form, merely. I am an educator; it is my profession to critique writing. In the final analysis, good writing is only as good as the reader is. As to whether Cberlet or others are correct, or authoritative, is (under these conditions) a matter of speculation since there are no credentials or other normatives of vetting to go by, so form and persuasiveness are my criteria for evaluating. Were I a betting man, I'd not be betting.

There are no manifestos or treatises on Political Correctness except those written by Dinesh D'Souza. Both poles of this discourse is pure, unadulterated, living popular culture. It follows no regular rules. Allegations as to whether PC derives from apocrypha pertaining to Mao or Trotsky or Lenin are only that--apocrypha. That is pure speculation. The first truly essentializing writing on the term and the politico-cultural issue is that of Dinesh D'Souza. The *usage* predates D'Souza by 15 years purely as a Leftist oral tradition on American college campuses in the 70s; it is not a scholarly usage nor has there ever been some such "movement". That notion is a spin out of US media soundbite reifications. The terminology did not emerge in Europe until it appeared in the British press in the 80's.

The oral tradition is indeed a mockery among particularly-bent Leftists toward the condition on US university campuses for need to not rock the institutional boat as to incur the wrath of the Powers that Be after the vicious retributions waged against the campus protests of 1968 thru 74.

Bureaucratic and corporate euphemistic neologisms are not PCness, either; they are euphemistic neologisms. These are token multiculturalisms. Political CorrectNESS is a fabrication of the bureautechnocrats to coopt "inclusiveness" as a PR fad to appear inclusive after the ratification of affirmative action. As I have written in previous article edits, *being* politically correct is dissent, a stance, a condition, not a linguistic style.

D'Souza, who has no credentials in political nor cultural studies, decided on being brat in college, and his famed book is a pure example of cooked sociology. His book was published by an American right-wing think tank, and was refused (at that time) by commercial publishers due to market conditions. D'Souza is a cause celèbre as THE poster child for the Conservative Outrageous Punk.

The very foundational problem we are encountering--interpretation--is a result of the reification of the coinage by individuals bent upon corrupting its meaning from its usage in the popular culture. There IS no authoritative "definition"; there is, however, a history. Multiculturalism is a fabrication of the conservatives; inclusiveness is a trope of purely cultural theories in the American reinterpretation, not the European tack of the Birmingham New Left. Europe does not treat politics or popular culture as crassly as the Americans do (I am 1/2 American, so I bash with some authority, I suppose); politics in Europe is highly evolved in the domain of the average person, which is not the case in the US. The US is chained by its binaries. The European tradition are followed in Australia and Canada, hybridized somewhat as colonials, but as parliamentary systems is still pluralistic; the US is monistic. Emualting the American style means also embracing ingrained disdain and hatred for "eggheads" and other "seriousness", and is inherently ripe in miseducation, misperception, misapplication, and misinformation. Europe is, to that degree, more rigorous. Political correctness has a much more prosaic meaning and interpretation for Europeans, whereas Americans miss the point for their gullibility and lack of rigor, fanned by a societal rabidness from the conservatives today that rivals the rabidness from the Left in the 60s. Such is the legacy of a society built on populism--it loses its shape.

I hold postgraduate degrees in education, philosophy, and fine arts; my areas of expertise are cultural and critical theories. Now--what I said are indeed my *opinions*, and they are educated opinions, based primarily on a native "multiculturalism", a native trilingualism, upheld by a moreso than less "classical" education outside the USA. (That means I wasn't educated under Deweyian or constructivism philosophies.) I have read D'Souza's biography and his books, and he is an exceedingly bright but mediocre person. His work is slovenly, his ideas half-baked, and conclusions rife with unsupportable arguments of his annotated readings list, elision, and misrepresentations. He is a masterful debater, has a quick lip, and is a stage prima dona. He is, in short, full of himself. I do not trust this person, and would not vet him for more than a mid-level marketing position. A scholar he is not. D'Souza is where this PC thing started, and is the very embodiment of Political Correctness. So, *to be politically correct* IS derisive and, yes, mocking response to D'Souza's kind of attitude. PC is not inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is inclusiveness. If you want to talk about inclusiveness, read up on the history of cultural studies first.

