Talk:Political correctness/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Free Willy ?

this text move, caused me to ask myself whether THIS example adds anything. The text moved was:

"One example of criticism of language used in science, similar to criticism of language used in politics, was highlighted when zoologists Robert Pitman and Susan Chivers complained about popular and media negativity towards their discovery of two different types of killer whales, a "docile" type and a "wilder" type that ravages sperm whales by hunting in packs: "The forces of political correctness and media marketing seem bent on projecting an image of a more benign form (the Free Willy or Shamu model), and some people urge exclusive use of the name 'orca' for the species, instead of what is perceived as the more sinister label of 'killer whale'."

There are almost innumerable examples of things that have been described by someone, somewhere as being due to 'PC', but is the public preference for 'cute' animals - here being characterised by a single pair of zoologists as 'PC' - a significant use of the term? Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article needs more examples like these. This is a perfect example of PC being described as a force/philosophy as opposed to an insult. As I said before, a reader who comes to this article should have an understanding of the underlying concept of PC - not just it's use a pejorative. 22:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:49D1:FF07:3C4A:58B9 (talk)

If you want to cover that, though, you'd be better off finding sources talking about it directly, rather than relying on examples and synthesis between them to convey your take on the subject. It's hard to see the overarching significance of this one incident. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As a major worry, it appears to be a 100% copyvio of the text in Michael S Cummings book. Secondly it probably needs making more generic. Third, Cummings assertion is his opinion. The quoted source isn't clear where the statement is coming from, or its particular relevance, nor is there any evidence that what they claim is actually political correctness. Reading the context of the quote in the book and it appears to be one of dozens on a page from someone clubbing together accusations of political correctness. The actual quotation appears to be from a book "Terror In Black and White", Natural History, Page 29 and appears to be intentionally quote mined for the book as a gross list of claims of PC. Copy here for comparison. Here they are clearly demonstrating that this is their opinion, and it is unclear as to whether marketing or political correctness is of primacy. Not least the quoted subject does not italicise political correctness. It then goes on to demonstrate the seemingly vicious nature of the killer whale. The article on Killer Whales is better placed for this discussion under the Common names section (where it is not attributed to Political Correctness, but "Since the 1960s, "orca" has steadily grown in popularity; both names are now used. The term "orca" is euphemistically preferred by some to avoid the negative connotations of "killer",[11] and because, being part of the family Delphinidae, the species is more closely related to other dolphins than to whales.[12]" neither of which is strongly cited as an actual reason for using the correct species / genus. Koncorde (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've pulled it out for now. It's just one random example; devoting an entire paragraph to it doesn't make sense, and it's hard to see what it would add as just one sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Since someone has restored it... would they provide an explanation as to why? I don't see what it adds, and they didn't provide a rationale in their edit summary besides "discuss on talk", which we've already done. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I restored, only because a wholesale reversion doesn't really accomplish anything. It's currently the only example we have of a pc related controversy. Wouldn't it make sense to trim the section down rather than removing it entirely? Just my cents. In that vein, I was thInking the baa-baa black sheep section really serves no purpose. If we are worried about trivial examples, this is probably the most trivial in the entire article. I found only one source that mentions it in relation to pc at all. I believe this example should be removed before anything else. Starcader (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Baa Baa white sheep is probably the most infamous example of a tabloid PC story in the UK - it has its own section in a WP article and is covered in several books. Comparing that to a passing mention by a single journalist about the public's taste for 'cute' animals is pretty perverse. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actualy I am seeing more sourcing for the "Water Buffalo" incident (and the artwork to some extent) than I am for the BBWS example. I see no reason why we can't include both (or all). Just as the artwork or water buffalo incident is a single instance of a PC related controversy, so is the baaa has white sheep incident. No reason they both can't be included if they help illustrate the concept of PC. Starcader (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't indicate PC... they indicate someone used the words in conjunction with the incident which, has been said numerous times before, is a completely different thing. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The difference between the BBWS incident and the (couple of?) art incidents is that the first received very wide coverage in the UK over several years, and is covered in some books, whereas the art incidents barely got a mention. I agree with you that 'water buffalo' was a significant milestone in the US public debate and I am not averse to mentioning some incidents briefly somewhere in the 'history' section. It is standard practice when there is a linkable article (as is the case here), to keep coverage to a minimum on the main page. This is precisely how we deal with the 'big books' that sparked debate about US higher education. We don't do "illustrate the concept", when the underlying agenda seems to be "show how silly PC is". Of course examples of what critics call PC are usually presented in a way that makes them appear silly. The term is a perjorative intended to convey "I think this is a half-baked idea that puts form over substance, solves imaginary insults, protects 'snowflakes' and censors what I am allowed to say". Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Pincrete You bring up some very good points, and I want to address them. Alas I am at work and won't be available until later this evening. I just wanted to let you know I am still paying attention to the discussion and continue to appreciate your input. One small note, it appears BBWS has a linkable article, so perhaps we should pare down coverage on this page? Secondly, I don't think we necessarily have to illustrate how "silly" PC is. The only time PC is "silly" is when it is taken to excess. That's the difference between "courtesy" or "good manners" and political correctness. No one is going to be criticized for being "too respectful" or being "overly well-mannered". On the other hand PC becomes a pejorative only when taken to excess. Starcader (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The "only when taken to excess" argument might make sense if there had ever been a politician/political commentator who said "this is not PC enough", "that is just the right amount of PC". btw, there's no need to 'name' me, the article is on my watchlist. Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks

I removed this for a couple reasons. One, it seems to be UNDUE, and two (more importantly) it was primarily sourced to a blog. If there are objections go ahead and revert, but I really don't see the relevancy of this one. Starcader (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

user:IVORK like I said, I have no objection to your revert, but would U mind explaining how this particular example is relevant, particularly when partially sourced to a blog?. Thanks. Starcader (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'blog' sourcing is simply to establish background, the substantive content is solidly sourced. I myself heavily pruned that content some years ago to what I thought was a minimum to establishing context (which is basically the claim that conservatives have their own limits on what is 'allowed to be said'). I have no strong feelings either way about pruning/keeping or removing the Dixie Chicks content. There may be an unintended false balance here as 'conservative PC' has never achieved the same currency as 'progressive/left/liberal PC', which is definitely the prime subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Section is definitely a series of name dropping events, soundbites (Chrissy Teigen?) and occasionally unrelated or weakly related (Harris Poll) subject matter. Koncorde (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed Harris poll, the connection I agree is very tenuous and I believe that the 'media 'clean-up' is typically consevative' point is made elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Brophy thesis

