Talk:Political correctness/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 28

"Negerhoved"

View me in full size!

I tried to illustrate the article with a picture showing how the un-PC but specific designation of a sculpted head as "Head of a Negro" (Danish: Negerhoved) later evolved into the PC but generic designation as "Head of a Male Statue". Either caption can be read on each of the bases of the statue, with the older one in distinctly more ancient typography. My suggestion has been rejected by several different editors. I understand that it is not easy to illustrate an article about a subject as sensitive and disputed as that one. But here in Europe, especially, there are still many traces to be found of the "then and now", why shouldn't we show at least one? I believe that this particular example (displayed in a most prestigious museum) is not offensive, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded it! Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Because we need sources, otherwise it's what we call original research, please read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought the picture spoke for itself, with the two different captions for one and the same object. Note to self: Don't think! :)--Edelseider (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edelseider, apart from anything else, how do we know that the motive for renaming was 'PC', rather than rethinking subject/re-attribution?. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edelseider what we're looking for is an article somewhere that talks about this renaming and calls the motivation for it "political correctness". valereee (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this?

Gosh, do I really want to try again? Okay, here goes...how about this:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct,) commonly abbreviated to PC is a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society; in pejorative usage, those who use the term are generally implying that these policies are excessive.

This way we're being completely neutral, which I believe is the only way we're going to solve this dispute. I'll ask please that we try to keep from generating another wall of text. If you aren't speaking DIRECTLY and SOLELY to THIS question, let's not go off on a tangent. valereee (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer (in opening para?) to say 'widely used as pejorative in media', (or similar, as discussed above ... with no objectors, but no-one implementing). There are sources for it becoming derogatory post 1990-ish and this could be in following sentences, dealing with 1990+. I agree that sometimes/widely/often/primarily/generally is a fruitless discussion without context (where/how used). We can happily say 'used in media ' or 'widely used in media', without implying anything about 'other uses'.Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I can totally get behind 'widely used as a pejorative in media.' I'm going to be bold. Cross your fingers. valereee (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: neutralness...ha! We already have a perfectly good word for that, Val, no need to go round coining a new one.valereee (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so with the most recent construction, I'd even be willing to go back to 'primarily' since it makes clear that it's the usage IN THE MEDIA that we're referring to in this sentence. valereee (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the pejorative use relates largely to post-1990 media use, I have no objection to this being made more explicit in the following sentences, that relate to NYT and 'books', without any 'general' qualifier (sometimes, often etc.) in the first 'post-definition sentence'. This is the historically accurate position. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not following -- can you show me what you mean? valereee (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Only to be clearer after 'The term had only scattered use' (now para 2 of lead), how the term was being used. At present it isn't explicit that educational reforms were being criticised, nor why. Some of this could be 'beefed up' in the body perhaps, not the lead. Some sources date pejorative use to that period (post circa 1990) and that debate.

Side note, we still nowhere mention that 'PC' is somewhat connected with gender and race! But enough for one day! Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My only issue with Val's definition is that proponents of PC as a rhetorical philosophy still only exist in the minds of their critics. Ask anyone whose "language, policies or measures" seem "intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society" - even those who language seems [i]excessively[/i]so intended - "Are you with the PC movement?" No one says, "Oh yeah, I embrace PC," because it's simply not an operative philosophy, except by critical insinuation. My 2 cents, anyway. 166.177.185.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: How do you italicizes around here? And archive Talk Pages when they reach a trillion characters long?166.177.185.20 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Times are changing. We're seeing more articles of people defending the concept. One of the first results in Google: 1. There have been an array of articles stating that they prefer it after Donald Trump has shown us what politically incorrect can be like: 2. However it's widely used disparagingly. But I think the gist is what people would like is a different term, not the one also used by the opposition. We need an article for the concept, but the definition and use of the commonly used term PC is muddling the matter a bit. However, the term has become watered down, muddled. It's now used of conservatives as well, as seen in our section for that and in articles which flip it around: 3 . I don't know where this road will lead, but it could really be a slippery slope of mud. You do italics with ' ' surrounding the text in particular. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Magoo makes a good point...I just googled it, too, limiting the search to the past year and then the past month, and he's right. We are seeing the term defended for its literal (that is, sincerely using it as the dictionary defines it) use. Which means that it is in fact currently being commented on in the media for that use. Hm. I'm thinking this is a WP:RECENTISM thing, maybe? That is, we don't necessarily need to deal with this right this very instant, but we do need to treat it as something that may require a change eventually, potentially both within the appropriate sections and, if it becomes an actual change in how the word is used in the media, in the lead? Just thinking out loud, here, not suggesting we need to start making those changes, just that we need to keep an eye on how the term is being used. This is such a complicated article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We cannot extrapolate from primary sources. We can take this into account, (which was part of my logic with 'has been used' which (unlike 'is' or 'was'), says nothing about present use), but we cannot reach our own conclusions from the evidence of primary sources. If there are RS noting the different recent use, then this can be included in chronological sequence. But so far nobody has produced such independent 2ndary sources. On a related point, the lead should be a summary of the article. Therefore we shouldn't even be discussing recent, non-critical use being in the lead until after such use has been properly established in the body of the article.

I understand the IP's point that it is not the policies themselves, rather the thinking behind them which is characterised/criticised as 'PC', this was also a flaw in the older version. I don't see a simple way round this. The IP is also correct that the term is rarely used by individuals to describe their own actions/thinking. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't extrapolate from primary sources, but I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that it's being published in reliable sources that people are commenting on the fact that 'politically correct' has a literal meaning that is non-pejorative and that people use it in that literal way. We don't mention it because we're seeing this use ourselves; we mention it because (for instance) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is pointing it out in an article in the Washington Post.1 Also agreed that this isn't something we need to do now. Also agreed that the lead needs to be a summary of the article, and that until we mention it in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. valereee (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely understood. Just reminding all of us that we have to work within guidelines. Haven't had a chance to check the source yet. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I mean -- just a quick start because I haven't gone and fully read the other google hits -- but here is an example of what I'm trying to get at. valereee (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course critics of PC treat the concept as if it has literal meaning. The point - and what most sources argue - is that such literal meaning is specious. PC isn't a philosophy; it's a label. Recent swells in media citation reflect its increasingly frequent application by GOP primary players, and targets' objections to such labeling. I otherwise can't find a single source explicating PC as a positive rhetorical philosophy, much less secondary sources identifying notable figures who seriously embrace it. 107.77.232.118 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC). (PS: I don't know why my IP keeps changing; I'm the same contributor who made similar argument upthread; maybe I just need to register for an account). 107.77.232.118 (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, you know the organized philosophy I think critics unwittingly & simplistically confuse "PC" with? Critical theory, in all its Neo-Marxist academic glory & attendant seepage into 20th Century progressive consciousness. I vaguely recall reading a piece in The Nation to this effect, which I'll try & hunt down. 107.77.232.118 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

IP, if you'll look at this you'll see that there are people referring to PC as a positive philosophy. valereee (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm eager to read your sources. In the meantime, I need to self-correct for mis-using the term "positive philosophy" in this dialogue. The term I should have used is "normative philosophy." The difference being, positive philosophies describe what IS, while normative philosophies describe what SHOULD BE. My argument has been that RS do not support the existence of PC as a normative philosophy. Another way of putting this is, there are no adherents of PC as a prescriptive ethic, only descriptions of what critics perceive as PC mindsets, indiscriminately applied. But I'll definitely be reviewing Val's sources just as soon as I can! 71.91.1.36 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

These reliable sources seem to be reporting on people saying they think it's good to aspire to be politically correct, since politically correct to them simply means 'treating people with respect'. valereee (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Valereee, having read the 'sandbox', and followed a few links within the sources, I agree that that is what some are trying to say. But many of them are doing what I would describe as trying to 'reclaim' the term, ie they are reacting to a background in which the term is being used in a derogatory manner and saying 'shouldn't it just mean … … … Isn't it also about, etc.' Their positive messages are being written up against a background they write about of a resurgence of 'abusive' use, in the US Presidential election and as a reaction against a recent-ish NYT(?) article.