You guys duke it out; I'll watch and comment here. As things are at this time this is not, IMHO, a serious article, and should not even be published in its present form. It should be pulled and rewritten in a sandbox. Good luck.

PlasticDoor 21:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)PlasticDoor

Cites please and leave lead NPOV
There are two diametrically opposed views on "political correctness." It is not OK for either side to rewrite the lead to favor their view. Once again I issue this challenge: If you can't find primary evidence of this, all you can do is cite seconday sources that claim such a movement existed or exists. If no primary or secondary sources are cited, text will be challenged.--Cberlet 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * When was there a Political Correctness Movement? Who founded it? What were its major institutions? What were its major books and essays?


 * Sorry, I re-wrote a little of the lead because I felt it was misleading. A little while ago I mentioned the Canadian Oxford definition, and you incorporated it in a manner that made it appear that we use the term differently in Canada than in the U.S.  Although it's true that usage may vary from region to region, I don't think it's really all that different in Canada.  The term is used mockingly/satirically here too.  The dictionary quote is still there as an example of how the term is not necessarily used negatively.  I'm not referring to a movement of any kind, just usage.


 * I still think the lead is POV. PC isn't always used to describe real or perceived imposed limits; that's only the usage that's critical of PC.  Those who embrace the term wouldn't necessarily think of it as an attempt to impose.  Cberlet, do you recognize that some people embrace the term?  I mean here how everyday people use it, not just how it's interpreted by academics.  The one problem with using published works from what you might consider 'reputable' sources is that you can end up with an academic bias that doesn't illustrate how lay people think of certain terminology (which is what we're trying to descrbe).


 * I also put back the POV warning; hopefully the one thing everyone can agree on is that the issue is controversial.24.64.223.203 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Chip, I find your version to be a somewhat confusing and inaccurate reordering of my rewrite. Your use of "right-wing" and "progressive" doesnt seem to help &mdash;particularly when you claim that an association between PC and Civil Rights is a right-wing criticism of PC. Few right-wing critics will criticise the Civil Rights movement, but many more will criticize PC as an artificial (and debatably useless or counterproductive) appendage which sprouted in the aftermath of the above movement. My rewrite simply intended to state the relationship in the context of political discourse, not to assert that criticism of PC is somehow equivalent to criticism of CR. Even progressives may tend to agree with the apparent excessiveness of PC, and IAC, the writing shows a schism in its approach and terminology. Please justify/correct. -St|eve 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I cut some stuff. It is hard to find an NPOV way to introduce the subject. I was only trying to rewrite the text to make more sense. I was not trying to misrepresent your views.  But simply asserting a right-wing version of reality is the proper lead will not work.  There are three distinct realities.  1). The right-wing construction of reality that asserts there is something called the "political correctness movement." 2). The left-wing contention that the term was re-invented by the political right to mask attacks on racial and gender justice. 3) A popular usage that is used to mock what is seen as an overly-sensitive concern with language that might offend.  At least I am trying to find a balance for all three in the lead.  --Cberlet 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Columbus
A recent edit changed the statement that Columbus called Native Americans "Indians" "because he thought they [Native Americans] were similar in appearance to Asians" to "because of his poor geography".

