Talk:Political correctness/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

"Disadvantage" not used in cited sources in lede

Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

I noticed that the word disadvantage is not used in either of the cited sources, while the term "used to avoid offense" IS used. PC is not really used to avoid disadvantage as far as I can tell - only to avoid words that can potentially trigger or offend a group. I removed "disadvantage" because it appears to be synth. Thoughts? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The opening text is much older than the 'dictionary defs', which are fairly recently added behind it. That opening text is a summary of a broader set of sources and citing is not necessary for the lead, which is intended as a summary of the body of the article.

Policies and language designed to ensure equality, (of gender, race, etc, or most controversially, 'affirmative action'), are not simply 'avoiding offence', ditto changes in curriculum, both of which have nothing to do with either 'offence' or 'triggers' or indeed verbal matters at all, ditto changes in rape or sexual harassment policies at colleges or wokplaces. 'Or disadvantage' is an attempt to summarise all these instances in a few words.

Many things criticised as 'PC' have, or have had, nothing to do with language. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then please find a source that specifically ties PC to a policy designed to avoid "disadvantage". As it stands, I dont see this supported by sourcing. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

None is needed, lead is a summary of article, can you think of a more concise way to 'bundle' all these non-verbal manifestations? Is 'affirmative action' intended to avoid offending people?Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete - NONE of the sources listed - zero - tie PC to policies designed to avoid "disadvantage". This is not sourced material. Please find me anywhere in the article where it refers to such. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there was no "consensus". YOU added the whole "disadvantage" term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=next&oldid=665392031 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, how earlier there were so many worries about SYNTH and OR, and now when an example is found clearly exhibiting both, there is little concern. I am beginning to think this article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes, particularly since any changes are met with such hostility. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

1000s of editors agreeing to the text since my insertion = consensus. No political term article on WP limits itself to a single sentence basic dictionary definition. If you believe it to be OR or synth, start an RfC, or wait to see what other editors think here, until then the stable text stays. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is complete synthesis. You added completely unsourced information (in the lede no less). None of what you mentioned above has anything to do with political correctness. You don't get to add unsourced information and then claim consensus. I ask again: where is a source that ties PC to a policy designed to avoid "disadvantage"? At this point you have added untrue and irrelevant information to the lede of an article. An article that used to be featured and is no longer. 2602:301:772D:62D0:74AA:ACF6:7F18:F048 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In the article, which if you knew policy better, is the source for the lead, most leads in good articles do not have refs. Are you editing under several IP addresses? You at least should have informed us. One of the principal dictionary definitions of 'liberal' is 'generous', do you seriously think that the article on political 'liberalism' should start of by saying how generous all liberals are? Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a long time since I looked at those defs, however def 2 says "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" .... "avoiding expression or action perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult … … people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated" is reasonably precis-ed to "avoiding disadvantage to" IMO (though that was not how I got there directly). Summary is not the same as synth, but, if anthing, the opening sentence would need expansion, not trimming, to fit the defs. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I not here to cause trouble, and I understand the rules allow people with seniority to manage an article. It is not my intention to cross that line - I respect the fact that you and a few other editors have spent a lot of time editing this article and are trying to keep a semblance of order. I really do get that. But it is frustrating when every single individual word I attempt to add is immediately reverted. Using the word "insult" instead of "affront" should not require a committee meeting. The edit is in good faith and the wording is more in line with our sources. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C4C3:9372:A87D:6911 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources indicate several times that "Political Correct" language is tied to ""historically oppressed groups". These are the individuals "disadvantaged" by traditional language choice. Pincrete supplied the definition linked in the lede "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." which is pretty much the meaning of "avoiding creating disadvantage". Koncorde (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

At no point do any of the sources tie PC to policies designed to avoid disadvantage. If you can find one,please bring it to talk. 2602:301:772D:62D0:4085:202C:31FB:13C (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:nb edit conflict

A as already explained, there is no need for sources for the lead, the lead must however be an accurate summary of content and 'avoiding offence' certainly does not summarise the great swathes of policies which have been called 'PC' (see below and above) and which are covered in the article. B. The second dictionary def. does cover what you are asking for. If anything the response to definition two would be to expand what is meant by 'disadvantage', not remove it. If you don't agree I suggest taking the matter to a noticeboard such as the WP:RSN.

Minor correction Koncorde, "avoiding disadvantage to". IP what you appear to be doing is insisting that 'PC' relates only to words and only to 'offense', not to 'actions'. This is not even borne out by the second dictionary def, and certainly not by the longer studies. Changing sexist/racist terms, speech codes etc can all be seen as 'avoiding verbal offence'. But how exactly is 'affirmative action', equal ops policies and laws, curriculum changes (which were all accused of being 'PC' as often as the 'language stuff') , how is all that covered by 'avoiding offense'. Do you think changes in rape or sexual harassment laws were brought about to avoid women being 'offended' in some way? Even if you disagree strongly with some of these changes (and I disagree with some), can't you see it is nonsense to characterise all these changes as being intended to 'avoid offence or insult'. 'Disadvantage' barely covers all these, but a lead must be concise.

The second change you made (seen as excessively calculated), is quite good in itself, but it makes near-nonsense of the end of the sentence "the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive". Two excessives, almost not excluding no double negative.

I'm sure the article can be improved, at present there is no mention of women, race, sexual preference or disability, which have been the focus of most accusations of 'PC". Nor is there any mention of why critics don't like what they call 'PC'. These changes need to be in the body though and neutral and covering the balance of WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PC has nothing to with rape or affirmative action, according to the sources for the article. PC is defined as an overreaction by changing speech to avoid offense, while at the same time making the speech less accurate (the reason I tried to add the painting example). PC only refers to words - not actions. PC policies are typically designed, again, to avoid offense or insult, not to avoid disadvantage to a group. That's the crux of our disagreement. I am going by what the sources say, and I still feel it is a quantum leap to say PC policies are designed to avoid disadvantage, as according to our sources. 2602:301:772D:62D0:3CE6:315B:9D17:6062 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course 'PC' has nothing to do with rape, it does have to do with changes in rape laws/policies, certainly in UK, and I believe in US campus policies, though those are not in the article. If you actually read the article, you would see that affirmative action and curriculum changes in US education were a much greater focus of criticism of being 'PC' than language changes. Ditto equal ops employment policies, unless you think women and minorities might cry if they weren't given jobs on an equal basis, this is clearly avoiding 'disadvantage'.