The real problem from a WP standpoint, is that we are interpreting primary sources and even if we agree that some of them are trying to assert a positive meaning, they are (mostly) also recording a strongly negative usage. I agree that there are (and maybe always have been), people trying to 'reclaim' the term. I don't know how to incorporate that without WP:OR and without cherry-picking-out the bits we don't like in the sources. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't think it's either OR or cherrypicking to report what people are saying. Happy to remove or tweak the first sentence, though, to make it neutral. But these people are using the term nonpejoratively and literally; there is absolutely no doubt that's what they're doing. They're commenting on what the term really means, in its sincere dictionary definition, and that's reportable without OR. You'll notice I did not directly make a comment even on the fact that we're seeing these NOW; because that would indeed be OR. :) valereee (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "what the term really means" or a "sincere dictionary definition". Phrases have different meanings in different contexts and for different people. Dictionary definitions differ and for concepts are hardly ever adequate. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Valereee, I don't dispute they are using non-pejoratively, (or at least asserting a + dimension). I know of other instances both recent and much older. The trouble is two-fold, one of the longest articles is responding to a recent NY magazine article, that article was a pretty blistering attack on (what was described as) a resurgence of PC on US campuses (a depressingly deja-vu read). Why do we give prominence to a detail of the response, but ignore the original (in a bigger publication ?). The ex-sportsman-commentator (Kareem? I forget full name!), is reporting a US Pres. candidate trying to be as anti-PC as poss., he is responding to that by arguing 'hang on, is being PC so bad?'. The UK guy with a down's syndrome child is saying 'PC is normally thought of as a bad thing, but I'm glad my child is shown some respect' (he's historically wrong by the way, the trend towards more courteous/more medical terms for diseases and disabilities has been going on for 60 years at least, as the public has become better informed and more aware, long before the term 'PC') . In all these instances why/how do we record the ++ element, but ignore the -- they are reporting. That's problem 1.

Problem 2 is a fairly long-standing convention here that we don't usually use primary sources, and certainly don't extrapolate from them. There are good reasons for this, there are so many millions of examples of people using the term, to castigate just about everything. How do we allow fairly minor figures to say what a ++ thing PC can/should be, but exclude acres of more prominent people condemning it? At present there are almost NO examples of use + or - .

btw I agree with Doug above, there isn't a 'real' or 'literal' meaning. The nearest things to literal uses are pre-1940's, which have nothing to do with respect/fairness to minorities.Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Research section - clarify

The research section I have re-titled 'Use in research', and added a 'clarify' tag. The reason for the clarify tag is that I think it should be clear what the researcher's definition of 'PC' was (from memory, it was a mixed male+female group who were invited to discuss their experience of 'PC' before starting their task), otherwise we are implying that one of the other negative meanings/usages is beneficial. The reason for 'Use in research', is that this is a behavioural study, rather than a study into the phenomenon of 'PC' or the use of the term, both of which have also been studied. There are other similar behavioural studies, using broadly similar neutral definitions of 'PC', I have no objection to their inclusion, but think they should be clearly differentiated from 'the public debate/use in the media'. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

political correctness origins

all this began after World war 2 when Americans and Europeans try hard to not be anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic in the USA, nobody wanted to be accused of these things first, then it evolved into trying harder not to be or appear racist and sexist, expanded to include homophobia and Islamophobia, and finally to look like you're against ableism and ageism too. the only groups you can freely hate now are poor people and fat people, which I believe is mean and harsh like to be racist or homophobe. 173.198.10.142 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

173.198.10.142, this is what we at WP call 'original research', that is, it's your opinion rather than what has been written by those studying the subject. Although what you write may have some truth, the expression 'political correctness' didn't come into general use until the late 1980's/early 90's, when it was mainly used by the media to criticise (what the critics saw as) the excesses of 'PC'.

There are terms like shape-ism for body size (though not income-ism as far as I know), but the evidence is that unless a sizable part of the population agree with/prefer new terms (like 'gay', instead of the alternatives), they just don't 'catch on'. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken, 173. There are plenty of groups that are acceptable to hate in today's society, like Christians and Muslims. The double standards are strong. 69.122.135.223 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Classism against low-income people: they are "lazy", don't work, don't contribute to society, waste of taxpayers money spending on them, have no manners, no morals, no ethics, no values, no social skills, are criminals, will scam better off people, have too many babies or children to get a monthly welfare check, wrecks communities, are parasitic, lack proper training and no education (be it school and college). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Other countries?

this edit is inapt in so many ways. Firstly, why 'other countries' when nothing previous is labelled 'America', and indeed refers to France and UK as well.

Secondly most of the content is not describing 'other countries', rather saying than PC is US not us. In the case of Hughes (which I know well and intended to include stuff from), the quote wholly misrepresents his overall thrust. In that early part he is saying that there were no 'big books' or furious arguments about higher education in the UK, a few pages after that quote he says :

In Britain the debate was less of an exclusively academic affair, for there was some powerful journalistic input. Much of the initial commentary was ironic, focusing on the curious verbal innovations rather than the ideologies behind them. It also developed later, the main collection of essays, The War of the Words, appearing in 1994. It was a comparatively slim volume of 188 pages containing 11 essays, two of which focused on America and a third on France. In the Introduction Sarah Dunant commented on “the great liberal divide” namely “passionate disagreement as to whether PC is a political and liberal aberration, betraying all that liberalism stands for (Melanie Phillips), or a long overdue force for change which has exposed a hypocrisy at the heart of liberalism (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown)” (1994, p. xiii). (Hughes p.69 my version)

He also emphasises later that PC in the UK was largely a 'tabloid' usage, and the targets were largely local authorities and public organisations, rather than Universities. Dunant in the book referred to talks about how PC in the UK is an insult, not a description. I am all in favour of including more info on 'PC in the UK', but the quote used is absurdly unrepresentative of what Hughes actually says.

Hughes also says that the term originated among early 20thC Chinese communists, was taken up by Comintern and thence imported to US and UK where it immediately acquired an ironic use among liberals, (ie too correct) and like most of our sources, he says it later became a largely pejorative term to criticise liberals/left-wingers. He certainly says that this final critical use was imported from the US and that the use of the term never had the fury that use in the US had, but to suggest the term did not have widespread UK use, misrepresents him. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You should add material on UK, not delete sourced info on multiple counties. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, it says 'globalise', not shove all the non-US stuff, to one corner, while Americanising 9/10 of the article. You are making fundamental changes to structure without discussion, that is not acceptable. I will try to re-add some of your material, without the widespread removals and bizarre, de-linking. In respect of UK the content appears to cherry-pick a few out of context quotes, without even attempting any overall picture.