Columbus didn't have poor geography skills; if he had, he never would have made it in the first place. He (along with the rest of Europe) just had no idea how big (or small) the Atlantic really was. Keep in mind that exploration up to that point had primarily focused on travelling eastward, and thus no one (except the Vikings, perhaps, for whom North America -- "Vinland" -- was probably a distant rumour by that time) had any idea there was a whole continent and a second ocean to cross out there before one arrived in Asia.--chris.lawson 13:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a POV issue; this is a question of fact. I fail to see how his geography skills helped him in sailing west across a featureless ocean; in fact, even if America hadn't been there, he still would have east Asia instead of India. More importantly, the rest of Europe knew the correct distance between India and Spain going west; accurate measuments of the world had been around since Eratosthenes. After discussing how he screwed up, the Christopher Columbus article says:


 * In fact, the distance is about 10,600 nautical miles (19,600 km), and most European sailors and navigators concluded that the Indies were too far away to make his plan worth considering. They were right and Columbus was wrong; had he not unexpectedly encountered a previously uncharted continent in mid-travel, he and his crew would have perished from lack of food and water.


 * so yes, he had poor geography skills.--Prosfilaes 14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If you draw a great circle from Spain through the Carribean and on into the Pacific, it's pretty clear that had North America not gotten in his way, Columbus would have eventually arrived in the Indies. As the Atlantic, particularly west of the Azores, was largely uncharted and untravelled at the time, neither Columbus nor anyone else in Europe had any way of knowing what the currents were like, what the prevailing winds were like, etc. Columbus was undoubtedly surprised by his "early" arrival, but it's quite logical that his initial reaction would be to think he had arrived in the Indies. Occam's razor, and all that. I don't think Columbus's navigation skills (or lack thereof) had anything whatsoever to do with his calling the folks he found in the Carribean "Indians". I think it was the simplest answer he could think of at first, and the first term for them stuck. Besides, why should we be speculating as to why Columbus called them that? Isn't it enough that he did, without making unfounded guesses as to why?--chris.lawson 22:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We aren't questioning his navigation skills, we're questioning his geography skills. He never would have arrived at the Indies; he would have died first. And the reasonable initial reaction, if he knew the geography that was known at the time, is that you're in some land far away from the Indies.

cite "income statement" conversion please
i am skeptical of the claim that political correctness has caused a change of term in accounting from "profit statement" to "income statement". please back this up with good source(s) (including the conversion and the influence), or it's gone. Wbfl 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be perfectly glad to see this gone, but would point out that the evidence is equally weak on almost every single example listed. And, yes, I'd like to see most of those gone unless there is a decent citation, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

POV fork article needs a merge
Political correctness in the United Kingdom is not the most egregious POV fork I've ever seen, but it certainly doesn't (at this time) need to stand on its own. I've recommended it be merged here (perhaps we can have sections of the article addressing aspects of PC-ness in various countries?) for now and I'm putting it up for AfD.--chris.lawson 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The page Political correctness in the United Kingdom is not of much value. Most of it is a racist diatribe, and some claims are just wrong, such as the claim about the Red Cross. Delete, please do not merge.--Cberlet 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is outrageously POV
The whole slant of this article is that the very existence of political correctness should be regarded with skepticism (another 'vast right wing conspiracy'), which is clearly a rather dramatic leftist slant. I don't believe any reasonable person could seriously argue that there isn't such a thing as political correctness, the existence of which is acknowledged (and generally lamented) by most on both sides of the political spectrum, save but for some of the more extreme leftist elements, who see political correctness as an embarrassment. The articles POV problems are really just another insistance of a more general problem at Wikipedia - a systemic leftward slant in many of the articles dealing with historical and contemporary social issues. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.218.66 (talk &bull; contribs) 7 Nov 2005.

What is the topic here
From this article:
 * People don't die, they expire or pass away. If they die in a hospital, they have a terminal episode. If it's a result of mapractice, it's a theraputic misadventure.

These are examples of euphemisms, but as far as I can tell they have nothing to do with PC, even in its most extreme definition. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * * Good observation. I think this is another example of how the article is left slanted. In addition to denying its existence, another tactic of what might be called 'the PC left' is to attempt to make 'PC' seem more innocuous and less politcally manipulative and embarassing to the left by lumping it together with politically neutral eupehemisms such as the one cited. Political correctness actually is a form of censorship and revsionism informed by (again, what I believe any reasonable person from either side of the political spectrum - sans extremes - would concede) 'white liberal guilt'. It goes beyond the simple modification of particular words (eg. 'African-American' iso 'black' ,etc.), but is also characterized by aggressive attempts at historical and sometimes anthropological revisionism, often towards the end of 'enhancing the self esteem of blacks' or other monorities (when positively motivated) or pandering to Afrocentrists or other ethnocentrists(less positively motivated).


