Open main menu
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


why is there a mention to the alt-right in "2016 presidential election"?Edit

Just my opinion, but I think that citing a columnist (who isn't even an expert or member of the alt-right) about the alt-right's views on political correctness in the subsection on the 2016 election is, for lack of a better term, stupid. Can we get rid of this ? 2601:CA:8200:34A:8B8:F7AC:B0E6:CC9C (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It is simply about frequency of use by them st that time. I'm going to restore it unless others think it should go. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship and self-censorship sectionEdit

I think article should include how PC is prone to abuse(by both sides of political spectrum) and back-firing. Sometimes even ready to disregard objectivity in order to conform to dogma.Sourcerery (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing said perspective would be required. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC),,,, something to start with. Also is there complete list when it comes to newspapers what are reliable sources?Sourcerery (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
So with regards to the sources provided, do they really discuss what you are saying? The Atlantic on TV Puritans is largely an opinion piece, and really isn't about "abuse", but rather a lament about perspective. The Ben O'Neill Independent piece does reference that Politically Correct language is inexact and so may result in unintended outcomes, and attacking exactness in language as lacking in empathy / sympathy is problematic and doomed to failure. Neither really discuss what you are talking about to any great extent (if at all). O'Neill very briefly references the Conservative push to frame PC to their own ends, and it being a right wing smear but doesn't describe how it has back-fired etc. Suspect the only way to come to that conclusion leads down the Synthesis approach.
The Atlantic piece by Mounk in the first paragraph says "catchall known as political correctness" which is one of the issues of many articles. It isn't actually talking about real political correctness, but public perception of what they believe to be, or imagine is a result of political correctness (see above about the Conservative push to frame PC to their own ends).
The Medium piece is, well, poorly written. And the source, Politika, not to be too disparaging, is run by 17 year old A level students. Not sure of its value as an opinion piece at all. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Brief reply to Sourcerery. There is a long-term consensus here that academic studies are preferred (opinion pieces are 10 a penny). One of the long-term issues, is that critics of PC tend to think its meaning and existence is self-evident, while those criticised tend to say it's a chimera or the criticism is a smokescreen. I have long thought that something the article lacks, is any clear exposition of what critics say PC is (censorship, etc).Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

- I see, thanks to editors for breaking it down, very good points have been raised.Sourcerery (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC) - Check these sources, Sourcerery (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The presence of sources is fine. The issue is what you want to say and how the articles support that. If there is something within one if the articles that you feel needs to be expressed, call it out so we can see how it can be best presented (or if it already is, but is not clear enough). Koncorde (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I am thinking about section titled Weaponization and how it can and is, used and abused by both sides of political spectrum as seen in source. That's why I was mentioning backfiring because it did backfire on left and is used as pejorative in general culture as of now. I am also thinking about criticism section but that later with more sources after we have weaponization section.Sourcerery (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
So the section on the 80's and 90's talks about this. "PC" at that point was not weaponised by the left (per Pincrete, what is often described as a "given" example of PC often isn't obvious or apparent as an example of PC), but was instead presented as a culture war by those on the right / libertarian scale to attack and control the debate on language use and meaning. There wasn't, and isn't, so much as a "backfire" as much as the argument was reframed (Newt Gingrich in particular popularised controlling the narrative in this sense).
Criticism sections are very questionable I would say, as much of what is criticised is rarely from the point of view of the concept of Political Correctness and more against some virtual version of examples of what people have claimed to be PC (for example, per one of the sources provided, is the mere act of criticising a TV show of the 1970's a true example of political correctness if people feel it was racially insensitive? Or does it reflect changing societal norms? The United States section on Usage tries to cover this aspect to some extent. Koncorde (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah but that's the problem, it's weaponized to this day as we speak, reading article you would think that is thing of past stuck in 80s, 90s. Weaponization section can start with 80s, 90s but in needs to reflect issue to this day including Donald Trump consolidated in larger context. As for criticism we will see, we need RS and I'm gonna take a leap now and say lot of criticism will note weaponazied use and abuse.Sourcerery (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's why there is a modern usage section, and also a section by country. If you can suggest an improvement / expansion, go for it. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
But what section would that be in modern usage? It's not education, it's more general discourse or popular culture? I will expand and improve 2016 election, lot of material in these sources for that, section is pretty smallSourcerery (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this article is in dire need of “criticism of Pc” section and has been for some time. I think a much better way to do this would be something like “proponents of PC” vs “opponents/criticism of pc”. That way we are covering both points of view. 2600:1012:B06E:76A2:508:8583:701E:360C (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Explain; what is criticism of PC? Who are "proponents of PC"? Is this self identification as PC? Or is it accusative? Etc. Koncorde (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly, I think all of the above would be an excellent start. Perhaps with a subheading "Proponents of Political Correctness vs Opponents of Political Correctness" and then answering the above questions starting with "Who are the proponents/advocates of PC?" and delineating each group's arguments. And giving examples in both the accusative and self-identified form. I think this could go a long way toward clarifying some of the more confusing concepts behind political correctness. (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

