Open main menu

Talk:Political correctness

Political correctness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 8, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
May 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
July 14, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article



we need to add this one: --2A04:4540:700B:D300:B416:A530:217D:B370 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article. Big POV issues. Would be worth a See Also mention somewhere, but I think the article needs sanitising / npov'ing too. Koncorde (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What Happened To The ‘Criticism’ Section?Edit

Odd, last time I visited the article there was a well-written paragraph on the criticism of political correctness, now the article reads as though there is none which is frankly absurd and worse, censorship.Roland Of Yew (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Can you point to the paragraph at some point in history? If it has been removed the edit log may reveal why. I have taken a glance in the logs at various points back to 2013 and do not see we ever had a "criticism" section (at least on the small sample set I looked at).
2. Criticism of political correctness is rarely criticism of actual political correctness. If it was poorly cited, or referenced, or was identified as being little more than a collection of Daily Mail articles about "Political Correctness gone mad" then maybe it was tidied away at some point.
3. If you wish to accuse something of censorship, doing it to an open source encyclopedia might be one of the least logical places to start. Koncorde (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The term itself is pejorative. There are virtually no non-critical sources. If there were a criticism section, it would consist of people criticizing the term itself and the people who use it. However, see WP:CSECTION - generally speaking such sections aren't a good way to organize articles. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Global Language MonitorEdit

There have been some articles in the news mentioning the GLM and their biennial list of politically correct words and phrases. Their president Paul Payack, made an interesting observation. Rathering than labeling political correctness as good or bad, he said the following: "“We label these words and phrases Politically (in)Correct because of the fierce debate they often stir and incur. People spanning the political spectrum can find the phrases politically ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ depending on their particular views”. Here is a link to their 2017 awards:

Any thoughts on including a mention of this list? 2602:301:772D:62D0:71D1:78DB:E17F:6673 (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections If like to include a brief mention. 2600:1012:B056:40FB:DDC6:F727:535B:DA30 (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not getting any connection to that link. May be temporary, will check again tomorrow. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This is little more than a short list of terms/title changes that GLM deem to be 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Great article in the Atlantic.Edit

There is an article in the Atlantic that I heard about on the radio this morning. It seems like a lot of people are talking about this. It's an article about America's strong dislike for PC Culture, while at the same time embracing some PC policies. It's a great read and really sums up current feelings toward PC. Have a look! (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

::This would be good information to add - perhaps under a section entitled "The United Statss and Contemporary PC Culture". If there are no objections I'd like to add a synopsis/mention of article above and agree it's quite relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One person pretending to be two separate people is a blockable offense. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Perspective needed here. Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population. There must not be disproportionate coverage of PC in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked the 2nd IP as WP:DUCK and struck their comment. I'll block the first one if this continues. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
For a variety of reasons, (US-only, straw-poll rather than study, doesn't actually say what 'PC' is - though implicitly it is 'PC language'), the piece adds nothing IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know as I'd say it's a great article. However, it does open up a subtopic: that Conservatives are at least as thin-skinned about terms and topics, and will decry "PC" even as they're quacking against ALL instances of "PC."
For instance, call someone espousing anti-abortion beliefs "anti-abortion" and you'll likely be lectured about how the proper term is pro-life.
The Right (including the RNC) intentionally made a meme out of teabags, then later decided that calling a Tea Party yahoo a "teabagger" is "the same as saying the 'n-word' to an African-American."
The shooting industry is in an uproar against the bad odor of silencers, and is pressing to recast them as suppressors or moderators and anyone who persists in the misleading old word is an anti-gun Fascist ninny… though silencer was chosen by the original inventor AND most manufacturers still call these devices "silencers."
Then there's religion. Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas!" meme? Imagine the squawking on Fox News if someone makes light in ANY way of Christianity.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"The shooting industry" And what connection does this industry have to right-wing politics? Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Political correctness" page.