The early sections are about the history/use of the term, not specific US usage, sources and examples used are from various countries. I have no objection to adding examples specific to non-US countries either within the main history narrative or in their own sections, but fundamentally altering structure to fit 'PC is a US phenomenon' agenda is not a narrative which is supported by sources, inc. Hughes, who is the most UK-centric of the academic studies. Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New Material

There are some articles which could be used for right-wing political correctness:

Modern usage could possible also have a section for Donald Trump alone, of articles like this which starts by first talking about the term:

a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating.

But that’s not what Trump is doing. He’s not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. He’s not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. He’s not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say.

All Trump’s defying is common decency.

I'm busy with work so I have harder time figuring it out. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References

At first sight, these seem to be mainly about Trump, not about PC as a concept. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be notable that the term resurfaced in the 2016 election, but IMO, much of this material is criticism of Trump, rather than about the use of the term, but others wade in please. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The headlines were full of him and the term and the two became associated during the election cycle, so it seemed like it needed to be mentioned or people would wonder why the article for something so constantly featured in headlines right next to him doesn't mention him. I mean do you not think the average Wiki-browser wouldn't feel like something is amiss? I had a hard time finding any material not criticizing Trump, seriously. The edit of course happened before he became president-elect. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is that I tried to find coverage detailing his own words but a hard time finding something like that. I truly tried to fill out the opening sentence where it says "common target in his rhetoric", but I mostly found just different variations of that same line. There was plenty of coverage featuring these variations however. After that line there could be another sentence detailing Trump's own words if you can find something to literally quote him. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All I meant is that it may be notable that the term re-surfaced, it may be pertinent HOW it was being used, but whether Trump is a creep/hypocrite/toad or 'champion of the common-man' doesn't belong here and why women 'late-reported' may not either. We haven't historically provided 'examples' of use, largely because the article would simply become a long list of quotes, so "his own words" would probably not be a good idea.

People are almost always disappointed when they read this article, it's always too right/left, too topical/not up-to-date too critical/not critical enough. That goes with the territory,(insert Smiley). Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the entire edit was originally solely to the Right-wing political correctness section, the mentioned bottom bit fit well. I found it randomly while going through articles searching for a Trump quote to use, and thought that it was talking about right-wing political correctness. I had originally intended simply to expand that section alone. So I took it along. But after the section re-titling, I found it to belong more at the above section but it talks about Trump, who would then be mentioned and detailed first below. Remember this was before the election. I found it difficult to place. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's in the right section. It wouldn't be 'right-wing PC', as that is rightists allegedly displaying their own form of 'PC', rather than rightists using the term. I'm busy elsewhere at present, but think some of this could be pruned, but I haven't worked out which bits yet, only that when it's more about the man than the use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I found an article making the coverage more fair. It summarizes Trump's stance fairly neutrally. As the article pretty much disagrees and explains in detail why, I also found quite the number of sentences to quote as disagreeing opinions, but since someone added the not-all-viewpoints template, I'm not sure whether or not it would tip the scales over. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But it's about Trump, only peripherally about PC, btw I'm not sure what 'in disagreeing voice' means, nor why it needs to be said. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the new sentence, that's an old sentence. The new sentence was added above. I just moved the other sentence downwards and changed the word order. I originally added "disagreeing voice" to that other sentence because when it simply read "describes" it came off as presenting itself matter-of-fact like the sentence I just added. I had to add some clarification that it was disagreeing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's called editorialising (telling us how to read what is said), it's unnec, since it is obvious that he disapproves, btw 'disagreeing' isn't an adjective (certainly in UK). But what does someone's opinion of Trump have to do with 'PC'. The only bit that's relevant is where he says (approx) "PC is about curtailing free speech", which is his opinion of what 'PC' is. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I have seen disagreeing used in this way many times? Disagreeing. And I agree it sounds like editorializing to describe his tone, but "describes" should really be changed to another word too, perhaps a synonym without the connotation "describes" has. And since we talk about Trump and his view of political correctness, and considering how the media is full of articles lambasting him, why would we not include at least a few disagreeing opinions? That of the new article as well. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected about 'disagreeing' as an adjective, I think it must a US usage.Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

Mr. Magoo, this partially relates to the 'Trump' material, but also to 'individuals' and 'political discourse'.

Individuals The reason I removed 'individuals' is because saying 'individuals and groups' is a bit like saying 'people'. The distinguishing feature about PC measures, rules, laws, language etc. is that the individuals are members of groups (racial groups, women, gays, etc). A measure designed to protect all people from murder or theft or insult would not be decribed as PC, one designed to protect/advantage ONLY members of one of these groups might. The dictionaries say:

disapproving, avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive (Cambridge US definition) … Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided. (Cambridge UK definition) … The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against:(Oxford definition)

I know NOTDICT, but I think all the sources would support that membership of particular groups is a defining feature. Incidentally, nowhere in the article does it currently say that most PC measures relate to gender, race, sexuality and disability (this is covered in Hughes, apart from the Oxford def), nor do we say that the groups are ordinarily minorities (women being the exception). Nor that these groups are ordinarily (perceived as?) being 'socially disadvantaged or discriminated against'.

My compromise' edit was to change to 'members of groups', rather than 'individuals and groups', I hope that covers the fact that individuals are being protected, but they are being protected as members of this or that group.

The reason I am aware of this omission is that I professionally deal with young non-native English speakers, they have no equivalent in their native tongues to 'PC', although many of the same societal changes have taken place in their home countries, (not using pejorative words for women and ethnic groups, increasing educational and professional oppurtunities etc.) They have no general equivalent term to 'PC' either as a good or bad thing. Trying to explain 'PC', either as a positive or critical term without mentioning women and race etc, is nearly impossible.

Polotical discourse The reason I added that, and I'm quite happy to amend is that everything on WP is 'in the media' (ie has been written about in books or papers). If you recall, the reason for adding 'in the media' was that readers/editors were often complaining that our definition was not their everyday use, however I've always been unhappy with it for the reason given. What our article is covering is use of the term mainly in relation to public criticism or, (occasionally), defence of political or social policies etc.

The '2016' use, the reason I removed the 'sex Trump' material was that IMO, it was discussing whether PC was a good or bad thing in relation to these scandals, rather than how the term was being used, or what it meant to these users. the reason I inserted the 'code words' is the converse, this is about who/how using the term and the writer isn't saying 'code words' as 'double meaning', rather as 'linguistic badge', much as 'comrade' might be a communist badge. What I think is well documented is the recent revival in use of the term (mainly US, but also UK) and that more traditional conservatives/centrists are often disowning the way it is being recently used.

However I'm not going to edit war about any of these changes, I took this article off my watchlist for a while, and am quite happy to do so again if we can't agree. Happy New Year. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to immigration as a 'see also'

Re: this.

User:Fixuture The primary focus of the use of 'PC' as a term has been in relation to groups (perceived as?) 'disadvantaged'. In most countries this has meant ethnic minorities, women and 'sexual orientation' minorities, then to a lesser extent 'disabled' groups. In the US, the primary focus of the term was in education, specifically higher education. In the UK the focus has been more on local govt. and voluntary section actions.