I've removed a chunk of material dedicated to a master's thesis by Christine Brophy. The coverage the thesis is given seems highly undue for this article, especially given the weak secondary sourcing provided--a single post on the blogging network of Scientific American's website, and Big Think, a publication with no apparent editorial control. Because Brophy is also used to support factual claims about the relation between compassion and PC, it should be noted that theses are only considered reliable if they have had significant scholarly influence, which does not appear to be the case here. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 02:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like it was excessive to me. I've been pointing this out elsewhere, but WP:RS actually discourages relying on individual recent research papers as sources anyway (even if they're otherwise immaculate sources, any really important paper should have either secondary coverage or be part of something we can find a bunch of sources for.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was able to locate additional sourcing, a psychology today article:https:www.psychologytoday.com/blog/clear-organized-and-motivated/201712/kids-would-you-please-lower-your-weapons%3famp and a medium.com article as well: https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/sjwism-emotion-free-speech-and-violence-94ff367452ca. Would these two sources be considered reliable secondary supporting sources? Second question, is the psychology today article useable as a source itself for the entry? It discusses how Brophy concludes that PC is indeed an applied concept as opposed to simply a label. Starcader (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What about it's criticism of the Cornell paper's thesis? I mean the Cornell paper (Goncalo et al) is just one paper, sourced from a university website. Brophy et al criticizes it, which is why it was added. Otherwise I'd remove Goncalo et al as well, since it doesn't seem to have significant scholarly influence (30 citations in 2 years according to Google, yet I don't think many of those are testing its hypothesis and are just citing it to back up their own arguments instead). I suppose I could dig into Brophy et al and cite all the sources it uses for its criticisms of Goncalo et al if it was really necessary. Sdio7 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit of background might be useful here as to why I think Cornell was added (not by me!). Occasionally (sociological or behavioural) researchers use the term 'PC' as a shorthand for a specific set of conditions under which they carry out their research. They define what they mean by 'PC' for their specific research (since it is not an objectively defined, or self-evident term).

From the point of view of this article, the key question IMO is not whether the Cornell findings were vindicated or not, but rather whether the sourcing is strong enough to justify an example of a distinct use of the term. This article is about the use of the term 'PC', not about the (chimera?) phenomenon 'PC', therefore necessarily, not about whether 'PC' is a + or - thing. I have no strong opinions either way except that the content - if used - should focus on the use of the term, rather than whether Cornell's findings were endorsed or not.Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this artticle about the term and not the phenomenon? Should it not encompass both? Starcader (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Because the phenomenon does not exist, except to the same extent that 'Uncle Toms' or 'Snowflakes' exist. As a term used to characterise someone/something that the speaker disagrees with. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, those other terms are just insults. It seeems we are going in circles. There are sources (like the one that we are discussing) that state quite clearly the phenomenon does exist. I see no reason why these sources should not be mentioned in the article. The other terms you mentioned are simply insults. The Cornell study (among others) talks about whether or not PC is a good thing. Starcader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If the section is supposed to be about what the term means in research, then I'd suggest removing the "Use in research" section entirely. Golanco et al's definition of PC was different to Brophy et al's, so we have two competing definitions - Golanco's was about norms discouraging sexist behavior while Brophy et al was about language preventing people from being offended. As a result I'd either simply remove the current content and just talk about how the term is ambiguous to researchers or remove it entirely. Personally I'd prefer to pull it entirely if the article is indeed supposed to be about the term, .

However, if the section is going to be about research into political correctness then I think Brophy et al should be restored - I see no reason why it can't be there when Golanco et al can be. This is only if the section is to be about research into political correctness as a phenomenon. Sdio7 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the key arguments I've been making all along. This article has 25 talk pages trying to improve it. I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a section about research into PC as a phenomenon if that's what the sources support. ---- Post left unsigned by Starcader

This is the first time you have mentioned it in 25 pages. Have you proposed a single paper for inclusion? Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look above there are a number of sources I mentioned (including a book-length academic study) discussing the phenomenon of PC. Additionally if you simply google "Does Political Correctness exist?" You will find a wealth of sources arguing both sides of the argument. Regardless of whether you or I think it exists, there is enough discussion of the matter to warrant inclusion of this discussion into the article. Starcader (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If you Google "Did Hitler really invade Poland" you probably get lots of hits! A section such as you propose would necessarily be what critics say "PC" is and why they object to it and refutations. Much of that material is already there, in terms of the key issues around which the term has been used historically. Instead of abstract arguments about what 'PC' is, why not propose specific text which you feel covers material which is missing. The book you mentioned, AFAIK, does not cover the 'phenomenon of PC', nor has any source I encountered since becoming involved with this article. You appeared to acknowledge in an earlier response that you had not read that book. There are many studies covering how the term has been used and issues around which use of the term has congregated, but that is not the same thing as studying 'the phenomenon'. Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete, you will find that there is very little debate over the fact that Hitler invaded Poland. There is a large amount of debate as to whether PC exists as a phenomenon. Enough debate, imo to warrant inclusion into the article. I am taking about the discussion as to whether it exists or not - not about taking sides one way or another. 22:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose text! In the same way that we summarise the key issues that D'Souza and others objected to in their 1990s books, there is no reason to not include the key objections/characterisations made by those who describe/decry 'PC'. I don't think there are book sources that support characterisation as a 'phenomenon' a 'philosophy' or similair, but in the last resort, if the text proposed is neutral and RS'd, and given due weight, nobody is going to object to inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok if the article is then about the term PC as a term I'm going to go ahead and remove the "Use in research" section, since the information cited there aims to study PC as a phenomenon. Sdio7 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sidio do you mind holding off a bit until we reach a consensus? Starcader (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