 * Can you give a specific, cited example of any "leftist" doing this? --FOo 16:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * * You need look no further than the article in question for examples of attempts to obfusctate or deny the existence of PC. If you are asking for an example of political correctness manifest in the form of historical or anthropological revisionism, examples are enumerable. One good source is Mary Lefkowitz's "Not Out of Africa", which details the outrageous claims of Afrocentrists (eg. Plato was 'black', Greek culture was 'stolen' froma 'black' Egypt, etc.) and the unwillingness of politicallycorrect white academics to challenge such revisionist nonsense for fear of being considered politically incorrect, racially insensitive and/or racist. (let me guess, Mary Lefkowitz is part of the vast, right wing conspiracy, right?)


 * This page provides a range of views, and a neutral lead paragraph. The range of views on this topic is very wide. When someone with a right-wing view denounces the page as slanted to the left, without offering actual cites to reputable published sources, but merely complains, it is a rant, not editing. We are here to edit. If someone on the left tried the same thing, I would respond the same way, even though I am on the left. If you go back through the history, and the discussions here, you will see that issues are debated in great detail.--Cberlet 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, my point about the leftward slant of most of the contributors is demonstrated. For the record, I am by no means a right winger. As a matter of fact, I am a registered independent who voted for Kerry in the last election. Moreover, you demonstrate your bias and perhaps also your ignorance when you dismiss Mary Lefkowitz and her work as 'non-repuatble'. She is one of the best-known classical scholars in this country, a graduate of the Brearley School in New York and Wellesley College (1957, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors in Greek). She received her Ph.D. in Classical Philology at Radcliffe College (a.k.a Harvard University) in 1961. She returned to her alma mater as an Instructor in Greek in 1959 and, after serving in various other academic ranks, became the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities in 1979. You demonstrate the classic arrogance of the extreme left-no tolerance for opposing points of view. You dismiss Dr. Lefkowitz as 'unreputable' simply because you don't like what she says - her credentials are impeccable. I was asked to provide an example, and I did so. It is YOU who is ranting. You need to realize that Wikipedia is not a club for far left academics.


 * Please get a grip. I have said nothing about Mary Lefkowitz. Stop freaking out. It is not useful. If you can find some reputable published cites to back up your views, write some text. --Cberlet 18:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you my grip is quite firm. Prior to your comments, I wrote:

"...One good source is Mary Lefkowitz's "Not Out of Africa", which details... "

In your critical remarks following, you wrote:

"..When someone with a right-wing view denounces the page as slanted to the left, without offering actual cites to reputable published sources, but merely complains, it is a rant, not editing..."

You attempt to characterize me as 'right wing', which is baseless (finding political correctness distasteful is hardly a basis for ascribing someone to the right wing). You then claim I have failed to offer reputable published sources, when in fact I cited Mary Lefkowitz and her work, which is harldy an unreputable source.Again, my grip is fine - check yours.

<---

Hi. FOo asked you to "give a specific, cited example of any 'leftist'" who engaged in (your claim) "aggressive attempts at historical and sometimes anthropological revisionism, often towards the end of 'enhancing the self esteem of blacks' or other monorities (when positively motivated) or pandering to Afrocentrists or other ethnocentrists(less positively motivated)."

Instead, you provided a cite to someone who criticized Afrocentrism. Thus, my comments.--Cberlet 20:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The source I cited is replete with examples of "leftists who engage in aggressive attempts at historical and sometimes anthropological revisionism...". Your antics here have only served to underscore my point. Thank you.