Clearly the term CAN be used about any policy which critics see as 'excessive', or about which the language used is seen as euphemistically trying to over-protect a minority. But at present we don't 'see also' all the policy areas around which the term has been used, such a list of everything concerning feminism, race relations, sexual identity and 'disability' would be enormous. The 'see also's are largely about the overlaps between political language, politics, euphemism etc. rather than the policy areas of disagreement.

I would not dispute that opposition to immigration, may overlap somewhat with 'PC', perhaps especially recently in US election and Brexit. What I don't see is anyone drawing any such parallel, or any substantial use of the term in that context that is any more significant than any other (social policy) disagreement between left and right. Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Well, good point. First of all thanks for making the talk page entry. I do not think that the term is used in any significant way for any policy - first because most of the time it doesn't refer to a policy but the debate around it and second because it's typically only applied to / makes sense for (especially considering the lead definition) for liberal topics in which "vulnerable minorities" are argued to be protected.

I would doubt that it's that many topics but what about an extra section / list within the article "Topics the term is frequently applied to" or alike? Because I think the topics should be named.

I'd be interested to hear what other editors think of this. If they don't agree that the page should be linked in the see alsos or until that happens you might revert my edit. But then I think we should also discuss a potential list of topics this has been applied to (note that the topics can be as broad and inclusive as possible and that a 4-column list could easily hold up to 30 links without getting long).

--Fixuture (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixuture, one of the additions which I have long intended to make is the 'areas' around which the term has been used, at the moment we have an article that hardly mentions ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability. I have sometimes to explain 'PC' to young adults to whom English is a second language, it is almost impossible to explain the term without referring to race/ gender/ disability. The pre-eminence of these main areas is RS'd, especially in relation to 1980's-1990's use, when the term first became widely used.

I wouldn't personally be in favour of a list, largely for practical reasons, which are that there is a tendency for IPs to want to include every possible example of use. One of the 'rules' on this page is that we try to keep to sources discussing the use of the term and exclude sources simply using the term.

Another notable omission IMO is that we fail to say clearly WHY critics of PC object to it, that they see it as censorship or as 'thought control' etc. Though again we would need to go for good RS discussing, rather than using the term. … … ps, you are of course right, the term is used to criticise the thinking behind policies, or to impugn the motives of those advocating policies, rather than about policies themselves, please treat my previous remarks and edit reasons as 'shorthand'. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Ah ok. I support such an "Areas" section. I didn't mean to confine it to the suggested section-name or style so prose could be good as well and might also be a better choice for the reason you gave. I also very much support adding more info on the given reasons for why critics object to perceived "political correctness" - this certainly needs to be in the article. it would be great if you could go ahead and add such content.

Some possible sources for this and other improvements to the article that I found in a quick research:

• https://books.google.de/books?id=OnSLtku4YzwC&pg=PA487
• https://books.google.de/books?id=Zzw9WabmmVwC&pg=PT36
• https://books.google.de/books?id=BdmhBRgKIBIC&pg=PA91
• https://books.google.de/books?id=7mgAwXas5xIC (ctrl+f)
• https://books.google.de/books?id=lnU9pMbHk0sC
• https://books.google.de/books?id=P2F6DQAAQBAJ
• https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury_Political_Correctness.pdf
• http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness
• http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/
• The Politics and Philosophy of Political Correctness

--Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The 'Hughes' above (which I have all of) is the source I was intending to use to 'highlight' race/gender/disability as the focus of use. Hughes also points up differences between early use of the term in the US and UK (mainly that the initial focus in US was higher education, in UK mainly local authority and 'not for profits' and more prevalent in tabloid news). Hughes also says that the term originated with Chinese communists in 1930's (using it with no sense of irony, ie 'the party line'), that it was taken up by Politburo and from there made its way to US, where it immediately acquired the ironical use among 1940's socialists to describe excessively orthodox 'party-liners', which is where we currently begin the story of modern use. There is much in Hughes that I find questionable (he treats attempts to change 'history' to 'her-story' as serious manifestations of 'PC', while most of us would think these simply rhetorical devices, which have long been forgotten), but his factual history is mainly sound.

Go ahead, while I am well aware of the gaps in our current narrative, I have slightly lost interest in the subject and only continue to watchlist out of a sense of duty. Though I would suggest that the clearest place(s) to highlight the topic areas around which the term has been used, would be in the relevant historical sections. Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Album Title

The Group Jane Bond and the Undercovermen released an album called Politically Correct in 1985 which indicates that the term had entered popular usage and was widely known amongst young people by then.

86.128.119.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:86.128.119.65That's what we call WP:OR, ie drawing conclusions from primary evidence. The term certainly existed, and had various distinct uses (often ironic), since at least the 1930's, but it was not until the mid/late 1980's that it acquired widespread use with its present critical meaning. Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wording tweak

In the lead it says that the term "in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive." The first part is basically saying that PC is used to describe all language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. I think that the implied "all" is incorrect, easily debunked, and an overreach from the collective sources. The same goes for the end of the sentence, by use of "these policies" (which refers to the first part of the sentence) it is saying that the pejorative use implies that all "language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society." is excessive. Again easily debunked by example, and I think an overreach form the collective sources. Both can be fixed by simply adding the word "some" (i.e "describe some language") which I plan to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:North8000, I don't think your logic is strictly true, "generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive", means that when used as a pejorative, the critics find particular policies excessive. There is a long-standing dispute on this article as to whether the term is EVER used neutrally, certainly the notable, and studied, examples are of the term being used critically/dismissively. Dictionaries are mixed/equivocal as to whether the term applies to ALL such policies, or only to such policies which are seen as 'excessive'. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, for example, the laws saying that you can't have black people as slaves would never be called "political correctness". I can see your point about the open question, but the current wording makes a claim of the far-reaching extreme version of the answer.....That all such protective actions are called "political correctness". Plus, I don't think that such universality arises collectively from the cited sources. And adding the "some" makes it not such a far-reaching extreme version of the answer, giving allowance for both possibilities. Finally, while the "some" fixes both issues due to the current linkage, I think that the second statement is even clearer. "Pejorative" would inherently mean a claim of excessiveness. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edit, I was just pointing out some of the difficulties, I'm partly responsible for current definition wording though I have always thought it unclear and complex. Actually the dict defs just refer to 'avoidance of (offensive) language', which is a nonsense since many of the controversies have revolved around policies other than linguistic ones and these are the main subject of studies. I am of the camp that thinks the term is rarely used publically other than critically, or ironically.

An alternative strategy might be to state more clearly the modern use eg "since the late 1980's the term has mainly been used to criticise language, policies or measures intended to avoid offense etc … … which the critics see as excessive"? Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Not a total fix but I don't plan to carry the torch to try to get a total fix.

BTW, If you wanted to try to simplify, one really needs to acknowledge that the subject of the article is a modern pejorative term. Prior to that it was just a two word sequence relating to other topics. And so it also isn't really about the protective behaviors. Also, the term targets only a subset of the protective behaviors, the ones that the user is claiming to be excessive. In another area coverage is best on the common meaning of the term and not on rare outlier situations where someone is using it in a very unusual way, usually to make a point about the term itself. Where this has occurred in the article, I think that editor picked such outlier instances and in essence used primary sources that merely said that the instance-of-use occurred. I don't think that there are secondary-sources-on-the-topic for those.