Regardless, you have no consensus for your changes, are not even attempting to pursue one or to seek confirmation from WP:RSN that you are right, and are either unable or unwilling to understand policy, which is that the most recent long-term version stays until a new consensus is reached. This is going to end badly and waste a lot of time. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly in the dictionary defs is the word 'undue', undue in whose opinion? What is the right amount of exclusion/insult etc, if 'PC' is undue? What happened to the words 'avoiding actions that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, etc', even if we were bound by these two dictionary defs (and we are not), this is an intentional distortion of what those defs say to fit an agenda that accusations of 'PC' relate only to 'doctoring language', they do not and never have.

'Doctoring language' is one aspect and I have no objection to a balanced neutral exposition of that element IN THE BODY, which is where everything must be first. You will probably not be very interested to know, that in the UK, even the worst right-wing press stopped using the term 'PC" years ago, even they realised it had became a toothless cliche. Over here, 'PC' is only marginally less dated than flared jeans, (though I don't have a source for that of course). Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Temp. text

As a temp fix, I have put a fuller version of the two dictionary defs: The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is ~~sometimes~~ used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[1] In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.

My only personal gripe with this version is that it is so complex as to be cumbersome, but it does include all the main points made by the two dictionary defs. Discussion as to whether this or the previous stable version, or some other variant, is best is invited. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reads like a laundry list over-definition, but it's still correct though. Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment on the current text: "The term political correctness ... is sometimes used to describe..." - "sometimes used" sounds like it has another meaning we're not explaining. "to describe" - seems like it's not the most common performative. My understanding of the term and the sources I've seen about it is that it's not simply describing but implicitly criticizing tailoring language or actions, or otherwise downplaying the importance/impact of such language. Although there are examples of it not being used in this way, of course, it seems like a more accurate general description, no? Anyway, I admit I'm writing this as I'm about to walk about the door and responding to edits to the article before I've actually read the above discussion. Apologies if I'm derailing or redundant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's because changing language is not always an example of being "politically correct", as it's accusative (when used as a pejorative) or would have to be explicitly called such in all situations by the originator for it to be all inclusive opening. Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, long ago, the article used to start "PC is a pejorative used to describe" ..... a lengthy RfC and discussion moved the 'pejorative' element to the end of para 1. Anecdotally, many editors noted 'PC's' use as a neutral term (synonym for codes of respect?), especially in the US and ironic use in the UK, but studies are pretty universal that the term is mainly critical, hence: "In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive", .... (i.e. this may not be how you use the term at work).

I look upon the above text as a 'temp fix' and a basis for discussion as to how much can be pruned and still leave an accurate and coherent para 1, and to settle an argument as to whether the 'old text' was supported by refs, if editors think it was, or can be improved, let's go back to what we had. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the definition used back when the article had featured status: "Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. ". That seems to be a succinct and accurate description. Thoughts? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The last time this was a "featured article" was in 2004, where it cited two sources. The process was mired in dispute between it being added unilaterally to the "featured" category by Sam Spade without review and subsequent process of retro-nomination for the purpose of stripping it of FA status. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is a fairly accurate and succinct definition. I was curious as to other's thoughts on it. 2602:301:772D:62D0:656A:7569:D3BA:E84D (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The existing lede is more than fairly accurate and is sourced? Koncorde (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A) Strange Mr/s IP that you prefer a wholly un-reffed version, since your objection to our long-term one above is that (in your opinion) it is not the precise wording of the dictionary defs. B) In your opinion, PC is solely concerned with words and 'offence', not actions and 'effects' (such as affirmative action etc). Your view is not borne out by either the dictionary defs,(which speak of 'actions that exclude etc') nor the article, which show that deeds were a principal target in the 1980's and '90's, which is when the term was most used C) I like the succinctness of the old version, but apart from the actions that exclude' element being missing, it frames the definition very much in terms of the critics' characterisation (critics almost invariably say "these people say they are doing this in order to avoid racism/sexism", those criticised have often provably said or done no such thing). Curriculum changes were often the subject of accusations of 'PC' and it is very difficult to see how those changes (for example including 'black history' or 'women's history') are designed to 'provide a minimum of offense', the principal group offended by such changes were people who were not black/female who felt this was propaganda, not education. Such changes, and other actions, would be covered by 'intended to avoid marginalisation/exclusion'. Maybe someone can find a better way to say "avoiding actions that exclude or marginalise ... disadvantage groups" than my "avoiding disadvantage to groups", (though if you look at the sources, people were actually accused of excessively/obsessively INCLUDING 'the disadvantaged', not of 'avoiding exclusion'). Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the websters definition: "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated". It occurs to me that some of our disagreement may be due to the fact that the term has different meanings in the US and the U.K. In the UK it may be true that PC refers more to the term when used as a adjective or even insult, whereas in the US, PC refers to the ideology behind the term. Maybe that is why the US and U.K. dictionaries have different definitions. What is the Wikipedia policy when it comes to a term having different meanings in the US and UK? What is typically used as the default definition? 2600:1012:B00F:418B:79D2:F96C:16C4:DB21 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

We are not a dictionary and are not bound by what a dictionary says, (the articles on 'conservative', 'liberal' and 100s of other political terms would probably not use a dict.). Some dictionaries will say more, some less, some will specify UK/US, the ones we use don't here. Finding a shorter dictionary def does nothing to answer why 'affirmative action', curriculum changes and equal opportunity policies were such a focus for use of the term in the US (ironically not the first 2 of those in UK). The term does not have significantly different meanings in US/UK, it may possibly have (slightly) different uses and levels of use, but a part of the reason that the article does not already say that, is because no source has said it AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Websters new dictionary (not Mirriam Websters) has an interesting show of the evolution in its definitions, and quality of the detail. Its condensed version was "holding orthodox liberal political views: usually used disparagingly to connote dogmatism etc." Its New College version was / is "1. Of, relating to, or supporting a program of broad social, political and educational changes, esp to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender and sexual orientation. 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with this program often to the exclusion of other matters". In short, longer, more detailed dictionaries often contain long more detailed and accurate meanings. Mirriam Webster is just one short form. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Statue

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments14 people in discussion