“Generally” a pejorative / outdated sources in ledeEdit

I noticed that the lede refers to political correctness as “generally” being a pejorative, yet the sources cited are all over 20 years old. I believe PC is no longer generally used as a pejorative and there are a huge number of recent sources supporting this. Yes it is certainly sometimes used as a pejorative, so our lede should reflect this instead of the outdated meaning. Thoughts? 2600:1012:B06E:76A2:508:8583:701E:360C (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Not pejorative? Really? It's possible. The last source is from 2011 (or maybe 2009?). I haven't seen any sources lately which do not treat this as pejorative, or at least which don't assume sarcasm or insincerity. However, if you know of reliable sources, please propose them. Academic sources discussing the term are more desirable than journalistic ones discussing the term. Examples of sources using the term without discussing it are much less likely to be useful for these purposes, as this risks original research. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There are 6 sources cited at the end of the sentence, all over 20 years old, with the exception of the one you are referring to. This particular source does not define political correctness as “generally” being a pejorative. The fact of the matter is that the statement of political correctness “generally” being a pejorative is not well sourced. At all. I am putting together a list of recent, reliable sources that define PC as well as give examples/context of its use. My understanding is also that sources like the New York Times, Newsweek, and Time are all acceptable sources, particularly when defining modern usage of the term. Academic sources are ideal for delving into the background of PC as an idea/belief/philosophy. This is about the sentence in the lede stating how the term is used today. 2600:1012:B06E:76A2:508:8583:701E:360C (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources should be directly about the term. Attempting to interpret examples of usage is a form of WP:OR, as we do not assume that Wikipedia editors will agree on things like sincerity or subtext, among other issues. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead actually says "In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative". It is framed that way precisely because many editors reported examples of use away from 'public discourse', which were more neutral or ironic - though these uses are almost never the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a couple of things here; 1. I am struggling to think of a time when it isn't used as a political football. And if it isn't being used as a pejorative, in what form is it being used?
2. The age of a source is generally irrelevant. The quality of the source is the critical element. If there are newer sources redefining PC as something else then by all means present those sources, but that does not invalidate the existing ones.
3. There are more sources in the main article body to reinforce the pejorative use. Koncorde (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the question was directed at me, but I agree that this article is necessarily about use 'as a political football' - partly because sources looking at the term (as opposed to simply using it), only study that context. There are however examples of use in which the term is largely a neutral synonym for 'tact', 'courtesy' or 'diplomacy' or in which we are left to surmise what exactly the term means to that writer. But even when used relatively neutrally, it is almost unheard of for the advocates of a political policy to describe it as 'PC' - even less for them to say "this isn't PC enough"!Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It was just a general follow up of train of thought. I agree, I think we will struggle to find an instance of a University or similar saying "This is how tomorrow we will be Politically Correct" and then issuing a guide to political correctness, or talking about it in that sort of context. And if they did, so what? Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This would be a good example of what could be included under the "proponents of PC" section of the "Proponents vs Opponents of PC" heading discussed above. (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
First of all, you would have to find someone who described themselves as a "proponent of PC". Hen's teeth are easier to find! Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This is why I mention sincerity. It's pretty easy to find sources that describe "political correctness" is a dysphemism for "basic decency" (here's an arbitrary example). Basic decency, at least for now, remains somewhat popular, so this is easy to defend. Rhetorically defending political correctness is not sincere, it's done to point out that the term's inherent flaws as a pejorative. The concept is not widely defended, because the term's definition is empty. That's why people use it in the first place. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It may not be the most common usage, but the term is used non-ironically by adherents / proponents (as our lede states, it not always a pejorative). I am not referring to interpreting examples, as this would be OR. I am taking about RS where the author defends the actual concept or talks about those who embrace/defend political correctness. In other words an approach NOT from a critics point of view. My suggestion is a Proponens vs Opponents section where we can dig into the evolution of the phrase. We could even discuss how some feel it is strictly a pejorative, others feel it does not exist, and still others think it is a good thing. All of this is backed by RS.2600:1012:B05C:94A0:6DB0:75C6:EB9A:A8B4 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we have such a proponent in a reliable source? Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources discussing sincere/genuine proponents of PC? Certainly there are plenty of reliable secondary sources describing both those for and against the concept. 2600:1012:B02F:3FD0:2507:10A1:CD27:AF66 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Soooo... Koncorde (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional sourceEdit

This could be useful for expanding the history section, specifically the part about how the term was used satirically, though it might require attribution since it's written from a first-person perspective. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Political correctness" page.