On the underlying structural challenges, Wp:not a dictionary covers the "not about the ostensible topic" situation and even uses this article as one of the examples: "In other cases, a word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it." North8000 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There are distinct 20thC pre-uses other than the critical, post late-80's use, some of which are not in the article (starting with Mao in the 1930's and then picked up by various western groups to parody excessive political orthodoxy), but the post late-80's use is the 'explosion' of use when the term became an outright pejorative.

There is also a long history of IP edit wars/Rfc's and a few ANI's (which I won't bore you with), that lead me to exercise some caution here. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for being that type of a person for this article! It is lucky to have you. My point is that use of the two word combination is not necessarily related to any coherent article subject. Is the subject of the article any use of that two word sequence? I'd say no...that's like "orange" the color and "orange" the fruit. Is it about per se the protective actions referred to by the term? I'd say no, per my previous posts. I'd say that it's about the term per its pervasive current and recent-history meaning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the principal subject is the post-80's meaning of 'political orthodoxy' relating to 'treatment of women and minorities' in which the critic is usually using bitter irony (the last thing meant is 'correct'). There is a pre-history of ironic use prior to this from the 1930s (to mock orthodoxy, including one's own). Before then, the two words were simply adjacent occasionally, with no fixed or distinct meaning as a phrase. Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that we agree except I'd have a slightly longer list in the place of "women and minorities". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely, shorthand. Actually what is also missing from the article is that gender, race/religion/ethnicity, sexuality, and 'disability' are the 'focal areas' around which most debate has concentrated. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the orthodoxy covers others areas relating to social initiatives or conversational norms that are not per se avoiding offense or disadvantage. For example, to laud statements like "men are stupid", which is obviously not true for stating the reverse. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, the focus of the article is on use in public discourse and in the media, partly because these are RS and the subject of study, but also because all sorts of more private uses have been recorded by readers/editors. Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope my formatting is ok and hope this is the right place to raise my question- on wording i'm stil working on finding the right phrase - but i think a key is that it's only ever used after the fact - that is after the initial 'pc' language is used and in response to it even if it is the same person they are showing self awareness (the ironic calling out of senses). PC isn't just a descriptive label but used as a rebuttal to the language or policy being labeled PC. by naming it so one is calling it out or exposing it as flawed or wrong or unnecessary. simmlar in some ways to that's just semantics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitten88.r (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tone

There are several sections of this page that have tonal bias and as a whole this article should be carefully observed and corrected to still represent facts but eliminate the underlying slants. In particular, quite a few sections discuss contested (and ultimately not provable) traits of the Political Correctness label that are as fluid as language itself; these sections while factually staying accurate have serious tonal implications to suggest one interpretation of these otherwise abstract concepts is either favorable or unfavorable, in the most egregious cases omitting any reference to the open-ended nature of the subjects at hand. I will not attempt to make these edits at this time, but implore users to carefully take a step back and ensure that we aren't painting this phenomena in an uneven and intellectually-offensive light. 98.224.236.182 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Such as? Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To summarize and add to our discussions above, I think that much of the article is obfuscating rather than informing. PC is simply a modern pejorative term referring to instances of a "left" orthodoxy where it is taken too far or has become too powerful. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Former Featured Article Nominee

(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political correctness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114015029/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F02%2F15%2F1528222 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F02%2F15%2F1528222
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227164724/http://teenink.com/talk/showthread.php?s=cb96eb0a024fd73bbc9080f5184fd151&postid=322528 to http://teenink.com/talk/showthread.php?s=cb96eb0a024fd73bbc9080f5184fd151&postid=322528
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530054012/http://www.capc.co.uk/PC%20_Scrapbook_Main.htm to http://www.capc.co.uk/PC%20_Scrapbook_Main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Homicide/Suicide Bombers

There are examples of Fox News using the term "homicide bomber" as opposed to "suicide bomber" when reporting on the Iraq war. Obviously, this is a less descriptive term as all bombers have the intention of homicide. Could we include this as an example of political correctness run amok? (assuming I can find sources where Fox changed the wording in an AP report for example). 2602:301:772D:62D0:D187:266:49EB:481 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, for various reasons, but mainly because we don't include OUR understanding nor simply examples, the article would be endless were we to do so. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I added an image of the "Head of a Male Statue" with the sourcing that was previously asked for. I hope The Times is acceptable - there are several other sources that discuss the name of the ancient fragment as well 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For "Head of a Male Statue", you have one person rejecting "the notion that the museum was attempting to rewrite history or making its decision based on politcal [sic] correctness." I would say we would not include that here for the same reasons we wouldn't add it to Historical revisionism, Negro, hottentot, Khoikhoi, African-American, National Gallery of Denmark, art, painting or several dozen other articles. The source does not substantially discuss this as a claimed example of "political correctness". Significant examples will have substantial discussion in independent reliable sources. Basically, I would be looking for not the claim (or its refutation) that something is political correctness, but third party coverage of the back and forth. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for being all over the place, but with the suicide bomber example, if I found sourcing that explicitly accused Fox of being PC, would that make a difference? 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on the sources. If it's a marginal source and/or an isolated claim, no. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Navy name changes.

After doing some reading, I was considering adding a section on the US Navy changing titles due to political correctness, then reversing their decision after receiving a tremendous amount of criticism. This was a very notable controversy and is well-sourced. Here are some sources:
From The San Diego Tribune
From the Capial Gazette
From the Wshington Times
And another from The Washington Times
I think this is much better sourced than my previous example using the artwork. My issue with the article as it stands, is that Political Correctness comes across as a bad thing, or a way for the right wing to dismiss left-wing views. Nowadays, that's just not true. In the corporate workplace it's important to be politically correct, and it is viewed as necessary and even noble. But the current article does not have any real world recent applications of political correctness. While the Navy example isnt great, it's a start. Ideally, the article should perhaps have an example of how political correctness made an effective or beneficial change in policy, that was my initial plan with the whole artwork thing. Thoughts? 2602:301:772D:62D0:A52B:9D01:4BF1:ADA7 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost all academic sources acknowledge that "PC" is ordinarily a critical term when used in public discourse, implying that the measures are excessive, it is rarely used of more conservative measures, the examples above tend to endorse both those points. Some people believe that this is no longer always the case (especially in the US?). Are there academic sources saying the term is now neutral? What applies to the above art discussion and here is that the term 'PC' is being used by those criticising. Did the US Navy really say they wanted to be "more PC", or is this a characterisation made by the critics of its actions? Almost by definition, "PC" IS critical in public discourse, however people use it in private life. Again why is this example especially notable? Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's notable because it's a controversy that has been well covered in multiple sources. I feel like I am missing something here...do you not feel that the article should have an example of political correctness in action? I don't want to keep wasting my time if every idea I come up with is going to be shot down by you. Believe it or not, I am trying to improve the article. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What I think you may be missing is that the article is in no way short of examples. At some point -- and it's hard to say where -- including more and more examples to an article actually subtracts meaning. The goal of the article is to describe what "political correctness" purportedly is. A few carefully selected examples can help clarify. Too many examples starts to blur the issue and the article starts to slant toward the "example farm". While a neutral topic's example farm can be spun off into it's own article and simply becomes a dumping ground of no real value (e.g., List of signature songs), a contentious label in the mix (such as the present one) creates fertile ground for the growth on divisive nothingness. No one particularly cares whether or not "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is Judy Garland's signature song. When you start labeling people or their actions as "political correctness", "terrorism", "fascist", etc. you've entered a new realm where building an encyclopedia is eclipsed by scoring points in some absurdist contest.

