Talk:Political correctness/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Political correctness is not pejorative

The introduction to this article is hardly neutral, as it assumes that PC is pejorative, which is not true. Governments go to great lengths to deliberately be PC in, not just official legislation and publications, but also their comments and dialogue, in order to not offend or appear to marginalise any subpopulation.

Granted, some people (who?) believe that some governments (who?) take this too far, and there has been backlash (where?). For example, how is any one person supposed to know what terms or language another random person finds offensive?

Anyway, some people (who?) who use the term PC pejoratively, and others (who?) who believe PC is essential for organisations and governments to not discriminate. Thus, the article should not define PC as a solely pejorative term.

~ Ouizardus (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

When applied, I think that the term is an assertion that those otherwise-OK or otherwise-good behaviors have been taken too far. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I also dont think that those who are in favor of using non-discriminative terminology and practices consider what they are advocating to be "political correctness". The phrase is mostly used as an excuse to promote different forms of bigotry, that would otherwise not be tolerated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your first sentence. And excessiveness is a mater of opinion / in the eye of the beholder. IMO term is essentially a claim of excessiveness. There are zillion ways and purposes to use any word or term (that is a different topic than the meaning of the term), it could very well be that the use that you describe is one of them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As a term applied to others, it is certainly generally used pejoratively. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dougweller. I have never seen someone (gov't etc) say "we are taking Action X because it is politically correct...." but people who disagree with action X will use the term pejoratively when speaking against it. This isn't about neutral tone; it is about subject accuracy. Taroaldo ✉ 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that myself, Taroaldo, and Dougweller agree here. The term is a claim the mis-behavior of excessive accommodation and so is at least somewhat pejorative. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede is a mess. "PC" is certainly sometimes used pejoratively, but not necessarily because the people who use is so are big fans of bigotry and discrimination. When it is used pejoratively, it is generally to describe a mindset where the alleged "PC" practitioner is regarded as slavishly conformist and ideologically rigid to the point of being comical. In other words, not a humanitarian, but a caricature of a humanitarian. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In a sense - it's used to accuse people of having that mind set, and possibly by people who have that mindset. And 'sometimes' would need a pretty good source. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe, I really can't understand what you are trying to say because to me it appears that you conflicted with yourself. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Existing Content Ignores Rampant Abuse of the Original Concept

This article is very narrow in scope and incomplete in the sense that it makes no mention of the rampant abuse of the original concept. Many prominent people, for example but not limited to the likes of Al Sharpton, use political correctness to seek financial or political gain and make racist accusations with apparent immunity. One of the key abuses is to use strawman fallacies and double standards to deliberately ignore and distort the original intent, context and actual words of a person, with the intent of inflicting financial, political or other harm to that person (or corresponding gain to the wielder of politically correct concepts). In short, political correctness is frequently a weapon rather than a constructive tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

cry foul as to objectivity

To assert that conservative criticism of the term PC as "obscurantist" seems to violate neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, this article is the product of a lot of emotional baggage. And I only read the introduction! 154.20.40.23 (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The term itself is what you would probably call "emotional baggage" and we are describing it. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this article isn't at all objective. There's virtually no mention of the irrationality and excess of the PC movement. Most of the space is spent on tacit criticisms of conservatism. Really terrible as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.240.141 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pay no mind, it was just the comment of a discovered vandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_overpopulation#WORDS_FAIL_ME_REGARDING_INPUTS_FROM_YOUR_IP_ADDRESS

So instead of coming here and complaining, fix it - using sources that meet WP:RS and following our WP:NPOV policy. Anonymous complaints aren't very convincing. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The article reads more like a left leaning op ed than an objective encyclopedic article. A good example is this unsourced assertion early in the article:

"By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo."

US conservatives didn't "adopt" the term in the early 90s; it would be more accurate to say that by the early 90s the excesses of "political correctness" became more widely known and many people (not just "US conservatives") began to ridicule it (particularly as manifest in the implemnetation of draconian speech codes on college campuses and the aggressive promotion of increasingly dubious and absurd assertions of what might be construed as "offensive"). The term has come to be used in mischevous ways at times by people to ridicule positions they disagree with (an example would be creationsts categorizing the teaching of evolution as "political correctness").

