Steve Block wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Some are easy, of course, like the Wikipedia entry claiming that the word blackboard ‘‘is now perceived by some as being ’politically incorrect’ in the United Kingdom.’’ ‘‘Citation needed,’’ a parenthesis cautioned. Indeed: a Nexis search of UK publications found some 30 blackboards in a week, against just three chalkboards.
This is a quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Our full text reads:
Political correctness is a real or perceived attempt to refine or restrict language and terms used in public discussion to those deemed acceptable or appropriate. For example "blackboard" is now perceived
by >some as being "politically incorrect" in the United Kingdom, [citation >needed] and so teachers are instructed to call it a "chalkboard" >instead.
From last six months:
Pet lip Evening Chronicle (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Aug 16, 2006; Sophy Doughty; p. 3
Standing up to the PC brigade Western Daily Press 24 August 2006
My news archive is limited to post 1992 but I can get back to:
Political Correctness goes beyond a joke The Sunday Times (London); May 16, 1993; Peter McKay;
I can cite the portion where the cite is needed, but I can't cite the follow on text, that chalk board is now preferred. Considering most schools moved to white boards by now, it's a bit redundant, but...
Spoke too soon: PC or not PC ... that was 1993's burning question;Review of the Year 1993 The Sunday Times (London); Dec 26, 1993; Maurice Chittenden;
Contains the line:"Blackboards have been replaced with chalkboards in some schools." I would think that supports the claim, although perhaps it may be wise to contextualise it to the early 1990s.
Mind you, something that gets my goat here: this article has two works referenced already.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987) David Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (1995) David Crystal.
Now did the person who added the tag check the two references to make sure those claims weren't sourced there before they added the tag? Did you Jimmy? I'm never quite clear on how the reference system is supposed to work, but that's how I thought it did. You check the reference work cited to ensure it supports what the article asserts, no? The example has been in the article since creation, so I'd bet the editor who created it sourced the statement from one of those two works. The creator, in my mind, has satisfied the requirements to write the article. Are we going down the line where every sentence is followed by a footnote?