Hi SummerPhDv2.0. Going back to the statue (I should have started a new section to begin with), would this source be more appropriate - please take a a look at it I think you will find it to be very interesting; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-art-of-being-politically-correct-h29j75p7nvx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.195.194 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz Hi, are you sure you looked at the correct source? It specifically says "A top European art gallery has been accused of pandering to political correctness after it removed terms such as “Negro” and “Mohammedan” from the titles and descriptions of artworks to avoid causing offence." in the first sentence, and then again on the second page second paragraph "The underlying cause of the name change? Both a nod toward political correctness, as well as an increasing effort toward inclusiveness in the world of art and culture". I can certainly replace the current artwork with the image of a different work of art if you think this would be more accurate. Question: As a way to illustrate applied political correctness, do you have an objection to using an art piece whose name has been changed? Thank you 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right -- I mistakenly thought the "Local DK" was the additional source you had added. The Times requires registration to read the article and I'm not in the mood to register right now, so I'll take your word about what it says. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz ETA Also, according to SummerPhDv2.0 in order for the image to be included we needed a source that provided "not the claim (or its refutation) that something is political correctness, but third party coverage of the back and forth". The Times article provides exactly that coverage from what I can see. Bottom line, I am pretty rusty at this stuff, but I feel like there is not a clear instruction on what the source must say in order for the image to be included. 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller With respect, three editors have not opposed the inclusion. SummerPhDv2.0 initially had a question regarding sourcing which I addressed. MShabazz did not read the second source I added - that source specifically covers the PC angle as the root of the name change. I am genuinely confused as to the opposition of this change. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

ETA Doug Weller How is this edit warring? I added a photo - it was removed due to sourcing. I then found sourcing and re-added it. MY edit was again reverted, this time for no reason. I discussed my change on the talk page and added the photo again. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

IF there is no opposition to the change on policy grounds, my plan is to add the photo again, as it appears to meet all requirements and is relevant to the page. If there is an opposition please, discuss here. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How it is edit-warring is explained in the links I gave you. Specifically read WP:3RR. At this point, if you continue to revert for any reason, you might be blocked. I won't do it myself but might report you to WP:AN3 and let someone else decide. You must get WP:CONSENSUS here. It's quite possible you will. But if you don't, then please just accept it. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Missed something you said. However you put it, 3 editors have reverted you. Their reasons matter if you can convince them here you were wrong, but your reverts of them still count towards the 3RR rule.

Hi everybody, I have been asked to comment on that issue. I have stopped arguing about the inclusion of the Copenhagen head long ago because I realized that the discussion is futile and I have more important things to do, although I do like it when one of my photographs is in use somewhere. The Times article certainly confirms that well known fact: museums are renaming some works of art so that their title sounds less offensive, but by doing so, they are blurring the historical context. This can be stated objectively, without attacking either the museums ("politically correct cowards") or the givers of the original titles ("racists!"). So, in short, do what you think is best. --Edelseider (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SummerPhD in prev. section, it appears to be simply the opinion of one journalist that this is "PC", and even if we agree, so what? Everyday, somewhere on the planet, this or that act of (usually) a public body is described as being "PC", why would this example be notable? the article is using English to discuss a Danish word and there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the proper translation is 'negro', or 'nigger'. In English the general use of 'negro' to mean a black person is slightly old-fashioned, but not insulting, do we (or the journalist) know Danish well enough to understand the nuances of the use of this Danish word? Journalists who can't find anything worthwhile to write about love to find some trivial example of a word change and present it as being driven by 'PC". Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

pincrete did you read the second source I listed? Not Danish and specifically mentions political correctness as the reason for the change. 97.33.195.193 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

So what makes this special? Every single week something done somewhere is supposedly because of 'PC', has this incident sparked a major controversy anywhere. Most of our sources are academic, or have been covered in them, is this covered in any? My point about Danish is that we are dependent on Eng sources, interpreting Danish words and as the negro article makes clear coloured/ negro/ black/ African are and all have been acceptable/ disapproved of in various languages, various places, various times. So what? Are we going to list every journalistic use of the term PC for the last 30 years? This seems an especially weak example. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) … … ps, no sorry I didn't read 'The Times'. I'll take your word for it that the journalist there says that this name change is motivated by 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

pincrete So do you still have an objection after reading the Times story? There are other sources covering the controversy as well. Additionally I have a multiple other sources we can use if that is the problem. This was not some isolated incident - the names of artwork being changed due to PC concerns has been well-covered:

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4a5758c0-67ff-4b30-acdf-dd7dd32dc1c0

https://www.rt.com/news/325923-amsterdam-rijksmuseum-political-correctness/

Here is one from reason.com, but I believe this is not considered a reliable source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/21/dutch-museum-renames-historic-paintings

I appreciate your feedback and only want to make the change if it will benefit the article. At this point it looks as though I have answered the previous concerns regarding sourcing. But I realize you have spent a lot of time on this article and don't want to step on your toes if you feel the addition is inappropriate. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

RT is referring back to the Tatler/Times journalist. So what we have is that a Times journalist thinks that rewording the descriptions of exhibits in museums in Denmark and Amsterdam is motivated by 'PC', even if they use anachronistic terms like 'Mohammadan'. This is trivia IMO and the article is not a list of what individual journalists have thought were 'PC", it would be a monstrously long ramble if it were. Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But pincrete that's not what the Times article says at all. It is not "one journalists opinion". It is a discussion of the larger controversy. The journalist himself makes no judgement one way or another. The article is a discussion of the merits of changing existing works of art due to PC concerns. The names of the artwork were changed to avoid offense. In changing the names, some nuance was perhaps lost. The discussion is of the larger issue at hand . 97.46.129.245 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the proposed text? Why is this one piece important? I have already said I haven't read the Times (paywall). There is a difference between names given by writers/artists and those simply given by museums/history, changing the latter is trivial IMO. The name Holland is used much less frequently than they used to be, is that 'PC'?. This film was renamed in the US, 40 years before anybody had heard of the term 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

pincrete The proposed text is simply a photo of the artwork with a small caption about the name being changed. The names of the art were changed due to PC concerns and to avoid offense. This is well-covered in multiple sources. There is context that is potentially lost when changing the name that was originally given by the artist. On the other hand, a claim can be made that there is a benefit to changing names so as to avoid offense. This is the larger discussion/debate. I used the artwork example because it is a well-sourced controversy again covered in many different media outlets as well as academic sources. I can certainly supply more sources if that is your concern. Let me ask this - I'd like to add a photo of an artwork whose name was changed due to PC concerns so as to illustrate a modern application of PC. How can I do so that would make you comfortable? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo of artwork

It appears there is no longer any objection to the artwork example, as I have provided the sources requested. If no one has a policy-based objection, my plan is to re-add it.76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There is substantial opposition AFAI can see. A source is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. We don't ordinarily include mere examples of what individuals, especially individual journalists, believe are cases of 'PC'. Why should this be an exception, what is so special about this instance, given the paucity of coverage and the inherent uncertainties of translation? The article is not a "list of decisions which have been described as 'PC' by individual journalists". These are all policy based arguments. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how else to say this. It's not "one journalists opinion". The journalist himself does not describe the decision as PC. He reports on the discussion. There are several sources, including an academic one discussing the controversy. Please read my comments above. There is not paucity of coverage. There is significant coverage. I realize the Times source is behind a paywall but you really need to read it. Then you will see it is not one journalists opinion. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete Let me ask this - I'd like to add a photo of an artwork whose name was changed due to PC concerns so as to illustrate a modern application of PC. This is a story and debate that is well-covered by many sources and is in no way "one journalists opinion". How can I add this photo in a way that would make you comfortable? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you've hit on the underlying problem. You're going about this backwards. You decided what you wanted to add to the article then looked for sources to support it. The best articles tend to be written the other way around: Find reliable sources on the subject then say what the sources say. I have no doubt I could find reliable sources comparing New York City to Moscow, Paris or Seattle if that is what I look for. That doesn't mean that material belongs anywhere.