The article in short seems to reflect the perspective of someone of an "activist left" sensibility that is more interested in addressing popular backlash against political correctness than in objectively describing it. It's really not as complicated as the article makes it out to be. In brief, politically correctness is simply a word for efforts to alter or prohibit innocuous language or other activities that are unreasonably or implausibly asserted to be offensive. Unfortunately efforts to honestly describe it seem to be a magnet for what might be called "political correctness denialists" (the idea that there is no such thing as political correctness; it's all just right wing agitprop etc.). CannotFindAName (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It also is confusing by spending so much space covering so many completely unrelated meanings of the two word phrase. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It comes across as a non-too subtle attempt at obfuscation by certain "activist editors" who would like to describe political correctness in a manner that is more convenient for their politics. CannotFindAName (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Matthew 7:3.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User "Maunus", If you have a comment relevant to this state it. This isn't a blog forum for political debates, it's a place to specifically discuss the article. Here the issue is concerns about the objectivity of the article. If you have a relevant point of view, state it, don't cite Bible verses. In the opinion of myself and other editors this article has serious issues with objectivity and focus. CannotFindAName (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My comment is this: The argument that this article is non-neutral comes across as "a non-too subtle attempt at obfuscation by certain "activist editors" who would like to describe political correctness in a manner that is more convenient for their politics."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And other editors simply see it as reflecting what reliable sources say about the subject. I'd love to see reliable sources for pc denialists (and I mean academic sources, not political commentary). Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably the narrower topic at hand is inclusion of very different meanings of the two-word sequence. An article can be about an inherent topic, about (single or closely related meanings of) a term, or about a set of very closely related topics as defined by a term. IMHO some of the very different meanings in this article do not fall under any of these. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I thank that's a good point. This article discusses both the term and the phenomenon the term purports to describe; but this article can't be a neutral discussion of that phenomenon, because "political correctness" is a polemical term, not a neutral one. I think it would be better if this article was just about the term, and the "History of the phenomenon" section was used as the basis of a new article about the phenomenon ("Inclusive language" might be a good title for such an article).VoluntarySlave (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree your assessment, North8000. Dougweller, I hadn't even suggested adding a section about what I referred to as "PC Denialism" but I think it's a great suggestion. I assure you I can provide instances of "pc denialism" from reliable sources. Your interest in reliable sources for claims seems rather selective however in that you apparently have no similar desire to see a reliable source for the unsourced assertion a the beginning of the article I described above. Maunus, thanks for the clarification; your suggestion that I am an "activist editor" is curious considering I haven't made a single edit to this article to date. I merely stated what I perceive to be its shortcomings. I intend to suggest some edits when I have more time to look at this (this is not particularly high on my list of priorities). CannotFindAName (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that a good thing to do would be to remove coverage of unrelated meanings of that two word sequence.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy regarding origins

The article currently has a section called "origins" followed by one called "history of the term", which means the same thing as origins. Perhaps not surprisingly, the latter section repeats material found in the prior section. The two should be merged and repetitious material removed.--Smcg8374 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More examples

I think the article should include examples that deal with LGBT, transvestites, transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. Those categories have a multitude of "correct" phrases to replace commonplace (though offensive) terms. I don't know them off hand. But, I know that there are a lot. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook

I'm a bit concerned about using this. An NY Times review stated that "As the author explains, with a reasonably straight face, prostitutes are henceforth to be known as sex-care providers and looters as motivational shoppers, thereby moving the country toward the goal of "content-free language."[1] See the earlier discussion here[2] where an editor points out "My understanding is that he and his co-author collected up examples of politically correct terminology that had been proposed in all seriouslness, but then mixed these without comment with their own inventions for the purpose of satire. (Beard is an ex-editor of National Lampoon, a satirical magazine) Certianly the book jacket (according to amazon.com contains teh phrase "Includes even more real and satirical definitions to help keep thought cops away." Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the lede

Hi, Here is my new proposed version of the lede. It mentions multiculturalism, affirmative action, hate speech, and curriculum reform issues that were raised. It also refers to the media label of Culture war.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is the attitude or policy of being excessively careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who have a disadvantage. The term was not used much in the U.S. until the late 20th century. Mainstream usage of the term began in the 1990s by right-wing politicians who used the term as a shorthand way of conveying their concerns about the left in academia and in culture. A 1991 article used the term to refer to U.S. academic policies that sought to increase multiculturalism though affirmative action, prevent "hate speech", and change the content of university curriculum. The term was also used by conservatives to criticize progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in U.S. secondary schools. These debates about curriculum changes have been referred to as a Culture War. In the 1990s, the term was increasingly commonly used in the United Kingdom.

In modern usage, the terms PC, politically correct, and political correctness are generally pejorative descriptors, whereas the term politically incorrect is used by opponents of PC as an implicitly positive self-description, as in the cases of the conservative, topical book-series The Politically Incorrect Guide, and the liberal television talk-show program Politically Incorrect. Disputing this framework are advocates for ending discrimination and scholars on the political Left who suggest that the term was redefined in the early 1990s by conservatives and libertarians for strategic political purposes.

Sentence I deleted sourced to Kenneth Whitehead

I deleted "Critics of political correctness commonly question the validity of these concepts." This is sourced to an article by Kenneth Whitehead on a website called CatholicCulture.org). That text was changed today by an IP from "In the event, the critics of cultural diversity and of inclusive language, commonly oppose the identification of such social power disparities by dismissing the matter as superficial political correctness." The first use of this source was for the statement "Critics of such arguments, and of inclusive language in general, commonly use the terminology of "political correctness". Looks to me as though people might have rewritten this without looking carefully at the source. In any case, Kenneth Whitehead, the author of the article, doesn't say that in his article, and we can't call him "critics" or even representing typical critics. In fact, he's looking at the use of inclusive language in Roman Catholic Church. I don't think it really ever belonged in the article or that one Catholic critics should be called "critics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

'False accusations' section dubious

Clear PoV soapbox with minimal relevance to the article. The author cited, 'John K. Wilson' is the author of a book entitled 'How the Left Can Win Arguments: A Tactical Manual for Pragmatic Progressives'. Should be removed. 108.53.80.153 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The book referenced in the article was published by Duke University Press, so reliably published and meets our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not niche information, though. I think the biggest issue is that a viewpoint written by a political radical is framed in such a way as if it is objective fact and not simply the opinion of one author with an obvious slant/bias that he has made explicit and is far in excess of most other citations of bias.108.53.80.153 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Michel Foucault