user:Sdio7, user:Starcader The section being discussed is not research into 'PC', it is use of the term in research which occasionally happens, sometimes as a 'shorthand' accessible term. For example if a behavioural researcher uses the term 'PC' in relation to some manifestation of behaviour, that doesn't have much bearing on what 'PC' is in the world outside, anymore than if they used the shorthand term 'conservative' it would affect the ordinary understanding of that word. We can choose to include or exclude the use as a valid use of the term of course. I'm neutral on that one. The section, as I recall, was included by an editor who wanted to make the point that the term is used sometimes outside the public/political arena. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If the section is about how the term is used, then should we shorten it down? Golcano et al got a reasonable summary (from me) but that now seems excessive if it's just about where it's used in research. I would just mention that it is used in research and then link a couple of sources in that case. Sdio7 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think Golcano AND Brophy should get a brief mention. Starcader (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, citing individual studies in an effort to illustrate a broad trend isn't a good way to cover a topic (we're giving WP:UNDUE weight to these studies and the specific interpretations used by their authors.) Regardless of what we're going to cover in the article, it would be better covered by trying to find secondary sources that summarize the entire issue - ie. if you want to talk about "PC as a phenomenon", the appropriate approach isn't to string together individual research papers (this has the same WP:SYNTH problems as individual events), but to zoom out and find the secondary sources that cover the broad topic, which ought to exist if it's worth covering. Then we can rely on those for our framing and description, rather than trying to do the research ourselves by squinting at abstracts and trying to characterize how one or two papers like this tackle the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Would this work as a secondary source? It's from Scientific American and mentions in detail the Brophy thesis: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/ 2602:306:330B:7B00:3491:8878:3C09:EE1A (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a Master-level thesis is not enough to qualify as resesarch by an established scholar, unless Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. AadaamS (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a secondary source that simply mentions the study itself. I am assuming this is usable. Starcader (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Starcader, per WP:BURDEN and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, how is it demonstrated that the Brophy report is WP:RS? AadaamS (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the Scientific American source being RS. Starcader (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So would it be an acceptable secondary source for Aquiiion mentioned above? Starcader (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable for what content? No source is RS in all circumstances. It certainly isn't secondary coverage in an authorative/academic work of the kind mentioned by Aquillion. The Sc Am piece is a blog, which means any authority it had would rest on the authority of the blogger (rather than Sc Am). AFAI can see the author writes 'self-help' books and articles and has little authority in this subject area, but I don't see what you want to include, the Sc Am article seems bland and not to say anything much not already said in the article.

Pairing down D'Souza content

Also, (and perhaps this should be moved to a new section) why is D'Souza featured so prominently in this article? He is a supporting player at best and should probably be removed from the lede.Starcader (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Historical sequence, D'Souza is one of the 3/4 'million copies +' sellers around the time that the term first became prominent in US. He, Bloom and a few others are mentioned in almost all books on the subject. Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree he deserves a mention in the history section, but not in the lede. Again, to present some sense of balance, I think we need to have some more neutral commentstors discussing how PC CAN be a pejorative when taken to extremes (like the Obama quote), but how it is quite the opposite in certain situations. That's why I feel the lede can keep the pejorative component as long as the pejorative is in reference to the policy gone overboard. The sources I am reading liken it to sensitivity. One can be insensitive and one can be hypersensitive. These are the type of stories you will typically read about. In some ways PC can be viewed as sacrificing the wants of the many for the sensitivities of the (typically underprivileged or underrepresented) few. Not a bad thing necessarily. The challenge is in applying these changes. It becomes difficult to say how far is too far. So i honestly don't think we are that far apart in our thinking. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:8CB0:4613:4D28:A2F3 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza is one of the most vocal, and high profile individuals to have pretty coined and defined the pejorative use of the term. Koncorde (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

IP (Starcader?), find book length academic sources that support that position! Otherwise we are dealing with individual editor's interpretation of, selectively chosen, primary sources (which is basically the score with the Obama 'quote'). We don't write articles about conservatism, liberalism, or any other political term based on a handful of recent quotes that support a particular position. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Section on debate over modern usage and meaning

Since it appears, for the time, we will not be adding any examples of PC related controversies, what is everyone's feelings on a section entitled "Debate over modern usage and meaning" I was thinking of using sources like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/11/16/america-revisits-political-correctness/#628f41ec2de7 . My thinking was the (brief) section could discuss how the meaning of PC has been rather fluid, and there is some debate as to whether it is purely a pejorative. Something about the thought process or philosphy (for lack of a better word) behind some policies that have been labeled as PC. We don't have to use any examples, just a broader discussion of the debate over how PC affects culture, education, etc as supported by secondary sources. Starcader (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Any comments on adding a section entitled "Debate over modern usage and meaning"? Starcader (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're asking an abstract question, to which noone can give a concrete answer until they see what is proposed and what sources it uses. As I've said before, anecdotally we can all find uses other than use as a political 'denigrator', but they are anecdotal and usually outside of public political debate.