 * OK, please stop the insults. The point is to supply a specific example provided in the text, summarize it, cite it to the proper page, and plunk it into the text.  The point of Wiki is to edit an encyclopedia.--Cberlet 22:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are the only one who has been dealing in insults. I raised valid criticisms with valid sources, and you responded with suggestions that I was a 'ranting' right winger citing 'irreputable' sources. The article is a biased mess from start to finish. You could take it as is and print it in Mother Jones under the heading "The Myth of Political Corretcness" and no one would blink. All of the standard far left apoliogetics are here: (1) PC is a right wing myth (2) It's a 90s thing, it doesn't exist anymore (3) If it does exist, its unfair to associate it with the left and on an don and on. The article is a mess.

The question hasn't been answered. I, for one, am a moderate libertarian and, if I had my way, the mocking term "political correctness" would be used to refer to any case where people parrot political "talking points" instead of thinking about the terrible consequences. People who want government power love to catch others up in nice-sounding words like "patriotism" and "equality" when the underlying truth is "killing" and "stealing".

(The "politically correct" way of saying "Let's go kill some foreigners and loot their countries!" is "Support the troops and stop terrorism!" Likewise, the "politically correct" ways of saying "Let's steal from the working class to support the bureaucrats, and keep the poor begging!" usually have something to do with "education" or "opportunity".)

As it happens, that's not how the word is used, though. Instead, it is largely used by members of the Orthodox Church of Government-Worship to attack the Heretical Sect of Government-Worship. The article should reflect the facts -- the term is basically a snarl word used by right-wingers to attack left-wingers. Like "commie" or "fascist", it's a word that might once have had some specific reference, but today has no more objective meaning than the Two Minutes Hate. --FOo 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality template?
What's the stop-hand neutrality template for? I can't see anything biased here! --Adam Paul 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't visited this page for a few months but I feel that the introductory section is much much better esp. with the removal of the word mocking and the inclusion of the usage of PC in protecting groups of people. I'm feeling pretty good about at least the opening section of the article which was quite controversial when I has here last. I haven't read the rest but I thought I'd put my 2 cents in that perhaps the need for the template should be reevaluated.  Granite T. Rock 01:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am suprised that nobody has complained about the fact that the hand itself is the right-hand. Maybe wikipedia hates left-handers and ambidextrous people...just kidding. But you see my point! MJCdetroit 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

taking out the trash
the endless examples i've just tried to cut back should be scrutinized for PC heft (not mere general euphemism) then ported elsewhere entirely. they're just lists. they just suck. this article and Euphemism are turning into each other. spoooooky. Wbfl 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some non-PC euphemisms
Hey all. I had noticed that some of the given examples were euphemisms but really had little or nothing to do with political correctness. It seems a few others have mentioned that this problem exists. Here are the specific examples I found.
 * A heart attack became a cardiovascular event.

Was this change made in the name of not offending people who have had heart attacks? It doesn't seem like PC was a factor here; it looks more like a more neutral and scientific term for what could vaguely be construed as a "violent" term (from the word "attack").


 * The Department of Prisons became the Department of Corrections.
 * The War Department, together with the Navy Department became the Defense Department in 1947, implying that the United States does not initiate wars.
 * Civilian deaths became collateral damage.

Again, I don't think concern for people taking offense at these terms was even an offered motivation for adopting their replacements. These are natural euphemisms for unpleasant and sensitive topics - namely war and incarceration. The last one, especially, is a neutral term that obscures the loss of human life, in the interest of preserving the warring party's image.

If this were like most articles, I would remove these myself. As such, with its controversy and whatnot, I'll open the floor up to anyone who disagrees. Well, for that matter, speak up if you agree too. We'll make this a mini-VfD (I consider AfD to be an invention of the PC police against VfD. Just kidding! VfD is just what I'm more accustomed to. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, folks!) --BDD 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Globalise
PC is a phenomenon in non-english speaking countries as well. A less US-centric article is required. Arcturus 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)