I do not think the quote is relavent to the article. It does not explain how the meaning he meant turned into what the term PC means today 2601:C:2600:DACA:A19E:D816:F8C:B563 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

American centric view of political correctness

This whole article views the concept of political correctness almost uniquely through the lens of North American politics and history. The British experience of "Political Correctness" is rather distinct. The page requires a by country breakdown of the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.166.150 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do go ahead then, using sources meeting WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated the tag Deku-shrub (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PCs connection to Orwell, 1984 and Newspeak

nb This discussion started on user talk pages, for clarity I have copied it here, only removing 'pings':

Professor JR I have also just reverted you, your text does NOT establish a connection between 1984 and PC. Clearly 'Newspeak' is a connected concept and we therefore link to it in the 'see also's. We also discuss an author who makes such a connection, however your text is about Orwell himself and his experience of 'thought censorship'. The connection to PC, no matter how obvious it may seem, is not being made by the source and is therefore OR (and slightly 'off-topic').Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete. This is in response to your June 11 revert of my edit to the Article on "Political Correctness" and your contention that, as you state: "the refs do not establish a connection with PC". Did you read any of the "refs"? Contrary to what you say, they clearly and explicitly speak to, and draw a connection between Orwell's "Newspeak" and current-day "political correctness". For example, in Paul Krugman's 2012 New York Times article that was cited, he writes: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which –- unlike the liberal version –- has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing George Orwell tried to convey with his notion of "Newspeak": to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order”. [Emphasis Added] ( Cf.: Paul Krugman, "The New Political Correctness", NYT, May 26, 2012. - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/the-new-political-correctness/ ) message left unsigned by Professor JR

Professor JR, apologies, you appear to be partially correct … … Your second para is definitely not about PC, but about Orwell and belongs on his page or the newspeak page. After a quick look, 'your' refs probably justify the link between Newspeak and PC, and in consequence with 1984. As I said on DW's talk page, (I believe) we already discuss Krugman in the body of the article and we (definitely) already use 'Newspeak' as a 'see also'. So, no one is denying the connection, simply anxious that it should be properly sourced and represented.Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller,Pincrete, Thanks -- no apologies necessary, and I in fact truly appreciate your input and help with my edits. Have also made one more additional minor clarifying edit, since my first, in response to your critique -- which was welcomed.Professor JR (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR - I've removed the last paragraph about Orwell writing in reference to "politically correct speech" - he didn't do that, nor would it be appropriate anyway IMHO. Doug Weller (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the section should be headed 'Related concepts in fiction' ( or something that means that, but which is a bit less 'clunky'). PC isn't IN 1984, a similar idea of one use of PC is ( oppressive censoring/manipulation of language).Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC) ps perhaps we should take this onto the talk page IF it needs to be continued

Article talk page please. Such a heading could lead to more OR. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All the above copied here by:Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I agree that my suggested title invites OR/off topic additions, I couldn't think of a better one. However, present title suggests PC is IN 1984. Responding to one of your previous points, I think the use of Orwell/ian, etc is commonplace as a rhetorical analogy in relationship to PC. A more concrete/analytical link between the two may be harder to come by.Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a common rhetorical metaphor. To my mind, anyway, likening something to 1984 is along the same lines of likening this or that government policy to "the Nazis". It's a more literary touchstone, but used in a similarly exaggerated, gratuitous way. I don't think there's anything encyclopedic about someone comparing political correctness (or anything) to Orwell (or the Nazis) in an opinion column (the one of the two sources cited I have access to). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the entire section is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it stands. Krugman's passing comparison to Newspeak is already mentioned in the article in the section where he's quoted; devoting an entire section to it in the article voice is definitely WP:OR. We could say "Some commentators, like Krugman, have used George Orwell's 1984 as a reference point when discussing political correctness", but I don't feel that it makes sense to devote an entire section to those comparisons; and it is absolutely WP:OR to imply, in article text, that 1984 is about political correctness (among other things, it was written before the concept as we know it existed.) If you strip that out, all you have is a section devoted to one Krugman quote, which is already covered elsewhere in the article. "X in fiction" sections are trivia even at the best of times, but this is poorly-supported trivia based on quotes from blogs, which definitely doesn't seem worth devoting a section to. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As presently constituted, it's also off-topic (an essay about Orwell). That those using the term PC pejoratively often try to link 'PC' to 'Orwellian/1984-ish' etc. is fairly commonplace. But 'Newspeak' is already in 'see also'. Is that enough?Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Modern Usage