Additionally, rather than looking for the lack of new objections to your arguments in favor of that addition, you should be looking for a consensus to add the material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

ok.fair enough. Obviously this does not belong in the article. I thought it did. My apologies.104.172.234.183 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There may be widespread discussion about when/what to change in descriptive text or titles, but characterising ALL of that as being solely about PC is not AFAI can see widespread. To analogise, there are daily discussions on changing text or titles here on WP, sometimes one consideration is not causing offence, another consideration is not using anachronistic terms and mainly being as clear and accessible as possible while also being 'historically true'. Occasionally one reads all this described as simply "WP editors trying to be 'PC'". Pincrete (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I came on this by accident, as I thought most of the titles were invented by museums in the first place (not the artist), there is doubt as to whether the renamings were thought to be anachronistic or racist. The Times seems blind to the irony of a UK newspaper telling a Dutch museum what it should do, while simultaneousy decrying political interference. There may be a debate here, I doubt whether it usefully has much to do with 'PC". Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am open for suggestions. Do you think it makes sense to perhaps add a photo of artwork with a brief caption explaining what you wrote above? By the way, Pincrete, I owe you an apology. At one point I thought you were giving me a hard time, but after reading your interactions with user:Sandra opposed to terrorism I realize you are a very good sport with the patience of Job! If anyone ever questions your dedication to improving Wikipedia, simply point them to said interactions, I can't think of better evidence of good faith. By the way, not sure if you were aware but "Job" (the Biblical character) is pronounced differently in the USA than in the UK. Here we pronounce it with a short "O" sound (as in "He is going to rob a bank".) 2602:301:772D:62D0:2482:2EA0:227F:DA06 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Cheers!

Changing 'Negro' to 'black' and Mohammadan to Muslim is a very trivial example especially as the critics don't ssem to speak Dutch. AFAIK this is not covered extensively, nor in academic sources. With a subject like this half a dozen mentions in newspapers, is the daily cliche. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are the current "see-also" categories

Latest comment: 6 years ago38 comments15 people in discussion

Current see-also categories are as follows. I've boldes the ones that I think have less relevance to the article than ACTUAL political-correctness controversies. Please take a look. At the very least, it makes no sense NOT to include the category especially considering it's not cruft, and its relevant to the topic. Political correctness-related controversies Anti-bias curriculum Christmas controversy Euphemism Groupthink Gutmensch (German expression for "do-gooder") Kotobagari (Japanese political correctness) Logocracy Microaggression theory Newspeak Opposition to immigration Political correctness-related controversies Anti-bias curriculum Christmas controversy Euphemism Groupthink Gutmensch (German expression for "do-gooder") Kotobagari (Japanese political correctness) Logocracy Microaggression theory Newspeak Opposition to immigration Pensée unique People-first language Politics and the English Language (1946 essay by George Orwell) Red-baiting Reverse discrimination Safe-space Social justice warrior Sprachregelung Trigger warnings Wedge issue 23.242.67.118 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC) People-first language Politics and the English Language (1946 essay by George Orwell) Red-baiting Reverse discrimination Safe-space Social justice warrior Sprachregelung Trigger warnings Wedge issue

Your very first problem starts with your fourth word: " categories". None of them -- none at all -- are "categories". --Calton | Talk 10:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 'Christmas controversy' is simply an example and not a very notable one IMO, but I'm UK. The others mostly appear to be about the 'doctoring' of language for political purposes, and therefore valid 'SA's'.Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Political Correctness Controversies

I realize that compared to others here, I am a novice when it comes to editing Wikipedia. That said, my goal is to improve the project. In order to do so requires cooperation from others. When I read the PC article, I noticed that there were "false" examples of PC, but no actual examples of PC-related controversies. I felt that the article explained the history of the term, it's use as a pejorative, but not the philosophy behind the termn. Over a month ago, I attempted to add a photo of artwork I believe helped illustrate PC in action. It was promptly reverted. I then attempted to add several more well-sourced examples to the article, which were all in turn reverted as well. While obviously frustrated, I decided to defer to the better wisdom of veteran editors.
Recently, I made an effort to link to the category of Political-Correctness Related Controversies, first as a see-also, then as a linked category. Again, both were reverted. While reasonable minds can differ, it would seem to me that someone who wanted to learn about political correctness, and happened upon our article, would benefit in being able to easily reference actual examples of PC controversies as defined by Wikipedia. So my question is again this, does anyone have an objection to somehow linking this entry to "PC Related Controversies"? As I mentioned before, I have shown my willingness to compromise. I genuinely believe this addition would improve the article and the reader's understanding of political correctness in general. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The question has already been answered several times above, what reason is there to highlight one aspect of 'PC' over all others? It's fairly unclear why some items are even in the 'controversy' category, South Park seems to have offended almost everyone at some point or another, is intentionally 'pushing the boundaries' automatically a 'PC' matter? Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I could understand the inclusion of some of the "controversies" listed within the satire section, for instance the Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy specifically cites the artist as saying he wished to "examine the political correctness within the boundaries of the art community". It is a notable example of satire that was controversial, but whether it is notable because of political correctness or because of subsequent death threats is not ascertained. The Charlie Hebdo murders are the same, it was satirical re-publishing of images in defiance of threats - there's no suggestion that it was related to Political Correctness. Looking through most of the links in the controversies section, their link to political correctness really isn't defined (in most cases the only "controversy" is alleged in the reporting of the event, not of the actual event) which falls under the Media and Media Bias section at best. Koncorde (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe there may also be a cultural disconnect here, as I suggested on a different article. Words have different meanings in the USA and U.K. I am originally from Chicago. If you were to ask someone at a Chicago tavern where "the entrance to the toilet is located", you may very well be (justifiably) punched in the mouth. At least in the neighborhood I grew up (Canaryville). Fools are not suffered gladly there. So PC I am beigining to believe has a starkly different connotation across the pond. This might explain some of the difficulties we are having. 2602:301:772D:62D0:9940:EA73:2E8C:E31E (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what you are on about, or what that has to do with Political Correctness or Political Correctness Controversies. Is the word "toilet" related to a politically correct controversy? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of WP:FORUM, but I have to ask why checking where "the entrance to the toilet is located" justifies being punched in the mouth? I'm from the UK, and understand that in the US the accepted term is either restroom or bathroom, but unless there's some slang or street term here that I (and Google) are not aware of that seems a weird example to try and use.

