Difference between revisions of "Talk:Politically correct"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sources)
(Sources: be bolled!)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
As both a children's librarian and a published writer of children's book, I can vouch that the publisher's forbidden list is purest BS.  Harry Potter alone breaks all those commandments. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 00:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 
As both a children's librarian and a published writer of children's book, I can vouch that the publisher's forbidden list is purest BS.  Harry Potter alone breaks all those commandments. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 00:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
:In that case, please edit it.  It seems to be a weak flailing, the "anti-PC" perspective is well represented and described without it.  Perhaps an example of ''genuine'' PC writing for children ''might'' have a place here (you know, the "Jane Has Two Mommies" type of thing), althoug it must be presented as a writing movement rather than a publishing dictum. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:19, 23 April 2007

Hmmm. One hears so much about the "mainstream" these days. It would seem to me that, if conservatism is really based on unchanging, immutable principles, then a true conservative should not give a d*** about whether he is in the mainstream or not, and should not invoke the mainstream (besides, since some liberal views, such as the call for universal health care, are now supported by a vast majority, couldn't they then just as readily lay claim to the "mainstream" as well?? Boethius

And, not for nothing, but a source wouldn't be uncalled for somewhere in there. Myk 11:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well there are a handful of sources now, but I can't write this thing by myself. Everwill 15:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Origins of the term

I remember seeing an old campus comic strip with "Political Correctnessman" as a caped superhero.

I also remember reading a European immigrant's writings about Nazi and Communist ideas of socially correct or ideologically correct ideas and language. It had more to do with content than wording, IIRC. --Ed Poor 12:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sources

There are many outrageous examples of what is now considered objectionable in modern text books The source is to a description of a book written by Diane Ravitch and all I could find is A typical publisher’s guideline advises that... There is no mention of which publisher(s) or which textbooks. That is perhaps quoting opinion as fact and is likely in breach of Conservapedia:Commandments 2, footnote 1. The book itself perhaps does mention which publisher(s) or textbooks. The book and page number should be given as the source. As it stands at the moment accuracy is questionable. WhatIsG0ing0n 13:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

If the statement is not backed by the source, please correct or remove the statement. --Ed Poor 13:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The source is where the statement comes from. That is not being questioned. I am questioning the accuracy of the source. I am unsure if that breaks any Conservapedia:Commandments, I know much higher standards apply here than at wikipedia, consequently I am very reluctant to edit for fear of braking any rules myself.
WhatIsG0ing0n 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

As both a children's librarian and a published writer of children's book, I can vouch that the publisher's forbidden list is purest BS. Harry Potter alone breaks all those commandments. Czolgolz 00:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

In that case, please edit it. It seems to be a weak flailing, the "anti-PC" perspective is well represented and described without it. Perhaps an example of genuine PC writing for children might have a place here (you know, the "Jane Has Two Mommies" type of thing), althoug it must be presented as a writing movement rather than a publishing dictum. Human 01:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)