The article claims in the summary portion that modern usage is pejorative which is inconsistent with its definition as "an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage." Though modern usage can often be pejorative, only mentioning this usage promotes the bias that it is the dominant usage instead of one amongst a myriad of definitions. 146.95.209.16 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, see this discussion. Clearly some people here are carefully selecting sources, or interpretations thereof. 80.189.96.15 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article's lead has to reflect its body; and the body of the sections devoted to the term's history say (with numerous sources) that the term has had almost no positive usage. Only one sentence (which appears to be uncited) says that it ever had any significant unironic use, and even that sentence says that that usage was very brief and localized. --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of 'pejorative' use (often mockingly ironic rather than pejorative, in the UK I would say), the present wording 'is (a) pejorative term used to condemn language, actions, or policies as calculated to offend or upset any group of people in society' … this implies that offensive language is being condemned, whereas the ironic/pejorative use is mocking excessive AVOIDANCE of potentially offensive terms (eg 'cosmetically challenged'/'significant other'). The wording needs to be made clearer. Also the lead does not make it clear that this is the MODERN use of the term. I agree with Aquillion that the term probably never had any substantial non-ironic modern usage. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, I reverted your addition of Daily Mail to the lead as it implied that they had popularised the term during the 90's. I don't think this is true and article sources don't support it (their use is much later I think, after the term was already widespread). It MAY be true that their negative use has SINCE become 'notable', but I think that is already reflected in the article.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

They were definitely using it earlier than that (eg. this references it being used in a Daily Mail article from 1994.) I agree that implying that they were instrumental to popularizing it might be going too far, but they (and their "political correctness gone mad" catchphrase) are definitely key to how it's seen in the UK today, so I think it's worth including in the lead in some form (especially since the article currently has problems with being too focused on a US perspective.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Everybody was using it earlier than 1999. I was only pointing out WP's earliest ref'd use, not suggesting it was the first UK use. Fairly obviously, you can't refer to 'XXX gone mad' until 'XXX' is generally understood. Anecdotally, in the UK before the early 90's, it was largely left/liberal self-mockingly ironic use until the right heard about it and thought it was some kind of 'official-left' policy, to which they took great exception (no sense of irony!). I'm out of UK for the last 10 years so don't know current use, but accept that it may NOW have become mainly a term of criticism, rather than humour. … …ps have you noticed my prev. comment, as I think lead is confusingly phrased.Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your tweak of the wording to 'excessively calculated' looks like clarifies that, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I further tweaked, partly for grammar, but also 'upset' to 'disadvantage', upset is already covered by 'offence' and I was thinking of actions/policies applying more to 'disadvantage' rather than offence, though if the sentence gets any more complicated, it'll probably fall to pieces under the weight of its subordinate clauses/adjectives!Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The characterization of the term as pejorative was recently added back into the lead sentence, and this was quickly tagged {{fact}}. I've just removed that characterization and its tag from the lead. I note that the article has a section headed "Use as a pejorative"; perhaps the content there ought to be expanded. Towards that end, see

• Thuy Nguyen (2008). Political Correctness in the English Language. GRIN Verlag. p. 4. ISBN 978-3-640-18157-5. (which, incidentally, says that the term first appeared in the 1980s)
• Keith Allan; Kate Burridge (2006). Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-139-45760-6.
• Mark A. McCutcheon (October 12, 2012). ""Political correctness": decoding a vicious, pernicious code word". Academicalism. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• Edward Schumacher-Maatos (March 8, 2012). "Politically Correct: An Aspiration or Pejorative?". NPR Ombudsman. npr.org/. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

and elsewhere. Incidentally, I noticed that the abstract of [3] says that the term originated in the Marxist era, when it was used to enforce conformity in the advancement of a particular Marxist view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Marxist usage is already covered in the article; but as it says, that usage was also pejorative. Likewise, the use in the 70's was pejorative (if ironically so). No part of the article attests to any significant period of non-pejorative usage, and leads must reflect the article. Therefore, if you want to remove pejorative from the lead, you need to first edit the article itself to add reliable sources to the article affirming that the term has had significant non-pejorative usage, which I'm not seeing at the moment. Additionally, as an aside, note that it was not "swiftly" tagged; it was tagged only yesterday. Beyond that, please don't just remove something from the article with "no consensus" as a rationale; if you want to remove it, you'll have to provide an explanation and a specific objection to its inclusion so we can try and reach consensus. I've provided what I think are reasonably detailed sources and explanations for why it should be called pejorative in the lead, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In the edit summary of the edit where I removed that characterization from the lead sentence, I said mistakenly that it had been recently added; that was largely the reason I removed it. Looking back now, however, I see that it had been there for some time. My mistake about that. I see that this was previously discussed here. One of the sources mentioned there is this, which says that the term was being used in a different sense as far back as 1793. The example given there of that usage is from Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793). I don't have strong feelings either way about whether or not to characterize the term as pejorative in the lead sentence. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sapir-whorf

The Sapir-whorf connection is one of the weaker ones concerning the impact of language and can be traced to a multitude of more respected sources ranging from Hegel to Nietzsche to Heidegger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.64.217.8 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Pejorative?

Absolutely ridic to see this is the first sentence! Should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eomurchadha (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide view banner ?

Is the 'worldwide view' banner still necessary? Examples are mainly UK/US but is there a distinct view outside these two which the article is not reflecting?Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Extremely biased/one-sided

The section on the '90's is jaw-dropping. Specific criticisms and specific important, well-known cases go completely unmentioned. Every criticism is attributed to "conservatives" and the "right-wing" and "reactionaries"...many of whom, we are then told, *ad hominem*, were former communists... However, in fact, PC was not a liberal movement, but--at least according to many liberals--a movement of the radical left. *Certainly it was opposed by many liberals.* One would at least expect some discussion of some of the flagship cases that gave content to the rhetoric of PC, and which generated the widespread anti-PC sentiment that were largely responsible for generating pushback against the movement--e.g. the infamous Penn "water buffaloes" case, the faculty response in the Duke Lacrosse case, the battles over speech codes at many different universities, the restriction of free speech to "free speech zones," the Antioch sex policy, the infamous 'niggardly' cases...one could go on and on...and on and on...but *none* of this is discussed here. How can a section on PC in the '90's not have a single such example?