Although I also have to concur with Koncorde in that I don't see what relevance it has to the article topic - in my experience, both personal and in the media, politically correct terminology seems to transcend national borders, so a nonspecifically destinationed individual is used, even if they are known as a vagrant in the US, but a tramp in the UK. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for pointing it out, but the only place that 'nonspecifically destinationed individual' is used, is on 'joke' sites presented as a parody of 'PC' speech. The term joins 100s of examples of 'PC', the most notable feature of which is that no-one, or almost know one has ever used them. Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know - although I did once hear a tour guide at the National Air and Space Museum genuinely ask the group to make way for both the "Chronologically intense" and "vertically challenged". The point remains the same though - why does asking for a toilet rather than a bathroom result in a (justified) punch in the mouth, and where is the connection to Political correctness? Chaheel Riens (talk)

Well in the USA, "toilet" means the actual plumbing device you sit on. "Bathroom" or "restroom" is the location (or room) where the toilet is located. In the UK "toilet" means "restroom" or "bathroom" as we use the term in the USA. So for example in Chicago if you said "John will be here in a moment- he is in the toilet washing his hands" you would get a very strange reaction. The punch in the mouth depends on WHERE in the USA you said such a thing. In some neighborhoods there is more of a "swing first, ask questions later" mentality if you think someone is being smart with you. A few weeks back some poor tourist bastard had his back broken with a softball bat because he unknowingly sat in a regulars seat at a tavern. Etiquette and manners go a long way, and lack of then can bring a very rapid response. I am sure it is this way in many large cities no matter what country you are in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B045:CFA7:ADFC:9DC8:7A48:3A76 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting back on track, I'd like to request an RFC about the best way to link the "PC Controversies" category into the article. Normally, such an addition would not require an RFC, but in this case OWNership of the article by one user is so severe that literally any addition to the article not meeting his approval is immediately reverted. Not to mention he will make comments like "there are ZERO sources referring to PC as a philosophy". When later presented with a reliable, book-length, peer-reviewed, academic source entitled The Philosophy of Political Correctness, said editor will STILL claim that the source is not referring to PC as a philosophy. Ownership of this article by said editor has been going on for years - you can review the talk page archives. I believe enough in the project that this situation will eventually be resolved. Others are aware of the problem as well, and have voiced their support in the matter. In the meantime I've been advised to request an RFC and word it in a way that is agreeable to other editors here. So I am open for suggestions. 2600:1012:B045:CFA7:ADFC:9DC8:7A48:3A76 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think most people know the difference between this and this and only those who have never seen a US film/TV programme will not know that the word is almost never used for the room in the US. The question was, what on earth does that have to do with 'PC'? Clearly nothing. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't link the category. Some of the controversies may fit within the existing sections as examples, but they are (in most cases) not even superficially related to Political Correctness by the content.

As for RFC, and the content you have tried to add, there are plenty of well thought out replies above. The "Philosophy" point is quite clear. Nobody practices "racism" as a philosophy, but you will find reliable sources indicating "the philosophy of racism" exists. It's the difference between an academic study, and an attitude or principle. From the accusations, I see only several months of a single editor (Mr. Magoo and McBarker) pushing specific pointy edits and there being routine to and fro to reach consensus. Fraught and tense, but generally speaking bland. I can see several thousand character additions to the article unchallenged [1] and significant contributions by several dozen other editors without much issue.

It would be a very odd thing to ask for an RFC when your issue appears to be a personal conflict with Pincrete, and would come across in much the same way as your issue on a previous article as an attempt to railroad an article with your POV (and continues to be under some effort from yourself on Godrics talk page). Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

How on earth is adding a link to "Political Correctness Related Controveries" as a see-also from an article about political correctness POV in any way, shape or form?? Please tell me. We have "perjoratives" as a see-also, "baa-baa black sheep" as a see-also, but you think it is "pov" to link to actual real-world examples of political correctness. Interesting. 2600:1012:B01E:2406:74D6:4A7F:6C7E:CDEA (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There's an entire page of your POV push above this section with responses to which users have explained the issues with the forced inclusion of a category. And it has been explained that examples of Political Correctness controversies that can be identified as controversies of political correctness in reliable sources can be included (and several are already under the relevant subsections of this article). By going to Category:Political_correctness linked from the bottom it takes you to the existing list of articles grouped with Political Correctness, and the sub-categories. You do not re-loop a category to its sub-category. Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify with clearest possible example of categorisation I can think of:

Islam

It's category is Category:Islam

Islam category has sub-categories including Category:Islam-related_controversies

This is not included as a "see also" or anything along those lines as it is not relevant. Meanwhile the wording is quite clear as to the intent of categorisation:

This category is intended for articles dedicated to documenting actual controversies, only. It is not for inclusion of articles that concern topics that have somehow "been described as controversial" by some sources or other. There is a difference between articles about controversy, and articles "about controversial topics". The parent article of this category, dedicated to discussing controversy surrounding Islam, is Criticism of Islam. Only articles which are directly sub-topics of this should be included here.

There is then:

Criticism of Islam

Its category is Category:Criticism_of_Islam

You will note they do not link Category back to the main Islam page either because that would be an incorrect use of categories. Koncorde (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

IP, Re: We have "perjoratives" as a see-also, "baa-baa black sheep" as a see-also, no we don't, not either. And I agreed with you that Xmas controversies should probably go, since it is solely an example and not even a very notable one. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion @ Categories for Deletion, Political correctness-related controversies

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion over at Categories for Discussion relating to Category:Political correctness-related controversies users may wish to contribute to. Koncorde (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are we using a student's personal opinion as a source?