The examples that are currently in the article seem to speak to the evolution of the term rather than labeling the actions/events. So yes, we include "freedom fries" in the section discussing the term's typical political direction as an example of the reverse.

We mention Foucault's self-labeling as a guard against dogmatism, a use later evolving into mild satire, with an example. Further examples are used as pseudo-benchmarks for the continued evolution toward its current use.

Your proposed examples are not discussing the term in any of its particular iterations. There are thousands of articles where we could add millions of examples. In evolution, we could add a century and a half's worth of examples from top shelf peer-reviewed journals and graduate level texts. In right-wing politics we could add decades worth of articles from hundreds of daily newspapers. The articles would quickly be swamped with examples, counter-examples, refutations, etc. Every would-be political spin doctor would be arguing and debating to make sure that everyone who reads Wikipedia knows for damned sure that Politician X is more interested in Q than doing their job.

The best examples for these cases are the examples that are discussed in numerous sources about the topic of the article. Someone thinks the new tiny cans of soda are political correctness run amuck? Maybe they're right; maybe they're crazy. I don't care. All I know is it doesn't clarify our coverage of the topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

v2.0 I really appreciate you taking so much time to better explain things. I thought the Navy example is a little different because it is so well sources and was such a matter of controversy. This was legitimate national news. And the kicker is "PC" was not a label given by critics - the political correctness label was something well documented in neutral sources. Not a journalist's or critic's opinion. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That would all establish that it is well-sourced, not that it adds anything to the article other than another example. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

v2.0 So you are opposed to adding another example correct? I guess I just dont understand how wikipedia works. I am being attacked on another page as we speak. I have no axe to grind and went to bed near tears last inght from frustration. How can I help this article??? Why is everyone (not you) attacking me and my contributions? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Summer PhD has given a fuller and better explanation of why we don't simply collect examples than I ever could, however just to clarify something. Describing something as 'PC' is, and always will inevitably be individual opinion, normally of journalist(s) or politician(s) or commentators(s), there is no such thing as an objective assessment of whether something is 'PC' or not, and it is extremely rare to find examples of use which are nor critical (or ironic). Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete With all due respect how can you possibly say this? The company I currently work at has a mandatory seminar for new employees entitled (quote) "The importance of a politically correct workplace". Political correctness is not a criticism or a joke or anything of the sort, particularly not in the United States. I consider myself to be politically correct. On a general level it means respect for differences and using language that is constructed in a way so as not to offend. Your view may have been true in the 1990s - today it is a different story. American culture today is embracing PC like never before (with some obvious political exceptions). Not to mention, your opinion tends to push the unhelpful and inaccurate narrative that "Political Correctness" is merely a way for commentators to dismiss left-wing views. This is simply not the case, nor has it been for years.76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I did make a point of saying 'in public discourse'. I'm aware of all kinds of other uses, including some use of the term to mean 'respectful to other groups' and possibly 'respectful to employment law', or possibly simply 'respectful professional relations', these uses seem fairly common in the US. You find me an example of use in media, political discussion etc. which was not critical or in which the idea criticised was a conservative one (non-political meaning, including being socially/ linguistically/ educationally traditionalist). Politically correct does not ordinarily mean 'correct' at all in public discourse, it usually means 'wrong-headed' or 'excessive'. Is it the US Navy, or its critics that characterised these changes as 'PC'? This issue came up a couple of years ago in a WP:RFC, many editors (including myself) were able to record 'private uses' at work or socially, but no one was able to find a single academic source that did not describe the term as critical, nor any significant use of the term that was not critical. When did you last read a journalist or politician saying "this policy is not PC enough", they might say "not respectful/ inclusive/etc enough", but almost universally the term 'PC' is avoided when not being critical.

There are terms which began life as critical terms, 'Puritan' and 'Quaker' were both originally insults. Perhaps 'PC' will one day make that journey or is making it in the US (not in UK), but we need an academic source recording such a transition in order to record it here, rather than our private assessment.

All this is a side-note though. There are many improvements I believe which could be made to the article, but simply including examples (unless they have historic significance) would not be a good idea IMO. Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You actually make a very good point. Political correctness is difficult to define because its definition is fluid and dependent upon political leanings. Rather than define what political correctness is, it occurs to me that modern journalism prefers to speak in examples of the ideology gone overboard. This exposes a significant hole in how American culture conceptualizes political correctness: It's not really an ideology, but rather a means of categorizing an argument about social equity you disagree with. The result? Most people just don't self-identify as "politically correct."

Some food for thought - real world examples if you will. A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner. It occurs to me that these types of events occur daily in PC cultures, where these unwritten rules of etiquette govern behavior in multi-cultural discourse — that is to say, interactions among members of varying races, creeds, colors, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. On a large scale I believe there is appreciation of the commitment to equity that underlies political correctness, and we applaud the resultant shifts in commonly held precepts wrought by that commitment. However, there are significant, troubling barriers posed by PC culture to developing constructive, engaged relationships. Thank you Pincrete, for the illuminating comment - I had not thought of it that way before. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

False accusations but no true accusations?

I noticed there is a section entitled "False Accusations of PC" but no section entitled "True Accusations of PC". Is this intentional? I understand the above argument of not having a list of arbitrary examples, but why would we have a false accusations section then? Obviously there are instances of accurate labeling of PC104.172.234.183 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
On a side note pincrete, I've had the misfortune to run afoul of an Englishman on one of the other articles. I realize most Englishmen are not foul-mouthed braggarts, I seem to have gotten lucky. Any advice on how to deal with such a character? 104.172.234.183 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree in the sense that the section heading "false accusations" is silly -- as though an accusation of being "politically correct" is the sort of thing that one can verify as being true or false. The "false accusations" are just made up stories people attributed to being "politically correct". People get the facts wrong and become outraged by the fiction all the time. If there are sufficient sources to justify something along the lines of confirmation bias leading people to see "political correctness" everywhere, that's one thing, but the true/false business doesn't seem tenable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not something is "political correctness" falls into two categories: 1) it clearly is not (whatever was done for clear reasons that have nothing to do with anything that could be called political correctness 2) a judgement call.

If the sign on the bathroom down the hall is changed from the male/female icons to the words "men" and "women", someone might decide it was political correctness (for some reason). However, it might have been done when the doors were replaced and those are the signs that were the cheapest. The signs were changed for reasons that have nothing to do with being PC. That's case 1.

If, OTOH, there was discussion of which signs to order and, of the six people discussing it, one person favored one type for reasons that someone might consider PC, some will say the action was PC, others will disagree. That's case 2.

As for clear-cut examples of political correctness, you aren't likely to find any today (unless someone decides to "reclaim" the term) because it is virtually always used as a negative judgement.

As for the Englishman, you'll want to start with dumping your assumption that their nationality has a damned thing to do with anything you're discussing here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

v2.0 I was asking Pincrete for advice because I mistakenly assumed he was from the UK. I ran afoul of a fellow Englishman on a different article and was wondering if perhaps our miscommunication was due to a cultural misunderstanding. My apologies for any offense.