The Forbes piece above specifically endores the use as a pejorative. Speaking during the recent US Presidential election, he writes "Donald Trump and Ben Carson—have made “anti-P.C.” rhetoric central to their campaigning, with Trump declaring during the first primary debate that “the big problem this country has is being politically correct" … … … "Critics warn of a resurgent political correctness that threatens to suffocate free expression and leaves young people unprepared for the real world" … … … "What, exactly, does “political correctness” mean? In the 1980s and ‘90s, the term was a sarcastic reference to Maoist or Stalinist thought police, popularized largely by conservatives in order to deride the liberal-led orthodoxy. Detractors claimed that P.C. campaigns often went to absurd lengths, turning P.C. accusations into one more feature of the roiling culture wars waged among politicians and activists. These ideological debates continue today—and are still the first thing most Americans over age 40 associate with the term." I simply don't see a significantly different modern meaning there. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete if you continue to read the article it also says: "The current incarnation of the movement, however, is focused inward. P.C. policies today are supported and reinforced by an increasingly diffuse “victimhood culture” that transcends ideology. Conservatives as well as liberals champion these policies, which are less often about enforcing a worldview or uplifting oppressed groups than about protecting individuals from emotional distress—for example, when Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee urged students to steer clear of any Halloween costumes with the potential to offend. Also to be avoided are “microaggressions”: subtle displays of racial or sexual bias." There is a continued discussion about how PC is an outgrowth of a more sympathetic culture as well. The artilce continues: "Ultimately, Millennials view political correctness not so much a partisan stance as it is a way of life. Their crusades for emotional security in the classroom are a symptom of the much bigger movement underway to push the culture at large in a kinder, gentler direction. The sensitivity training sessions and less edgy comedians seen so often at schools today haven’t been forced on students; they want them. ". Starcader (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually D'Souza emphasised 'victimhood culture' back in the early 1990s, but that isn't the point. What is specifically characterised as 'PC' may have shifted (micro-aggressions, safe places, instead of curriculum changes and speech codes), but that doesn't alter the general def. Actually there were several articles in the US in recent years detailing the return of the term and its application to 2010 policies in education (many of them took an "it's that same old deja vu again" approach). I don't see how you are going to find a distinctive modern meaning (as opposed to distinctive modern applications), from a few passing phrases, but by all means try. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Related but unrelated, can we do away with the "2016 US presidential election" section and make a more general "Politics" section or at least look at some better way to deal with the Conservative Political Correctness. The "modern usages" order possibly doesn't lead well, or flow in an easy way. Koncorde (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The one thing that might be relevant about the 2016 section, is the resurgence of the term. Otherwise I agree, Trump's misconduct in particular doesn't seem relevant. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One note about the Obama quote - I think it should stay in because it makes the distinction between "policies defined as PC" being =/= to "PC itself". The article needs to do a better job of making that distinction because it is an important one. Starcader (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Starcader (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Except it isn't clear that Obama used the term at all, except in the sentence where Obama says that, avoiding the N-word and derogatory references to women, isn't in his opinion PC, simply good manners. The interviewer seems to be the one using the term. By implication, the term is being used in the interview to mean 'coddling' of the young and hypersensitivity to insult.Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, however keep in mind there is a diffference between a politician not being a supporter of "PC gone overboard" as opposed to being unsupportive of a policy simply being labeled as PC. The Obama quote helps illustrate that. The interviewer specifically used the word political correctness in his question to Obama and the secondary source also directly comments on Obamas response to the PC question. Starcader (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you see the first bit where Obama says "If you're defining political correctness as a hypersensitivity" which is the crux of many of the ways the phrase is often thrown around. Your quote section is now an utter mess grammatically by the way. It has both a lead in sentence explaining the quote, and then a completely different summary reason for the quote. Koncorde (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

user:Koncorde I agree wholeheartedly. Grammar is not my strong suit. Could you give me a suggestion as to improving the way the quote is presented. I am open to any ideas or feel free to do it yourself. Starcader (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Obama Quote

Unfortunately I had not had chance to read the quote, or the principle article to this point due to lack of time. Now having had chance and even if I ignore the grammatical problems, and the COPYVIO quoting the opinion of a commentator in Wikipedias voice, I also find the slant upon the quotation to have been selective. The leaving out of the term "narrowly" I find particularly problematic (as the full quote was not provided by The Hill, I went to NPR to actually read the transcript, which suggests whoever did insert it took it from a source leaving that word out, or removed it themselves).

Couple of other things Mr. President: Is President-elect Trump right that political correctness in this country has gone too far? We've discussed campus debates here...

Yeah, we have. We have, and this is a tricky issue and here's why: Because the definition of political correctness is all over the map. And I suspect the president-elect's definition of political correctness would be different than mine. If what's meant by political correctness is that there is some broad disapproval that's expressed when somebody uses a racial epithet, or somebody makes a derogatory comment about women, or about the LGBT community, and people say, "Hey, you shouldn't do that. That's wrong, that's cruel, that's hurtful. Here's the history of that word." And when you use words like that, you're reinforcing people feeling like they're outsiders, and less than other Americans.

I don't consider that political correctness. I consider that good manners, sound values and hard-fought gains in the nature of American society and American community. I think it's a good thing that we don't think that using the "n" word is socially acceptable. I think it's a good thing that we don't refer to women in derogatory ways — because I have a couple of daughters, and I don't want them to feel that way.

Now, if you're narrowly defining political correctness as a hypersensitivity that ends up resulting in people not being able to express their opinions at all without somebody suggesting they're a victim, you know, if sort of, our social discourse and our political discourse becomes like walking on eggshells so that if somebody says "You know what, I'm not sure affirmative action is the right way to solve racial problems in this country," and somebody's immediately accused of being racist, well, then I think you have a point.

Although I happen to approve of affirmative action, but I think that I can have a polite dialogue with somebody who differs from me on that issue. And so, on the one hand, my advice to progressives like myself, and this is advice I give my own daughters who are about to head off to college, is don't go around just looking for insults. You're tough. If somebody says something you don't agree with, just engage them on their ideas. But you don't have to feel that somehow because you're a black woman that you're being assaulted. But speak up for yourself, and if you hear somebody saying something that's insulting, feel free to say to that guy, "You know what? You're rude" or "you're ignorant" and take them on.

But the thing that I want to emphasize here though is, the irony in this debate is often-times you'll hear somebody like a Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative commentators, or you know, radio shock jocks, or some conservative politicians, who are very quick to jump on any evidence of progressives being "politically correct," but who are constantly aggrieved and hypersensitive about the things they care about, and are continually feeding this sense of victimization, and that they are being subject to reverse discrimination.

Look, I had to live through controversies like the notion that I was trying to kill Christmas. Right? Well, where'd that come from? Well, you know, "He said 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas,' so that must be evidence of him either not being a Christian or not caring about Christmas." It sounds funny now, but you'll have entire debates in conservative circles around that. So it cuts both ways. And my advice to young people, and my advice to all of us as citizens, is to be able to distinguish between being courteous and being thoughtful and thinking about how words affect other people and not demonizing others versus having legitimate political debates and disagreements.