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What guidelines or policies support this? I'm not just objecting to what I see as promotionalism but the use of the source rapt all. Do we have to go to RSN? Doug Weller talk 07:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If this is what is meant, I agree whole-heartedly. Apart from being a student opinion, it really doesn't say anything (exemplify what change?). The piece is actually very Trump-critical "the political correctness where an administration demands an apology from a Broadway cast is the first step on the road to an authoritarian government that silences critics with force and has no regard for free speech", but insufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. I think that much of the 2016 stuff is more about DJT than about 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sure the Daily Campus is notable in itself, but not sure how it fits as a Reliable Source - particularly for opinion pieces. I know it previously credited the statement to him (and IP has reverted back to that state) but I am not sure it even adds anything the other references don't. The section strikes me in any case as a lot of opinion. Koncorde (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

After noting that we already have 4 reliable sources for this I've removed the Daily Campus. It's probably inevitable that Trump has caused more discussion of PC. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What appears to have been widely commented on in last few years, is Trump's (and alt-right's?) rekindling of the term. What also seems to be fairly widely commented on is that DJT's use is much broader than traditional right's use and criticism of his use of the term is often coming from traditional conservatives. Where I think we may be going off-topic is when we stray away from use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a separate conversation around his anti-pc'ness being a kind of 'alt right political correctness' i.e. code words and in crowd language etc designed not to offend what they consider to be a marginalised group (Trump supporters). But that's a significant contortion of the euphemism, although the argument is very sound in the sense that all groups have their code words etc. Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern Pc Controversies

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

I noticed we have a section entitled "Conservative Political Correcntess" and "False Accusations of Political Correctness". As you may be aware, there was a recent controversy regarding Robert Lee, the commentator for ESPN. Unlike many other PC related controversies, this situation is much different because it is not the opinion of a single journalist. Reliable spurces have roundly defined this as a situation of political correctness run amok. As far as I can tell, this is one of the few scenarios where nearly all reliable sources (as opposed to a single journalist) have defined something specifically as PC. How might we for this in the article? I think it deserves a mention as it is not an opinion, unlike most pc controversies. 2600:1012:B05E:F8E7:DCA6:A1F1:CB8D:E4C (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is an opinion, it may be a widely held one, but it is still an opinion. We don't usually list examples unless they illustrate a point, just as the articles on other political terms don't simply list examples. Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC) .... this story seems like a storm in a teacup and not even an example of PC. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

user:pincrete, The following RS specifically (as in direct quotes) define the situation as pc, with the NYT claiming it is "perhaps the ultimate example of political correctness": New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Times, MSNBC, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Miami Herald, Sports Illistatsd and The National Review,. These are just a small sample of sources. This example is particularly apt because it illustrates political correctness in a broader context, as opposed to just being an insult. One of the ways this article is lacking is its failure to explain how modern PC is a cultural phenomena, not just a label. This story can help with that illustration. 2600:1012:B05E:F8E7:DCA6:A1F1:CB8D:E4C (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I get what this would add. The claim / accusation of 'political correctness' gets thrown around a lot, this is just another example. It is still here being used as an 'insult' by the way, in particular it is mocking the concept of being sensitive to the similarities in name at a controversial moment in time. Would people have associated the two? Perhaps not. But if they went ahead and someone did associate the two, the fall out could potentially be more severe.

Regarding Water Buffalo Incident previously removed, not sure why it would be a relevant addition. This article is not a repository for all incidents of claimed 'political correctness'. Koncorde (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how it is mocking anything. Certianly no one was being "sensitive" to the name. Rather the example illustrates how political correctness can become excessive and backfire. In this case the application of a PC philosophy harmed instead of helped. Rather than the best announcer being chosen for the job, an arbitrary variable was thrown in - the announcers name. Political Correctness is not necessarily bad, but when taken to extremes can be harmful. That's why this is a helpful example. It shows both sides of the coin. We dont currently have that anywhere in the article. 2602:301:772D:62D0:F444:71:7854:CB5F (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

By 'mocking' I refer to the mocking of the concept of "political correctness". I've just read 6 principle articles from NYT, BBC, Boston Globe etc and any mention of "political correctness" is generally referred to in context of people on the internet claiming it is "political correctness". Usually then with example tweets of people not using the exact words complaining about the decision from whatever point of view they hold on the subject.

There is no suggestion by ESPN themselves that this was Political Correctness. They have a quite well measured rationale of avoiding drawing attention to the coincidence for his benefit. Unfortunately someone leaked the change in plans and this has drawn attention to the coincidence and people have assumed (wrongly) that they are trying to censor Robert Lee's name (when in fact he was just moved to a non Charlottesville game). Koncorde (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

But there was no rational reason to move him, except to avoid offense. That's the very definition of political correctness.2602:301:772D:62D0:81A9:61FC:A420:66ED (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ESPN provided their own rational reason; none of it involved "political correctness". Their concern was, according to their own statement, to avoid the trolling of Robert Lee (the memes would have been inevitable), or the use of the coincidence of his name and location, to further someone elses goal. Only some opinion on the internet (largely attributed to Twitter / Social Media users) made any such link to PC. Changing the location a sportscaster is working in is not "political correctness". Koncorde (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

An observation for our IP editor from Torrance, CA: You clearly have strong opinions about what political correctness is, whether it is good/bad/indifferent and what you feel we should label as "political correctness". You've been discussing them here for quite some time. We've gotten nowhere. I don't see that changing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the observation. I believe you are correct, there does not seem to be much cooperation happening. - perhaps an RFC might indeed settle this. I appreciate the advice. 2602:301:772D:62D0:50B8:36DF:24A3:66DE (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the proud mother at the parade who observed, "Everyone is out of step, except for my Johnny!" - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes the article is out of step/aged, but I am confident it can (and will) be improved after an RFC. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You believe the article and all of the editors here are out of step because they do not match you. In Wikipedia's terms, the multiple editors who disagree with you are a consensus and you are pounding away on the rotting carcass of a horse that died months ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The article definitely could be improved, but if you imagine that an RfC is going to fundamentally change this into what a handful of US newspapers say is an example of PC, you are mistaken.

This is a political term, it has been in common use since about 1990. We don't cover political terms mainly with examples, if you look at the page for 'liberal', or 'conservative' you aren't going to find a list of the uses made by the term in news sources, certainly not solely US ones. What you are going to find will be mainly from books attempting to chart the use of the terms over time and place.

One of the things which IMO is missing from this article is WHY critics don't like measures which they describe as 'PC'. They find these measures ridiculous, and/or censorship and/or social engineering and/or reverse inequality. But the sources need to be neutral academic sources and balanced.