On to your second point, from what I am reading, there are clear-cut examples of false accusations of PC, but no clear-cut examples of accurate accusations of PC. Am I correct? I want to make sure I understand your argument here. For example, a college student makes a joke about his appearance, calling himself handsome in his Chinese class. Because other students found this comment offensive, he was subjected to a lengthy bureaucratic punishment, and reported to the “Gender-Based Misconduct Office” that mandated he be “re-educated” because the case manager deemed his remarks as a classic example of white privilege. All over calling himself handsome. Is this not an example of political correctness in the classroom?

Here is a perhaps better, more concrete example: In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word meaning "stingy," unrelated to the racial slur). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resign even though he had not said anything racially charged. However, his name was cleared within a matter of days and was offered to return to his previous position. Was the initial reaction not an example of political correctness run amok?

Thanks and again, my apologies if my comments came off as rude. 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That anything was or was not PC is an opinion. It cannot be objectively true because it is an opinion.

If, however, the opinion rests entirely on incorrect facts, it is reasonable to describe that as "false". To ascribe "choosing" the only sign available to "political correctness" would require an absurd broadening of the term.

At this point we are well beyond the scope of this page. In terms of improving the article, what are you suggesting? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

v2.0Every time I suggest something it is roundly defeated. That's why I am discussing here first. If the opinion that something was PC rested entirely on correct facts, would it not be reasonable to describe the labeling as true or accurate? Again, I give an example: In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word meaning "stingy," unrelated to the racial slur). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resign even though he had not said anything racially charged. However, his name was cleared within a matter of days and was offered to return to his previous position. Was the initial reaction not an example of political correctness run amok? 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the section title is unfortunate but cannot think of a better one. The UK incidents, which I'm most familiar with, were the 'stable fare' of UK tabloids some years ago, though often repeated in mainstream papers. They mostly involved local authorities and almost always involved a very high degree of 'creative reporting'. I can't immediately think of a better title, but the answer is not to have 'true examples' as a balancer, for reasons given by Aquillion below. Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Was the initial reaction not an example of political correctness run amok?" That is a matter of opinion.

Repeating myself: At this point we are well beyond the scope of this page. In terms of improving the article, what are you suggesting? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Idea for improvement to the article

I think I am finally understanding what everyone has been trying to tell me. SummerPhDv2.0 asked me if I had any ideas to improve the article, and I think I do. I have a suggestion that might help clear up some of the confusion that's been happening lately. As it stands, there is a section to the article entitled "False Accusations of Political Correctness", with examples following. How about having a section entitled "Incidents Widely Blamed on Political Correctness" with several examples following? I was thinking we could use the Navy example as well as the "Water Buffalo Incident", and perhaps the artwork example as well. This way, there are both incorrect and potentially correct examples of PC at work? Is this more acceptable to everyone?? Please let me know! Thank you! 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The problem is that the term is an extremely common political epithet; we used to have a list like that, but it invites people drive-by dropping whatever they personally dislike into it (because it's incredibly easy to find sources using the term for hundreds of things each year) - incidents end up getting highlighted because some editor wanted to call attention to them rather than because they enhance the article (which also leads to WP:UNDUE issues.) A list like that doesn't really do anything to help readers understand anything. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really talking about uses as an insult or handwave or epithet - as a matter of fact I think those examples are best avoided. I was thinking more along the lines of two or three very well-sourced examples of the ideology itself at work. Examples like Summer and I discussed above - the opinion of something being PC resting entirely on facts of the incident at hand. Just like the examples under "False Accusations" resting entirely on incorrect facts. This would limit the additions of incidents simply labeled as "PC" by a source or two and would also stem the tide of editors driving-by and dropping in an example (you bring up a very valid concern by the way). 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Those sources, by my reading, are largely editorials criticizing the changes (that is, using the term to insult it), and news pieces quoting those criticisms. You concede this yourself when you say that the was the "opinion" of those generals that the changes they were attacking were mere political correctness - that isn't something the sources you provided support (or can support). Even if it were added, it would be added with a formulation along the lines of "General so-and-so attacked [thing he disagreed with], calling it 'political correctness gone mad'" or the like. And certainly your sources don't support your assertion that there is some sort of "political correctness ideology" - you cited people using it as an epithet and others reporting on that usage. It's a term that people (like the people quoted in your article) use to describe certain things they disagree with (with the insinuation that their opponents do not care about being correct or accurate but merely "politically" correct), not a coherent ideology or set of beliefs that anyone holds. Again, the article has an extensive history of the term and how it evolved into its current usage, which trace back to a push by several right-wing think tanks to popularize it as a line of attack against academia in the early 1990s. --Aquillion (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no factual way to say an incident was "political correctness" any more than you can factually say Breyers' chocolate is the best ice cream. We can, however, factually say that Elmer's Wood Glue is the best ice cream.

"Widely" reported is POV and such a list would quickly become both a battleground and an example farm. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is the crux of our discussion. Aquillion says: "(Political correctness) is a term that people use to describe certain things they disagree with (with the insinuation that their opponents do not care about being correct or accurate but merely "politically" correct), not a coherent ideology or set of beliefs that anyone holds".. I don't know if that is necessarily accurate. As I mentioned earlier, in the Unites Sates at least, political correctness is certainly a valid philosophy or ideology. I used the example of the mandatory seminar at my current job entitled "The importance (emphasis mine) of a politically correct workplace". Additionally, it still seems to me there is at least a perception of false balance in this article. We have a section entitled "False examples of PC" without any examples of incidents widely described in neutral sources as PC. Additionally, we have an entire category entitled "Political Correctness Controversies". In lieu of listing examples of PC, it would certainly make sense to at least link to the category somewhere in the body of the article itself. Finally, Summer PhDv2.0 has asked me several times for suggestions on improving the article - that's exactly what I am doing here. Obviously the editors here are far more educated than I am. I am a junior college dropout - not a PhD. So please AGF and realize I am learning as I go and genuinely attempting (with limited success) to improve the article. I would assume that most readers of the article also don't have a PhD. So something that is obvious to all of you may not be obvious to me (or a typical reader). When I first read the article, it seemed to not be painting the entire picture of political correctness. It's my intention for someone to read this article, understand what political correctness is (or is not), and also perhaps see an example of PC in action. Most of you have been editing this article for some time - again, please AGF and realize that a fresh set of eyes may be viewing the entry in a different light than you intended. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In order for something to be described as an ideology, it must have adherents, core beliefs, advocates, 'PC' lacks all of these and - more importantly for our purposes - reliable, reasonably authorative, sources that describe it as an ideology and tell us what that ideology is. I can claim that Harley-Davidsons are poetry, that they are my philosophy, but no-one has to take such claims seriously as anything other than rhetorical.