Most of the section focuses on the *term* 'political correctness' rather than the phenomenon, about half the section is spent in thinly-veiled criticism of the "conservatives" who opposed the view, and the only discussion of semi-substantive points is the "liberal" response to these criticism--where the criticisms (never actual articulated) of "conservatives" are characterized without argument as attempts to prop up discrimination. Perhaps "poisoning the well" should re-direct here? The final unsubstantiated accusations of the section--e.g. that the term is "an empty right-wing smear"--seem plausible after reading a section in which every item is cherry-picked to support that very point.

Honestly, this is one of the most biased entries I've ever seen on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.138 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make additions, please provide reliable sources for the things you want to add! But I don't feel that the article is improved by trying to give it an exhaustive list of everything that anyone has ever claimed to be political correctness. As it is, there's a risk that the things you're talking about could fall into original research or synthesis -- that is, if you want to imply that there's a formal "PC movement" (rather than it just being a pejorative term people use to attack each other in politics), you need reliable sources saying so explicitly, not just a string of events that you feel represent it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:134.126.47.138, I don't know the cases which you refer to as I'm UK. Many notorious cases in the UK during that period turned out to be fiction or were very falsely reported, or only called 'PC' by critics. There were numerous 'urban myths' in the UK about local govt's supposed policies in the '90s. But as Aquillion says, we need RSs rather than your or my recollection/interpretion of what was/was not 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) … … … Water buffalo incident, Duke lacrosse case, Antioch College, these are some of the events I think you are referring to, in terms of WP coverage, only Water buffalo incident, mentions PC as a factor. Personally, I don't see why notable incidents which were widely blamed on PC could not be a section, just as we have the 'false accusations' section.Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of structure and coherence

I became involved with this article only because of a quibble over the lead. Looking it over though, there is an overall lack of structure and coherence, quite a lot seems off-topic and possibly OR (eg explaining scientific methodology or linguistic ideas in order to make a simple point about overlap with PC), section titles bear little relationship to content and aren't very informative nor do they progress coherently. Thoughts? Ideas? Strategy? Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree. I think the best thing to do would be to focus primarily on it as a term, with sections for its history, who uses it and how, and the broad things people say about it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed/amended some off topic and saw you did the same, I don't yet see how to organise / section title what is left. History section is probably most the most coherent at present. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Initially I also though that defining the term would be the best starting place, but I now see, after reading some of the sources cited, that the "moving target" nature of the term precludes this. From reading several of the chapters in "Beyond PC" (Aufderheide (Ed.), 1992), there needs to be a focus on the history:

1. The first use was very limited, but planted the seed for later usage: some socialists used it to describe American communists that continued to "toe the party line" after Stalin's 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler. This was an act that the socialists, many of them Jewish, could not support, nor think of Russia as a true example of a Socialist government. One faction of the left was mocking another, but not in the global sense; there remained much agreement between the two groups in America in the 40s and early 50s. (Then came McCarthy and no one could admit to being any kind of leftist.)
2. In the 1970s, some activists used the term to describe social and political change in the "correct" direction. Again, the term was used in discussion between different factions of the movement regarding priorities and tactics. However there was no real agreement on what the term meant, it was almost always in the context of a particular person's using it, whether that usage was positive, mocking/ironic, or negative.
3. Before any consensus on a positive meaning could be reached (although the OED definition implies that it emerged, could they be wrong?) the opponents of social change took it up as a pejorative to describe the excesses of liberals, more than implying that they were all leftists. In the 80's and early 90's this was mainly confined to academia to describe many issues, not only language but all topics regarding racism and sexism. In this Dinesh D'Souza's book "Illiberal Education" defined the term, and the liberal response did not reclaim it, but defended the underlying social processes being criticized.
4. There are few references to current usage, but the term seems to have moved into popular culture with only the entirely negative meaning while being abandoned in academia. All I want to do is to be able to explain something like this.FriendlyFred (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think most of this is in the history section.Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that the historical progression should be used to organize the entire article, limiting the History section to possible origins and beginning Modern usage with the 1970s. The subsection on the 1990s in the former covers the same material as the subsection on Education in the latter. The politicization of science likely began in the 90s also, but has become more prominent more recently.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment section

Adding the Seinfeld content meant deciding where to place it. Certainly not notable enough to go directly under the "Modern usage" section and not directly related to the other existing sub-sections. Certainly there is more to say about PC in entertainment.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Foucault

The item bothered me, so I looked at the cited source and found it to be a published interview rather than something written by Foucault. It is also in French.

I read a little French but would not rely upon it for anything technical.

Basically, the term is used relative to its origin regarding the leftist "party line", thus the move to the prior section.

The cited question and answer in its entirety, according to Google translate:

How would you define your attitude to the action and politics?