If you really want the article to be balanced in its up-to-dateness, you would have to record that most non-US news sources/non-US people think that 'PC' is about as dated as Abba. We can't understand why anyone would get 'het-up' about it, even less why US newspapers have nothing better to report on than that someone with a - currently unfortunate - name got moved to another sports event at a time the name might have caused trouble for him or the news-station. Getting upset about keeping/removing statues makes sense, getting upset about the name doesn't, but if his news-station did it in agreement with him, how is that PC? How is it anybody's business but theirs? Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the original source, a blogger. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that 'PC" or 'avoiding offence' was the motive for this action at all. The official statement included: "It's a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and we regret that who calls play-by-play for a football game has become an issue." ... Is there some reason to believe that the blogger (or the IP here), knows something that the broadcaster -and Mr Lee- didn't? Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The blogger has included the official statement above his own now to point out his opinion (and his POINTY opinion about ESPN) doesn't mesh with the given reason. Koncorde (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde, I saw, but neither the blogger nor the commenters seemed to notice or care. Especially comic was the picture of Mr Lee and Robert E. offered just in case 'lefties' were not able to tell the difference. Silly really, because the play-by-play commentator is voice-only, and we all know Robert E. has a deeper voice. Doesn't he? Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hooray for social "media"? Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at what ESPN says

"Given the amount of media attention being generated by one of the countless, routine decisions our local production teams make every day, I wanted to make sure you have the facts. There was never any concern - by anyone, at any level — that Robert Lee's name would offend anyone watching the Charlottesville game.

Among our Charlotte production staff there was a question as to whether - in these divisive times --Robert's assignment might create a distraction, or even worse, expose him to social hectoring and trolling. Since Robert was their primary concern, they consulted with him directly. He expressed some personal trepidation about the assignment and, when offered the chance to do the Youngstown State/Pitt game instead, opted for that game — in part because he lives in Albany and would be able to get home to his family on Saturday evening.

I'm disappointed that the good intentions of our Charlotte colleagues have been intentionally hijacked by someone with a personal agenda, and sincerely appreciate Robert's personal input and professionalism throughout this episode".[2]

No conern that someone would take offense. No evidence of political correctness. But hey, let's try to make a story anyway. And where is the NYTimes story calling it an ultimate example? I can find this which says some people said it was political correctness run amuk, but doesn't call it political correctness directly, and this which doesn't mention political correctness. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas for improving article.

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Ok Ive thought a lot about this and rather than the RFC route, I would like to work collaboratively with other editors here. Summer has a point about beating a dead horse with the whole example thing. For the time being, I will no longer push for an example of PC in the article. It appears to be fraught with difficulty, partially because it is indeed an objective definition. I still feel it might help illustrate the concept, but apparently consensus doesn't agree. I really do want to improve this project - can everyone AGF for the moment and give me a chance here?

Moving forward, I had some ideas for improving the article. user:Pincrete, user:SummerPhDv2.0, and user:Koncorde, what do you think about the following: My idea was to choose one of the topics below, do some research on it, and then add to the article.

A more thorough examination of political correctness as a real phenomena (as opposed to a pejorative or a way to dismiss an argument). The underlying problem is that labeling PC as a pejorative almost suggests that it doesn't exist. After all, the core beliefs of the PC doctrine are certainly something to aspire to, and there are plenty of sources discussing this. I think the perjorative sense refers to PC taken to the extreme - perhaps there is an "acceptable" level of Political correctness.

Alternatively, perhaps an examination of the dangers inherent in attempting to communicate in a "politically correct" manner. For example, in an effort to avoid offending the most sensitive members of society, we ban the use of perfectly accurate descriptive phrases for fear of running afoul of people with a political agenda. (For example, if we don't know someone's legal status, the phrase "undocumented immigrant" may be accurate. But it is not necessarily an accurate substitute for "illegal immigrant")

Finally, I was thinking of expanding how PC has evolved over the last 20 years and how millenials now view it (not so much as a political stance, but as a way of life). In the 1980's and 1990's it was a sarcastic reference to the "thought police", whereas today PC is less about enforcing a worldview and more about protecting people from emotional harm (like when that college told students not to wear Halloween costumes that might potentially be offensive. Maybe tie in how social media has amplified outrage?

These were three ideas that I had. If I am completely off base then I give up entirely. But I am hoping that one of the three bullets above describes a way to improve the article. I am happy to do the legwork and then you guys can edit or change or whatever. Let me know. Thank you!! 2602:301:772D:62D0:14D5:1D9B:B292:18B5 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No one objects to examples per se, they (I?) object to a random selection of examples. 'PC', largely speaking doesn't exist as a philosophy/as a practice/ as a policy etc.. 9 times out of 10 (in public discourse at least) , it is a criticism. If I call a policy or action 'politically correct', I am very rarely saying it is a good thing, I am probably saying it is stupid or unfair or censorious. I am usually not only saying it is a bad idea, but also questioning the motives of the proposer, as if they are simply lefty-clones incapable of independent thought, simply following a political orthodoxy.

The usage has changed in recent years (I think), especially in US. To some there the term is more 'normal', while for the 'alt-right', it almost means 'anything I don't like'. The trouble is we can't extrapolate from original sources to 'prove' this. Good secondary sources (mainly books), need to do this, and they haven't been written AFAIK.

What are the dangers of PC? What words have been banned or are avoided (anywhere). I don't know about any "Halloween costumes" stories, but since the beginning of time people have been advised to avoid wearing things/saying things that offended others. I suspect that this is one of those media examples which might be an example of a stupid policy or piece of advice in some obscure place somewhere, or which is just as likely to be an example of media misrepresentation (see above). Many of the examples in books in the 90's discrediting 'PC', were basically true. The trouble was that all the books used the same handful of examples to prove some general point. A single college/school somewhere comes up with a daft policy or implements it over-zealously perhaps, a book distorts its daftness further .... civilisation as we know it is ending. In the UK, almost all the examples in the media turned out to be fake or distorted beyond recognition, comedic effect and stimulating outrage taking precedence over accuracy. I have in my own life come across examples of speech that I regard as stupidly 'PC" but nobody makes me use, just as I don't have to use business/govermental euphemisms (downsizing? collateral damage?), that are also evasive. Most people use the word 'gay' and avoid racial slurs because they choose to, not because language has been banned, if people don't like daft policies or daft language, they ignore them. Most people don't see anything offensive about the word 'blind', so they use it, others disagree so they don't and medical professionals use medical terms. So?

Who exactly is forcing anyone to do be 'PC', and (from WP's PoV), where are the RSs for these assertions? Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe this will make what I am trying to say more clear. The article (as it stands) almost seems to frame political correctness as a term used to criticize a policy or rule or whatever, rather than framing political correctness as the motivating ideology behind those policies. Does that make sense? I believe we need to expand on the ideology itself - not necessarily the term as a criticism.