This is a significantly more nuanced response. Koncorde (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the quote so it accurately reflects exactly what was reported in the Hill, and also fixed any potential COPYVIO issues. Starcader (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Perceived in definition

I noticed the dictionary definition uses the word "perceived". This is a small but important distinction. Offense, just like "PC" is a relative term. I believe the perceive term should stay. Starcader (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not in the Cambridge English Dictionary definition, though. And generally speaking, the important thing is that our lead summarizes the article as a whole, which doesn't seem to take that angle. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But it is a perception of offense. And even the Cambridge def uses the word could. I think the sourcing in general agrees with the perception angle. Starcader (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion already went over this. Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it unnecessary, rather than wrong. All offence is perceived as there's no such thing as 'objective' offense. We aren't limited to dictionaries, but even so, only a small number of them use the word. In 10 minutes, someone is inevitably - and quite rightly - going to be adding a tag - 'perceived'.Pincrete (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, the lede is inaccurate and incomplete. It only describes PC as an adjective and label. As a way to describe a policy. We have numerous reliable sources defining it as a noun and ideology. If you look at the dictionary.com definition: "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology: and Miriam-Webster: "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated" Free dictionary: " Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation." and finally oxford dictionary: "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." Why are we willfully ignoring this definition of the term? By omitting this definition from the lede and article, we are not giving the reader an accurate sense of what the term means. One other note - the Cambridge definition for the American use of the term is as follows: "avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive": Starcader (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence says "Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race". We simply don't need to insert a 'perceived'/seen as/thought of' into every mention, for reasons of readability and the effect of doing so is to 'weasel' the impication that none of the actions which have attracted the term have ever had any substance - that these are all simply 'over-sensitivity' on someone's part. Which is not neutral nor clear.

I sympathise with your 'ideology' argument to this extent, when a person, policy or practice is described as 'PC', it is certainly not being described as 'right/correct' in any normal sense. It is not only the person/policy which is being characterised, also the thinking behind it, which is usually seen as being rigid, misguided, or more concerned with being seen to show respect/sensitivity, than actually just doing so. That doesn't make it an ideology, except in the eyes of the critic. The term is similar to 'doctrinaire', where the thinking behind the person/policy is being criticised, not just the policy itself. The problem is avoiding WP:OR to incorporate that element. I have several times said that what we lack here are the reasons critics don't like 'P.C'.

We are bound to properly summarise the article in the lead, not to follow dictionaries, and certainly not the Free Dictionary. The free dictionary says of 'liberal': a. Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded. See Synonyms at broad-minded. ..... Tending to give freely; generous .... b. Generous in amount; ample Would anyone really want that as the lead on 'liberalism'? Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

We had this dictionary discussion already it was tired and stale then. Koncorde (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete, I understand your point. My concern is the current article doesn't describe what political correctness is. It starts off with the sentence "Political correctness is used to describe language, policies,...." It only describes PC as an adjective/label. It does not define the concept. People reading this article want to know what Political Correctness is, not just what it describes. I believe this needs to be fixed. Starcader (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That is what it is. It is a concept. An idea. Koncorde (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, but the article does not define what the concept is. It only explains what the term is used to describe. There is a difference. Starcader (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence...? Koncorde (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh dear, how often does one need to say the same thing. "It does not define the concept" - what else are the opening two sentences then? IMO a neutrally stated summary, which is largely dependent on the balance of good dictionary sources and academic comment. But Hey!!! One minute you complain that we are not slavishly following the wording of your favourite dictionary def - the next you complain that we aren't elucidating the concept or philosophy (errrr where are the balance of dictionaries - or other RS sources - which describe 'PC' as either?)

If the article does not define the concept in terms you like, that's mainly because the 'concept' -in the sense of a belief system - does not exist, except in the minds of critics, who are almost the only people using the term in that sense.

The core beliefs, concepts and values of liberalism or conservatism, you can define, because thousands of books have been written by those who believe in these values - or have been written about by others about those values and beliefs. Find me instances of politicians/commentators writing books/articles where they say "I believe in 'PC', there needs to be more of it. Here, read this book 'cos this will explain what we believe". Find me instances of politicians/commentators saying "this is potentially a good idea, but it's only fault is that it isn't 'PC' enough". Find me instances of where they say "this, on the other hand, has just the right amount of'PC'". Hen's teeth are easier to track down.

We can (and we do to some extent) identify the issues around which the term has been used. We could identify why critics disapprove. We cannot extrapolate what either you or I would like the article to say. The article is about a term, the term is subtler in its use than cuckservative or 'Uncle Tom', but it is ultimately in the same category, it exists to denigrate the character, thinking and actions which one disapproves of. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But the concept does exist. We are doing the readers of this article a disservice if we don't define what the term "Political Correctness" actually means. We are only defining what it describes. This is also supported by sources - it's not just apocryphal. Again, if you look at the dictionary.com definition: "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology: and Miriam-Webster: "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated". The article needs to include these definitions of the term. And PC is not juse used by critics, or to denigrate. There are plenty of examples of s television show, or policy being described as "not very PC' or "politically incorrect". Finally, we can certainly say in the article that some commentators maintain that the concept of PC does not exist. But we need to talk about the other side - those who do feel it exists.69.75.200.170 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But the concept does exist. Who said it didn't? I said the 'concept' -in the sense of a belief system - does not exist, it does not exist as Fascism, liberalism, anarchism, Marxism etc exist - as documented movements with histories and evolved political ideologies with stated beliefs and values (and nameable adherents?).

We are doing the readers of this article a disservice if we don't define what the term "Political Correctness" actually means. .... Err what on earth is the first paragraph?

This conversation is stale, if people want to consult the freedictionary or dictionary.com, they are free to do so (I do so occassionally), the sheer range of distinct dictionary defs (almost all of which endorse it being derogatory, or emphasise the 'perceived as doctrinaire' elements), means that even to the extent that we rely on dictionaries, we have to summarise the 'key' elements of all to come up with a reasonably concise and coherent lead (eg Webster's : "holding orthodox liberal political views: usually used disparagingly to connote dogmatism etc … … … New College version : "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".)

We cannot write articles about how terms may be used to describe TV shows, or any other 'private/local' uses. The article is necessarily about use in public political discourse.