I'm afraid that how they use the term at your workplace (or how my friends use the term) is purely anecdotal, we can't write an article about a political term based on your or my personal experience. Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why we shouldn't at least link to "Political Correctness Controversies" in the body of the article. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I agree that labeling something as "PC" is indeed an opinion. However, if there are multiple reliable unbiased sources widely referring to an event as politically correct, I am not sure it is POV to refer to the event as "widely reported as PC". We report what the reliable sources say. Like I said, it will always be an opinion that something is PC - that does not mean legitimate examples (as reported by neutral reliable sources) don't exist. We don't have to say "this event is PC" - we say "this event was widely referred as an example of political correctness" 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Q1. We don't usually link to categories within an article, Q2. We might say "named person/paper described person A as a B", 'widely reported' is usually vague avoidance, a way of implying objectivety, but the main objection is why do we want examples? Do we put 1000s of uses of the word 'conservative' on the article with that name? Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As I was trying to say, "widely" is POV. Adding examples merely because someone dug up sources for them is a recipe for a battleground and an example farm. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I don't want to "dig up sources". We already have several well-sourced examples at the category entitled "Political Correctness Controversies". I was considering using examples that have already meet the burden for inclusion on wikipedia (consensus as to DUE, as well as being well-sourced and not POV). 2602:301:772D:62D0:6DAA:339C:ACCD:BBAA (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 additionally, you have concerns about an example farm when the article as it stands has zero contemporary examples of Political Correctness, while at the same time listing false examples. I agree, we need to be measured in adding examples, but I think it is reasonable to at least have a few modern examples of PC. Pincrete asked why do we want examples, and my answer would be just as we have false examples, it would make sense to have two or three well sourced incidents. If someone reads this article, they should know what Political Correctness is and is not. While I agree it is an opinion, a non-controversial incident labeled as PC by multiple reliable sources can certainly help shed light on the larger phenomena. We don't have to label the example as PC in wikipedia's words - rather we can simply say (for example) "the incident received widespread publicity as part of a perceived trend of political correctness in the United States in the 1990s". That is exactly the wording used in the article on PC Controversies. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E8E7:7B7B:3A2A:959B (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The false/true is a completely fallacious argument, there is no such thing as a true example and the 'false' is probably badly headlined. Examples are intended to illustrate a particular point and why do you imagine people outside the US want to read about trivial recent uses of this term, which are actually relatively poorly sourced, since they are not in book length studies. The time wasted discussing this is one of a number of reasons why it is not a good idea. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete I disagree that this is a "waste of time". The article needs improvement. It is my intention to improve the article, and as I said earlier, something that is obvious to you may not be obvious to a new reader. Additionally, I am not referring to "trivial" uses of the term. The "Water Buffalo Incident" for example, is very well sourced in book length studies. The existing wikipedia article on Political Correctness Controversies says the incident "received widespread publicity as part of a perceived trend of political correctness in the United States in the 1990s". This is neither trivial, nor poorly sourced, nor recent - in fact, wikipedia has a standalone article on the incident itself. 2602:301:772D:62D0:F57E:30E1:3D1F:BA00 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a waste of time IMO is arguing for examples, simply because they are notable examples. I agree that the article needs improvement, however adding examples unless they serve exact purposes is not an improvement IMO, nor in the opinion of most other editors, but by all means go ahead and prove us wrong. Btw, it isn't necessary to 'name' people all the time. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

But there is no point in making the change if it will be instantly reverted. Initially the opposition to including an example was due to sourcing, recentism and the incident being trivial. I then found an incident that was neither recent, nor poorly sourced (it is in several book-length academic studies), nor trivial. Now I am being told that adding an example is not an improvement. My argument is that one or two well-sourced, non-trivial examples are an improvement - they help the reader better understand the underlying concept of Political Correctness. We have defined the word when used as a criticism, but I don't think the article does a very good job of explaining the philosophy of PC. Remember, I am not some Harvard-yard, ivory tower academic. I dropped out of junior college. 2602:301:772D:62D0:21FF:92DB:819D:2F10 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot. Go easy on me please. 2602:301:772D:62D0:21FF:92DB:819D:2F10 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to highlight those particular examples? From the second source: "The wackiest of these tales -- like the 1993 "water buffalo affair" at the University of Pennsylvania -- have received a brief flurry of remarkable media attention, but then were soon forgotten." That pretty clearly establishes that it's not a notable incident. Your sourcing is weak overall - the first source is a WP:PRIMARY account by Kors, who was heavily involved in that incident (and would naturally want to argue that it was important), the second is a cite to a book review (which dismisses it as something that received little coverage), and the last is a link to FIRE, a political advocacy group created to monitor campus culture as part of the liberal-conservative divide I mentioned above - naturally they're going to use the term, since it was created specifically by think-tanks on their side in order to provide them with an easy pejorative to imply that their political opponents were dishonest and censorious. Those sources aren't enough to show that the incident was noteworthy in regards to this topic, especially when the middle one specifically says it only attracted brief coverage. (With the implication, yes, that its author, like FIRE, feels that it should have gotten more coverage - but we have to reflect the coverage they deplore; we're not here to right great wrongs.) Similarly, the cites to for the Dave Howard thing are an editorial that doesn't even mention the term, and two news reports that mention it only in passing. Your final cite (to the New Yorker) doesn't mention political correctness at all. The problem is that we can't include incidents where people just mentioned the term in passing in order to give the user a "view" of political correctness, because the selection of incidents and how we describe them would become original research and synthesis - you said above that you want to cover "political correctness culture", but that's not really in the sources you're using. What you could do, I think, is focus more on the people who argue that that culture exists (eg. FIRE or Kors), and we could present their position as their position, provided we had the sources to show it was not WP:UNDUE. That would require better sourcing, though. Basically, we need a description of what people say about the topic, what they're coming from, and why (with brief cites to individual events they say are important), plus rebuttals from other people - not a list of events. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable. So I need a neutral source specifically saying that an event was an example of PC, why they label it as such, and then a rebuttal? Also, if I provided more sources for the Water Buffalo thing where the sources specifically use the term PC, would that be better? Thank you for being patient with me on this. As I said before, I feel something is missing from the article. It certainly covers the term PC as a criticism, but it really does not define it as a contemporary philosophy. That was my reason for examples. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C530:CAD7:A0A3:7AF8 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A neutral source will not say it was political correctness. PC is an opinion. I don't see Kors or FIRE's reporting of their opinions as relevant here. Yes, an advocacy organization has opinions about their core issue, that does not make their opinion noteworthy. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources makes their opinion noteworthy. Taken to the extreme, for example, Stormfront (website) might very well have an opinion on one of these "incidents", but an article on the incident in The New York Times isn't going to so much as mention their opinion, let alone give it substantial coverage.

As I have repeatedly stated, I see no value to adding random examples here. Building a list of examples would require objective selection criteria: as we cannot list every incident that any source has ever called "PC" (an endless list), we would need sourced, objective criteria controlling what we list. There is no clear solution to this, thus a list of purported "examples" is not encyclopedic.

Where independent reliable sources directly discussing "political correctness" discuss an example as a benchmark example showing the history and evolution of the term/idea we have a reason to briefly mention it. These are already in the article. Take, for example, Car. How many well-sourced examples of cars do you think you could find? Easily in the thousands. The article does not, however, discuss random cars. Can you find independent reliable sources discussing the Honda Civic? Absolutely. Does it belong in Car? Absolutely not. Why is the Model T included? It was "One of the first cars that was accessible to the masses", a very significant stage in the history of cars. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not some Harvard-yard, ivory-tower brainiac. My father was an electrician for crying out loud. I failed out of junior college after only two semesters. So please, AGF, and take it easy. The article as it stsnds needs improvement. That's all. I am trying to help. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C530:CAD7:A0A3:7AF8 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References