And regarding your question about the dangers of PC, I probably phrased that poorly. What I was trying to say, is political correctness can lead to the ban of accurate descriptive phrases for fear of offending people with a political agenda. Again, if we don't know someone's legal status, the phrase "undocumented immigrant" may be accurate. But it is not necessarily an accurate substitute for "illegal immigrant". The danger is context becoming lost. ETA - Pincrete you mentioned that you don't use racial slurs - neither do I. But what about the word "niggardly"? It's most certainly not a racial slur but several years back in Chicago there was an uproar leading to an alderman's resignation for using the word. (he was eventually re-hired I believe). Do you see how there was an overreaction in this case? The alderman was initially asked to resign because it was believed his words caused offense - even though there was nothing offensive about them. This is the type of thing I am talking about. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not political correctness, that's stupidity. The issue is decisions are taken by people based upon unknown factors, and someone points at those factors and says "that's political correctness" but there is then almost no actual verification or validation. It's just an accusation / defence. Is that a phenomena? Possibly. Is it one that has been discussed in reliable sources? Not to my knowlwdge, but if they exist then they would add to this article.

In the end you need to bring sourced material. Without that, this is a fishing expedition and close to WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'niggardly' incident did happen, I know, but so what? A stupid misunderstanding which was sorted out, a mistake more easily made in speech than writing. Any 'rule' (legal or social), can cause unforeseeable results occasionally. A child gets caught simply retrieving his ball from his neighbour's garden and ends up in police custody ... so let's get rid of burglary laws? I'm more familiar with UK examples than US ones and it is pretty reliably documented that most of these media stories are apocryphal, or are turned on their heads to make sure that councils/schools/govt are presented as being too soft on non-whites, women, foreigners, gays and the disabled. The target moves, 25 years ago it was mainly blacks and lesbians, these days it's mainly Eastern Europeans, refugees and Muslims.

Most of the 'millenial' stories in UK are apocryphal. What HAS changed, and is probably a bad thing, is that UK schools etc are now more afraid of exposing kids to physical risk (in pursuit of sport etc) than they were 50 years ago, but the reason for that is increased legislation by govts from both the left and right. Everybody blames it on 'PC', everybody says it's a bad thing - until of course their child is injured, when they immediately sue/complain.

But this is all 'off-topic', phenomena discussed extensively in RS are what count here. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ps re: the motivating ideology behind those policies. Unfortunately that would necessarily be WHAT CRITICS SAY is the motivating ideology behind those policies because those who advance policies never say "I'm doing this in order to be more PC" unless they are being ironic, nor do THEY characterise what 'PC' is, nor do they see themselves as having a single philosophy, all of these are solely in the eyes of the critics. This is full circle to what I say earlier, we identify that critics don't like certain policies (eg speech codes), we don't say at present WHY the critics object to these policies, but doing that neutrally is not easy. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone does something. A writer calls it "political correctness gone awry" or some such. That tells us something about the event and something about the actor(s) and the writer. If later sources about the event, actor(s) or writer discuss it, the matter might deserve mention in a Wikipedia article about the event, actor(s) or writer. It does not cross the threshold for this article, much as Murder does not include an indiscriminate collection of murders.

This article is not about the events, actors and writers involved in situations that one or more of them call "political correctness". An indiscriminate list of situations that have been called PC here would tell us more about the person or people creating the list that it would about "political correctness".

A cupcake, car, tree or shovel is a thing. For the most part, most people will agree that a Honda Civic is a car and an oak is a tree. Yes, in Car we can certainly discuss which cars to show in the main image and which cars, images and examples are good to discuss in "lighting", "weight", "safety", etc. -- with coverage in independent reliable sources leading the way (I'd be hard-pressed to imagine a section on car "Mass production" that doesn't discuss the Model T). Car buffs, collectors, etc. no doubt have their favorite cars and would like to see them in the articles, but swapping out a photo of a Honda Civic's wipers for those of a Toyota isn't really biasing the article.

Political correctness, racism, tokenism, homophobia, etc. are concepts. People will disagree as to whether or not relabeling "raisins" and "grapes" as "sun-dried raisins" and "fresh grapes" is political correctness or just good business sense (really). We cannot present one incident as the example par excellence of PC. There are countless thousands of would-be political commentators, spin doctors, trolls, etc. with favorite causes that they would like to see included in articles as examples of whatever they would like to label them. Independent reliable sources directly discussing political correctness must lead the way. It allows us to objectively decide whether "racism" more often refers to, for example, Jim Crow laws (according to the New York Times, various academic presses, the United Nations, etc.) or affirmative action (according to Stormfront, Breitbart and the American Nazi Party).

Either you get it or you don't. So far, you just haven't gotten it. Johnny needs to skip a step or get out of the way. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing lede from negative to positive

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Currently the lede states that PC is the avoidance of language, policies etc which may be offensive. Per MOS, would it not make more sense to have the lede state something like "PC is used to describe language, policies etc designed not to offend". It's a small difference but is supported by sources, and describes PC by what it obstenaibly does as opposed to what it avoids. Any thoughts? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Current lede is based on dictionary definitions which use "avoidance". Koncorde (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

that makes sense. One other question - we could trim down the lede sentence by using "excessively calculated" and then getting rid of "these policies are seen as excesssive". Any thoughts on this? 2600:1012:B008:608:FC78:AD86:DA6B:4876 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of alleging political correctness is to pin unnecessary and excessive behavior on an opponent, as sourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For a long time we had a slightly simpler definition, recently a visiting IP insisted that every word must be sourcable in 'un-paraphrased' form, therefore it was changed to the present version, which is somewhat cumbersome IMO. I don't think it works to 'define positively', the ordinary words for not offending are words like 'courtesy'.'PC', almost by definition, is seen as being excessive/unnec/euphemistic avoidance. Also we should not lose sight of the fact that policies, as much as language, have been targetted as 'PC'. In the US, the original primary focus was higher education and 'equality measures'. Actions not words. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Explaining by example

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My! but this is a controversial article! I wonder if it mightn’t be easier simply to give an example of political correctness in action. Here is one of the clearest examples I’ve seen of the phenomenon. Notice, for example, the lengths to which one contributor goes to try to avoid criticism either for their views being seen as offensive or for going to such lengths in the first place. 76.80.153.165 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

All I see is a anonymous editor from the Los Angeles area who just doesn't get it. Linking to the article as an example and a completely circular link to the topic you just started don't help. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)