User talk:159.50.174.37

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Political correctness. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (159.50.174.37) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are right about 'progressive', the term is widely used by both friends and foes of new methods, and, like 'PC' itself has long left behind its literal meaning. However I have no objection to the more neutral 'new' although its use might imply that critics oppose ALL new methods, rather than only those they believe to be falsely characterised as 'progressive'. The whole subject is a linguistic minefield, I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are right on the matter of "new" being confused with the implication that they may dissent to ALL new methods, maybe we can use "teaching methods perceived as restrictive of the freedom of speech"? Or do you feel like that would also be misleading? 159.50.174.37 (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another editor has reverted, his logic being that this is the term used in the source (rather than WP editorial comment), on balance I think his is the correct judgement. The term WAS extensively used on both sides of education debates in '70s and '80s, perhaps beyond. The 'anti's' would tend to spit out the term as though its awfulness were self-evident. The answer is to 'link' rather than modify the used text.Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)