The French left has lived on the myth of a holy ignorance. What changes is the idea that a political thought can not be politically correct only if it is scientifically rigorous. And to that extent, I think all the effort is being done in a group of communist intellectuals to reassess the concepts of Marx finally to resume at the root, to analyze, to define the use that we can and must do, it seems to me that all this effort is an effort to both political and scientific. And the idea that it is turning away from politics than to devote himself, as we do now, to strictly theoretical and speculative activities, I think this idea is completely false. This is not because we turn away from the policy we are dealing with theoretical problems so narrow and so meticulous, it is because we now realize that any form of political action can only be articulated the most closely on a rigorous theoretical reflection.

The Original:

Comment pourrait-on définir votre attitude à l'égard de l'action et de la politique ?

La gauche française a vécu sur le mythe d'une ignorance sacrée. Ce qui change, c'est l'idée qu'une pensée politique ne peut être politiquement correcte que si elle est scientifiquement rigoureuse. Et, dans cette mesure, je pense que tout l'effort qui est fait actuellement dans un groupe d'intellectuels communistes pour réévaluer les concepts de Marx, enfin pour les reprendre à la racine, pour les analyser, pour définir l'usage que l'on peut et qu'on doit en faire, il me semble que tout cet effort est un effort à la fois politique et scientifique. Et l'idée que c'est se détourner de la politique que de se vouer, comme nous le faisons maintenant, à des activités proprement théoriques et spéculatives, je crois que cette idée est complètement fausse. Ce n'est pas parce que nous nous détournons de la politique que nous nous occupons de problèmes théoriques si étroits et si méticuleux, c'est parce qu'on se rend compte maintenant que toute forme d'action politique ne peut que s'articuler de la manière la plus étroite sur une réflexion théorique rigoureuse.

Not sure whether this adds anything, though its function was to serve as a 'bridge'. The (unintended?) consequence of that 'bridging', was to imply that Foucault said it and shortly therafter 'the US left' were parroting it. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Vindictive protectiveness

Added a summary of a new article in the Atlantic. Much more could be said, and the article contains many references that could be used.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the article isn't really about political correctness. In fact, the only section that mentions political correctness is here: "The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being." In other words, the authors briefly allude to their previous opinions on political correctness, but only to say that they believe trigger warnings are different (and even worse, which is saying something, coming from the president of FIRE.) I'd be cautious about relying on the one paragraph in there that mentions political correctness to source anything for this article, both because their main concern in that essay isn't political correctness, and because, well, one of them is the president of FIRE, whose views we already cover in the previous paragraph. Given that, I'm not sure it's a useful source for this article -- it would be more appropriate in an article on trigger warnings (or the section in Trauma trigger, anyway, since it lacks its own article.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a basic problem with the article: is it about the specific term "political correctness" or about an underlying social phenomena, the limiting of speech or behavior because it is continues the marginalization of a historically disadvantaged group? The current lack of focus is due to the former, including anything that anyone in the media has called "PC" even when it does not meet the criteria of the underlying phenomena. A backlash because the Dixie Chicks expressed a liberal view? Fringe science is not welcome in academia? Since when are country singers and white conservatives an historically disadvantaged group? I think the Vindictive protectiveness article has more to do with the underlying phenomena. It is proposing everyone as a potential member of a disadvantaged group, since everyone potentially has a "trigger" that might be activated.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with 'an underlying social phenomena', is that WE are then subjectively determining what is/is not PC. I also think that while the 'underlying social phenomena', may be (have been?) real, the use of the term PC to describe such actions, is largely confined to critics (a feminist decrying a certain word, attitude or practice is probably not going to use the term 'PC', she is going to be more exact and forceful in her objection). To that extent, the article has to be about the use of a term. I suggested above that it is possible to include 'notable examples' of incidents criticised as being 'PC', though the danger there is that we will end up with every trivial use of the term.Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt was on MSNBC Aug. 11 to discuss the Atlantic article under the show title "How political correctness is impacting colleges". That is a difficulty with the term, it is so ingrained in the public mind that even saying "this is not PC, but something new" frames the discussion and Haidt does not try to reframe it.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical canon

Aquillion, re. your quote: it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. Is this missing from the article? The (here only implied) accusation that 'gender studies' etc and changes to the mainstream curriculum were an 'attack' on academic values. At the moment, we largely concentrate on 'social' aspects.Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to use that specific quote as a basis for anything in the article, since it's just an aside in an essay about something else. My general feeling (again, given that one of the authors is the president of FIRE, which has a clear position on this topic that we already touch on) is that that paragraph is mostly a rhetorical device where they're referencing what they see as a past political conflict they were involved in in a 'reasonable' tone as part of a rhetorical flourish so they can say that they feel that trigger warnings are even worse. I do think that part of the difficulty in writing the article is that Greg Lukianoff might describe gender studies or the push for more diverse viewpoints as part of some unified push for "political correctness", but I don't think any of the people actually teaching within those fields generally would (and they would probably give different reasons than him for it.) We could try and find sources discussing that from various perspectives more directly, but again, I'm reluctant to rely on this one because here it's just mentioned in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't be deciding what is PC and what isn't, we should only use sources which mention PC. When writing about "notable examples", I agree with Pincrete that we should be careful not to just mention everything we can find. To do that we should make sure it's discussed in several reliable independent sources. And to reply to FriendlyFred, if our sources all mention political correctness we should be ok. Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I have not done as much work on this article is that the term has devolved into a rhetorical device. I don't see where there is any current sources that analyze all of the uses from a NPOV (As the Aufderheide book did in the 90s), which would be a basis for selecting and categorizing content from the current century. In the absence of such a source we are doing OR in selecting what is "really PC" or not; and including all the mentions of the term implying such a categorization is SYNTH. FriendlyFred (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, just to clarify, I wasn't intending to use your quote, I was 'leaving a marker' as an aspect of the subject currently missing. I am hampered because I have no access to any libraries of any kind (expat), only online resources. It is almost inevitable, that it is the accusers who will define actions as 'PC', since the term is almost always dismissive, at best. Nonetheless I think overall balance is achievable. Hypothetically, "when institution X added controversial subject, to its curriculum commentator Y observed "Blah blah blah". Institution X replied by pointing out etc."Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How did this article devolve?