Find text that is sourced and which improves the article, makes the def more coherent and complete .... I don't see you doing that, only replacing stuff you don't like with muddled non-neutral stuff you do like and going round in circles on talk. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete, all i man suggesting is a simple change in verbage. Get rid of the "used to describe" and "used to refer" and replace with "Political Correctness is the belief..." or "Political Correctness is marked by..". This is more accurate, certainly more neutral, and more inline with what the sources say. We are not talking about a major change, but rather a minor one that goes a long way toward improving the article. Starcader (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Except the balance of even good dictionary defs don't refer to a 'belief' and no academic sources do. The balance of even dictionary defs refer to avoidance in language and actions and most are clear that the term is ordinarily critical, implying 'excess' or dogmatism or misguided-ness. We know Christianity is a belief, because people say "I'm a Christian, read our book!" Since the primary purpose of a lead is to summarise an article, where exactly in the article are the tenets, creed and values of this 'belief' expounded? Answer, nowhere, because they cannot be. Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete here are the three definitions we reference at the end of the first sentence: From Cambridge dictionary: "Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided. From Oxford Dictionary: "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". From Mirriam-Webster: "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated". There is no question about it - if we don't label PC as a belief, then "perceived" or "could" should be in the lede. This is what the sources reflect. Starcader (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"can be seen" = "perceived" = "could". Grammatically it makes no sense in the first sentence however you keep trying to wedge it in because the first sentence is about the application. The second sentence is about the evolving change in the use of the term to a more generic concept. The third line is summary of that evolution. Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Mirriam-Webster and Cambridge definitions don't use 'perceived' to refer to the potential offense. But, regardless, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not to present a dictionary definition. The article as a whole basically describes the "political correctness debate" as something that started in the 1980's as a snappy catch-phrase used by conservative think-tanks to push against what they saw as left-wing bias in academia, which spread over time as a general political slur for anyone who was too "easily offended" - because that is, on the whole, what the sources that go into depth on the term say. It has broad usage, so we can find people using it in all sorts of ways, and obviously for it to work for the purpose those think-tanks pushed it into the mainstream for they had to assert that it represented some sort of broad culture or conspiracy (as the article covers in its "as a conspiracy theory" section), but on the whole the overwhelming majority of sources describe it as what we'd now call a "forced meme" rather than something that reflects any underlying reality outside of its use by angry talking heads. It feels like you're trying to use wording tweaks, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH to imply that political correctness is a Real True Ideology that serves as a Serious Threat to Western Civilization or the like, and that's just not what the vast majority of sources say. It's a political slur that was created (in its present form) by think-tanks in the 80's and 90's to serve a specific line of attack; from there, it has slowly spread to broader and more diverse usage, but on the whole the sources don't back the idea that this "PC Culture" thing was real outside of the caricatures drawn by the frothy think-tank types. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, I genuinely appreciate what you are saying, and understand where you are coming from. You seem to be someone who is at least trying to approach this from a cooperative angle. If you look at my previous talk page comments, you will notice that I never implied that PC was a threat to civilization or even a Bad Thing, unless taken to excess. That also seems to what many of the sources say as well. In any event, my opinion is not important. One thing that is important is the lede sentence and it's dictionary sources. The definitions that don't use the word "perceived" do refer to PC as a "belief" (or say it is characterized by a belief). Literally none of the sources referred to in the lede sentence say anything like "PC is used to describe...". The lede sentence is simply not accurate, nor does it reflect the sources. By adding one or two words, this could be changed and the article improved, yet every time someone (and it hasn't just been me) attempts to do so, their efforts are reverted by the same editors. Starcader (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It has just been you, at least in the last 18 months anyway. The dictionary Defs provided in the lease are there solely because people kept removing content, however they are not the only sources being used for those definitions. They are just the blatantly obvious ones.

Wikipedia is not a DICDEF. What you have tried to insert does not revolutionise the content, it just duplicates meaning or fundamentally changes the grammatical structure in such a way that it no longer follows any structure. The three words "could be seen" are a synonym for "could be perceived". Koncorde (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Starcader, try going to the Marxism, Conservatism, or indeed any other political concept or ideology and saying "but the lead doesn't match what the (online) dictionary says!'. You would be laughed off the page in minutes, because dicts (especially very basic ones) and encycs fulfil completely different purposes.

You are also very selective about which elements you insist must be included from dictionary defs, (emphasising 'belief', emphasising language changes, emphasising 'perceived" offence or injustice - what other kind is there?) … and which elements you are happy to ignore (supporting a program of broad social, political and educational changes, esp to redress historical injustices ..... doesn't that sound nice? Gosh I wish I was 'PC"). It wasn't me that inserted the current dictionary refs, and most WP articles would not use dictionary defs, but there were many editors watching at the tine of the insertion, and they were happy that the phrasing coherently, and reasonably concisely, reflected not simply the 'common turf' of reasonably good dictionaries but also of academic sources about the subject. No opening para is going to say everything, but ours succeeds in covering the main points in a reasonably coherent fashion. It used to be more coherent, but that's another story.

It says "used to describe", because, unlike an established idea like 'Marxism', or a material thing like 'apple', no one can agree what 'PC' is - or if it exists. To some critics, it's an ideology that threatens to undermine educational standards, free speech and free thought and impose some liberal-gobbledygook-Newspeak. To other critics, it's an absurdity in which people are encouraged to see themselves as victims by wishy-washy liberals who have nothing better to do with their time than worry about which minority might be offended most. To some comentators, it's a 'phantom phenomenon', invented by right-wingers solely to detract public attention from substantial issues. Usually, or very commonly, the people accused, have no idea what the accuser is talking about, since they thought they had a perfectly sensible reason for what they did, which had nothing to do with 'PC'. If you can find a more concise way to communicate that doubt than 'used to describe', you are welcome to suggest it! Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am puzzled. I am being abused for reasons I don't understand.

I just recently reverted a removal of some sourced text here that had been accompanied by an Edit summary that said "she actually says iy is one of their 10 'codewords'". My Edit summary was straightforward, simply saying what I have just said here. The text was then very quickly again removed with another, to me, cryptic, and obviously abusive Edit summary of "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith."