Looking at the 2004 Featured Article version, it was once a readable article, although needing work in my opinion. The major missing piece would appear to be a dictionary definition in the lead. And I don't understand how the history of the term became divorced from a history of its usage.

So why not begin again with the Oxford English Dictionary?

"The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

This does not sound like a pejorative to me. PC can be "taken to extreme" (See National Association of the Deaf), but this does not mean the term is now synonymous with the "leftist language police", it is only conservatives who think so and use the term to attack liberal positions that some language does continue to "exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". However it is difficult to determine whether conservatives are saying that all liberal arguments are groundless because no insult is intended (or one can always find at least one liberal to be insulted by anything); or are they saying that anyone should be able to use any language whether it is insulting to others or not (also know as verbal harassment or bullying). Perhaps no one has a handle on the current meaning because there is no consensus among those that continue to use it.

I do not have the time to improve this article, my only interest is due to the term being used by many to argue about the topics of article that I do edit.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so it doesn't make sense for an article to lead with a dictionary definition... and the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article, which indicates, overall, that the term has never had any significant non-pejorative meaning (and that its usage in the modern day was mostly forced into the public discourse specifically to serve as a pejorative political attack.) If you want the lead to say that it wasn't always pejorative, or that it has significant non-pejorative usage today, you need to find usable secondary sources stating that -- pointing at a dictionary definition and then saying "this doesn't look pejorative to me" is original research, after all. Beyond that, the core problem with the article has always been poor sourcing; the 2004 version passed FA when standards were much lower; it had terrible sourcing and would never pass FA today. So we need to focus on removing badly-sourced or poorly-sourced sections, and on finding high-quality sources to build the rest of the article around. An additional problem is that (because the term is very popular among talking heads) the article is full of people dropping random examples, opinion-pieces, essays and so forth into it; this is part of the reason many sections of it have ended up so incoherent. So it's important to think about how to arrange the aspects worth covering, and to remove the bits that seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one controversy or opinion-piece. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

FriendlyFred, apart from our use of 'pejorative' (which I broadly agree with Aquillion about), and our using 'seen as excessively' rather than 'often considered as taken to extremes', our opening is inline with the OED definition already, isn't it?Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ... ps the only change which might make sense is to change 'IS a pejorative' to 'ordinarily used as a pejorative', there are enough examples of non-pejorative usage, to claim that the term is not inherently pejorative.Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is an article about the origin, meaning and usage of a term. A dictionary entry, particularly a descriptive definition, is a summary of the current usage of the term found by lexicographers. How is this OR? The WP is not a dictionary guideline states that an article begins with a definition of a topic and expands upon it. What better start than the dictionary?

• I came here to find out what the term means, but have had to drill down to the sources to do so. Perhaps I am just saying the article is poorly organized and the content does not appear to match what I have been reading in those sources. The article by Andrews (1996) is very helpful, contrasting Cultural Sensitivity (CS) and PC. While some may continue to use PC in the non-pejorative sense to refer to the implementation of CS with regard to language, that usage may now be in the minority, as per one of the more recent articles NPR. Conservatives have largely taken over the term to frame any discussion of Cultural Sensitivity as "just PC", often meaning "a few over-sensitive individuals have had their feelings hurt, but they have suffered no harm, or insufficient harm to infringe upon the right of free expression". What term can liberals now use to continue to discuss the words used by the majority or individuals in a position of power to insult or marginalize minorities?FriendlyFred (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what was meant was that concluding from a dictionary definition alone that a word was not pejorative was OR. I read 'your link', the author is complaining that the term has been 'hijacked', they are asking 'what is wrong with being political and being 'correct' in one's politics?', but fundamentally the piece is confirming that the term is ordinarily used in order to be dismissive or derogatory. A similar point is made by Polly Toynbee in our article.Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what I was seeking to clarify. The term PC no longer seems useful in conveying facts, if it ever was. It is like "tax relief" another term that conservatives use to frame the discussion of taxation as if it is always a burden unfairly imposed by the government, rather than an obligation citizens agree to share in order to maintain the common good. Political Correctness now frames another common good, civility in public discourse, as the unfair imposition of rules by "bleeding heart liberals". The moderate position, that sometimes objections to language are justified, and sometimes not, is hard to articulate given this polarization. The origins and prior meanings of PC are too prominent. I cannot know from reading the article which is the most common current meaning of the term, which is the only thing that interests me. Perhaps that is because there is none, and the term is a moving target. If there is no consensus in the real world how can there be one on WP? The only alternative is to attribute each statement to the author of its source, but in the absence of a RS that presents a NPOV, the cataloging of opinions tends toward SYNTH within sections with no overall sense.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think 'moving target' is exactly it, in the UK examples of what I have seen described as PC language include, the word 'gay', (actually originally a 'code word' used by gay people themselves, the word came out of the closet!), 'Collateral damage' (actually a military euphemism), 'cosmetically/intellectually etc. challenged' (actually 'mock PC' insults) etc. etc. etc. I think the most common modern use is derogatory, though I'm not sure it ever had much 'serious' use. The first use I came upon ('80s) was self-mockery (using 'significant other' instead of same/other/no sex, wife/husband/partner/lover/boy-girlfriend/whatever you call yourselves).Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

By definition things that are politically correct are things that mainstream media support, so since wikipedia relies on mainstream media citations nothing challenging any specific politically correct belief can get into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The above is incorrect on both counts: (1) PC is an element in the right-left culture wars, with many points of view on both sides in the mainstream media and (2) the best citations are academic analyses of these mainstream discussions.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

FriendlyFred, sorry the cn tag was my response to a vague, PoV, IP, comment. Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A talk page is for free discussion, thus the only meaningful response to nonsense is rebuttal, not the tags that would be used in an article.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seinfield redux

We should only include his comments if we include other comments on what he said, eg [4] and [5] by Dean Obeidallah. There's more of course. Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel that devoting an entire section to it is WP:RECENTISM that grants WP:UNDUE weight to his opinion. If we had a larger section with a wider variety of sources on other aspects, maybe he could get one sentence or so, but as it is it feels like an entire section is being devoted purely to his opinion -- it's hard to imagine that, a year or so from now, his comments will still be worth covering. Adding other people commenting on his comments would help a bit in terms of balance, but it would mean we're focusing even more attention on his personal opinions, which seems like a mistake. I mean, that's a risk throughout the article, but this section in particular was nothing but his opinion and reactions to it. Being well-known as a comedian doesn't make his comments automatically important or relevant here, at least not to the extent of devoting a whole section to them like this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion, that this is UNDUE and off-topic. This is pretty much a 'throw-away' remark by an individual on a talk-show. If we rephrased the sentence 'well known middle-aged comic believes that 20 year old college kids are too PC, because they don't laugh at his jokes anymore', it would give a better idea of the real weight of the remark. Including the criticism would improve matters, but is the page about Seinfeld? Comedy? Generational differences? Changes in what is acceptable humour? Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well - personally I don't think this should be in the article at all. In the long history and use of this term, this little episode/comment is pretty insignificant. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, the two responses to Seinfeld, discuss 'how things have changed' as well as him, I could see the potential for that as a worthwhile section, however the focus would need to move away from JS himself and critics to the broader issues, if the material supports such a section. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

This article is officially at the bottom of Wikipedia. I came here to learn about political correctness and I find an article constantly fighting to convince people that "it's not a bad thing", "people just don't understand it," and "It doesn't even exist." It reads like a definition that is followed by 10 pages of rebuttal from people who identify so much with liberalism they have to protect it to protect themselves.

You have cherry-picked your sources so hard you struggle wildly to even present a readable page.

All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for smearing the Wikipedia project with this filth. Wikipedia is better than this. YOU are better than this.

73.190.174.12 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations and constructive suggestions, it's always nice to be appreciated.Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

False Accusations

This section is completely subjective and biased and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.168.183 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)

What's subjective or biased about it? It cites reliable sources for everything it says. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It suggests that the news story about Baa Baa Black Sheep is untrue but the basis of the story that the words were changed IS true. "They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc." The whole point is that the words of the song were changed to make it meaningless. Black and white sheep exist. Pink and blue sheep dont. Black sheep are due to a genetic process of recessive traits and black wool is hard to sell. This is the meaning of the rhyme. The black sheep has "three bags full" because no one wants them. The idiom is thus deemed potentially racist - as meaning that black sheep are genetically inferior to white sheep. The words have been changed in a futile attempt to obscure this fact with the result that the rhyme has become meaningless. Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea the article is bang on the money. There were guidelines set out by Birmingham City Council stating the song should not be sung in schools. Where is the "false accusation" here? There was a policy to change the words and someone implemented a policy to change the words. The whole article is a patchwork of such retroactive after the fact denial and discontinuity by people who just can't cope with the fact that PC is a censorship agenda. It has no other purpose. And I disbelieve the statement in this article that the words were either pejorative and/or an in-joke. I remember the 1980s when comedy became "politically correct" and the words were about then and very real and not meant as a joke as they are and continue to be today. Utter biased rubbish. The worst of wikipediaAnthonyEMiller (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AnthonyEMiller, the main council at the centre of the 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' story was Hackney, where the nursery itself also did variants of the rhyme, it was never banned nor were the variants done to avoid racism - should a private nursery not be allowed to do this? Birmingham supposedly DID give an instruction that it not be taught, based on a single school inspector, which it immediately withdrew, in part because black parents themselves found the logic ridiculous. The 'Birmingham' BBC article gives a completely different origin of the rhyme and I suspect no one knows for sure if it actually ever meant anything. To complain about a censorship agenda while simultaneously decrying a private nursery for varying the words, for whatever reason (to teach children colours?), is a tad inconsistent don't you think?

What is the censorship agenda of PC? Which words are you 'not allowed to use', which you think you should be able to use? Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)