I have no idea what's going on. I don't understand those Edit summaries. Have I stepped into the middle of some secret, American political manoeuvring ( I am an ignorant Australian), with the expectation that the whole world understands the insider language? I have asked the reverter of my revert for an explanation, but got no response.

What was wrong with my Edit? Did I truly stuff up? What do those Edit summaries mean? Was the second one meant to be offensive, and should I care? HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The content was removed with the edit summary "off=topic"[1] as it looks a clear and obvious intent to leverage a single opinion something into an unrelated subject. It was thrown in at the start of the section with no context. I would say correctly removed. You subsequently reverted two edits by Pincrete, the second one being a clarifying edit.

Calton then came along and saw a user reverting, with what seemed like an edit summary that was being obtuse. His response was therefore a bit testy, but only because (from my perspective) he saw your response as intentionally goading Pincrete. Koncorde (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't. I had no ill intent. And Calton assumed I did. I still really have no idea what I seem to have walked into the middle of. My Edit summary was simple, clear and polite. Others weren't. I still suspect American political allegiances may be playing their role here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So my edit summary was both "cryptic" AND "obviously abusive"? Neat trick there, for you to be simultaneously confused AND absolutely certain about the same thing.

I had no ill intent. People here to Right Great Wrongs never -- in their own minds, at least -- have "ill intent", so that's a meaningless statement. --Calton | Talk 13:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Being told I have an ax (sic) to grind is hardly a compliment. I was not trying to right any great wrongs. I simply saw sourced text removed, with a meaningless Edit summary, and restored it. Then I got insulted for doing so. You seem to be assuming things about me that just aren't true. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As a Brit, and I suspect Pincrete is also, very unlikely any issue with politics in the US. Calton can speak for their selves. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the comment about "things not being better before PC" re Trump's alleged sexual 'misbehaviour', because it seemed to have little to do with 'PC' as a subject or term and more to do with Trump/trends in sexual mores. I had suggested removing it some weeks ago in the discussion about that section (2016 Pres Election) above. I added the word 'key' to the entry about alt right use of the term 'PC', because the writer actually lists the word as "is one of their 10 'codewords", without the addition, we are actually simply saying that altright (sometimes) use the term - not very informative, as almost everyone sometimes uses the term. I thought the addition a reasonable summary of the source. AFAI am concerned, the only value to the section is that the term 'resurfaced' in the 2016 US election.

HiLo48, you are probably unaware, but we have a 'general' rule here that examples of use are excluded, there being so many on such a multitude of subjects and we largely limit ourselves to commentatory about the term. Yep, Koncorde was right, I have no involvement in US politics - and don't even currently have a vote anywhere on the planet - apart from WP - (ex-pat UK citizen).Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, there may have been no ill will intended by the two writers, but I have to say that the two Edit summaries I mentioned at the start of this thread are still completely confusing to me. They simply did not justify the removal of the text at each point, and seemed to assume I knew something that I clearly didn't, and being told I have an ax (sic) to grind is obviously a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the edit summaries you mentioned added content, not removed. The edit that removed content, as I pointed out, was the one prior which pointed out the content was off topic. It really had nothing to do with the 2016 election and was more about Trump himself, no real addition to the topic of Political Correctness was being made. Koncorde (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the piece is at least about political correctness. It's using Trump as an example, but if you scroll down, it says eg. The critique of “political correctness” is rooted in the idea that “free speech” is a matter of not just legal protections but social norms. If there are social norms that discourage particular people from speaking, or particular opinions from being expressed, that will deter people from participating in public discourse and have a chilling effect on speech. But speech norms have always existed, in one form or another. It’s just a matter of who has been discouraged from speaking — whose speech has been chilled. --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't - and wouldn't I hope - give any 'rude' edit reasons, particularly not to a newcomer to the page. If people think that the Trump 'sexual allegations' text is valid content - so be it, let it go back in. I thought it had no defenders and added little to the page. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Victoria wood, and other uses for comical effect...

I am presuming that the IP introduced the reference to Victoria Wood on the basis of her song Alternative Tango (which is a song about euphemisms for masturbation after 'wanker' being made out of bounds due to political correctness). While finding a reliable source to reference it is one thing, it must be said that for artists and comedians in particular political correctness is one of their main targets. In particular the whole Alf Garnett / Al Murray situation where they play characters who people identify with in both an unironic and ironic way. We list a few satirical bits in the section but they are a little throwaway and light, and I suspect that there is better out there to represent this content. Koncorde (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more a case of PC being an excuse for writing the song, (the supposed banning of a list of abusive terms by the EU) rather than even being a real satire on 'PC'. I agree, the connection to PC is very tenuous and the example exemplifies almost nothing except the talent of V Wood. BTW, for those not from the UK-sphere, 'wanker' is a generic term of abuse for a useless person, as well as its literal meaning - someone who masturbates. Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that we can't realistically list every time anyone has ever used the term for comical effect, so we have to consider WP:DUE weight for each. This one is (AFAIK) not particularly high-profile and doesn't provide much insight into the topic. Although, that said, we might consider trimming parts or all of that section to begin with. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A Politically Correct Article about Political Correctness?

The issue is Freedom of Speech, and not anyone's definition of the "disadvantaged." Learner001 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What "issue"? Is there something about this article that you feel should be different than it is? How can the article be improved? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Many issues, but let me gather thoughts and respond in depth soon. Thanks and best wishes! Learner001 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the definitional elements of the first para come from dictionaries, so if you think we've got it wrong, you'll have to take it up with Cambridge, Oxford and Websters. The article is about a term and how it has been used. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Global Language Monitor

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

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

If there are no objections If like to include a brief mention. 2600:1012:B056:40FB:DDC6:F727:535B:DA30 (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not getting any connection to that link. May be temporary, will check again tomorrow. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is little more than a short list of terms/title changes that GLM deem to be 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What Happened To The ‘Criticism’ Section?

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

1. Can you point to the paragraph at some point in history? If it has been removed the edit log may reveal why. I have taken a glance in the logs at various points back to 2013 and do not see we ever had a "criticism" section (at least on the small sample set I looked at).

2. Criticism of political correctness is rarely criticism of actual political correctness. If it was poorly cited, or referenced, or was identified as being little more than a collection of Daily Mail articles about "Political Correctness gone mad" then maybe it was tidied away at some point.

3. If you wish to accuse something of censorship, doing it to an open source encyclopedia might be one of the least logical places to start. Koncorde (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• The term itself is pejorative. There are virtually no non-critical sources. If there were a criticism section, it would consist of people criticizing the term itself and the people who use it. However, see WP:CSECTION - generally speaking such sections aren't a good way to organize articles. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Great article in the Atlantic.

There is an article in the Atlantic that I heard about on the radio this morning. It seems like a lot of people are talking about this. It's an article about America's strong dislike for PC Culture, while at the same time embracing some PC policies. It's a great read and really sums up current feelings toward PC. Have a look! https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/ 68.252.215.225 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

::This would be good information to add - perhaps under a section entitled "The United Statss and Contemporary PC Culture". If there are no objections I'd like to add a synopsis/mention of article above and agree it's quite relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.152.89 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One person pretending to be two separate people is a blockable offense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Perspective needed here. Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population. There must not be disproportionate coverage of PC in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the 2nd IP as WP:DUCK and struck their comment. I'll block the first one if this continues. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, (US-only, straw-poll rather than study, doesn't actually say what 'PC' is - though implicitly it is 'PC language'), the piece adds nothing IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know as I'd say it's a great article. However, it does open up a subtopic: that Conservatives are at least as thin-skinned about terms and topics, and will decry "PC" even as they're quacking against ALL instances of "PC."

For instance, call someone espousing anti-abortion beliefs "anti-abortion" and you'll likely be lectured about how the proper term is pro-life.

The Right (including the RNC) intentionally made a meme out of teabags, then later decided that calling a Tea Party yahoo a "teabagger" is "the same as saying the 'n-word' to an African-American."

The shooting industry is in an uproar against the bad odor of silencers, and is pressing to recast them as suppressors or moderators and anyone who persists in the misleading old word is an anti-gun Fascist ninny… though silencer was chosen by the original inventor AND most manufacturers still call these devices "silencers."

Then there's religion. Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas!" meme? Imagine the squawking on Fox News if someone makes light in ANY way of Christianity.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"The shooting industry" And what connection does this industry have to right-wing politics? Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Gun culture in the United States tends to be conservative and therefore right-wing people are more likely to have an interest in guns. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Baizuo

we need to add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo --2A04:4540:700B:D300:B416:A530:217D:B370 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Censorship and self-censorship section

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

Reliable sources discussing said perspective would be required. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_02_8_oneill.pdf, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/, https://medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/why-progressives-must-fight-political-correctness-7280e71c28ff, https://www.thearticle.com/political-correctness-has-turned-us-into-tv-puritans/, something to start with. Also is there complete list when it comes to newspapers what are reliable sources?Sourcerery (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So with regards to the sources provided, do they really discuss what you are saying? The Atlantic on TV Puritans is largely an opinion piece, and really isn't about "abuse", but rather a lament about perspective. The Ben O'Neill Independent piece does reference that Politically Correct language is inexact and so may result in unintended outcomes, and attacking exactness in language as lacking in empathy / sympathy is problematic and doomed to failure. Neither really discuss what you are talking about to any great extent (if at all). O'Neill very briefly references the Conservative push to frame PC to their own ends, and it being a right wing smear but doesn't describe how it has back-fired etc. Suspect the only way to come to that conclusion leads down the Synthesis approach.

The Atlantic piece by Mounk in the first paragraph says "catchall known as political correctness" which is one of the issues of many articles. It isn't actually talking about real political correctness, but public perception of what they believe to be, or imagine is a result of political correctness (see above about the Conservative push to frame PC to their own ends).

The Medium piece is, well, poorly written. And the source, Politika, not to be too disparaging, is run by 17 year old A level students. Not sure of its value as an opinion piece at all. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Brief reply to Sourcerery. There is a long-term consensus here that academic studies are preferred (opinion pieces are 10 a penny). One of the long-term issues, is that critics of PC tend to think its meaning and existence is self-evident, while those criticised tend to say it's a chimera or the criticism is a smokescreen. I have long thought that something the article lacks, is any clear exposition of what critics say PC is (censorship, etc).Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

- I see, thanks to editors for breaking it down, very good points have been raised.Sourcerery (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC) - Check these sources https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/12/14/505324427/politically-correct-the-phrase-has-gone-from-wisdom-to-weapon, http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/dilemmas-of-political-correctness/ Sourcerery (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The presence of sources is fine. The issue is what you want to say and how the articles support that. If there is something within one if the articles that you feel needs to be expressed, call it out so we can see how it can be best presented (or if it already is, but is not clear enough). Koncorde (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about section titled Weaponization and how it can and is, used and abused by both sides of political spectrum as seen in source. That's why I was mentioning backfiring because it did backfire on left and is used as pejorative in general culture as of now. I am also thinking about criticism section but that later with more sources after we have weaponization section.Sourcerery (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So the section on the 80's and 90's talks about this. "PC" at that point was not weaponised by the left (per Pincrete, what is often described as a "given" example of PC often isn't obvious or apparent as an example of PC), but was instead presented as a culture war by those on the right / libertarian scale to attack and control the debate on language use and meaning. There wasn't, and isn't, so much as a "backfire" as much as the argument was reframed (Newt Gingrich in particular popularised controlling the narrative in this sense).

Criticism sections are very questionable I would say, as much of what is criticised is rarely from the point of view of the concept of Political Correctness and more against some virtual version of examples of what people have claimed to be PC (for example, per one of the sources provided, is the mere act of criticising a TV show of the 1970's a true example of political correctness if people feel it was racially insensitive? Or does it reflect changing societal norms? The United States section on Usage tries to cover this aspect to some extent. Koncorde (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that's the problem, it's weaponized to this day as we speak, reading article you would think that is thing of past stuck in 80s, 90s. Weaponization section can start with 80s, 90s but in needs to reflect issue to this day including Donald Trump consolidated in larger context. As for criticism we will see, we need RS and I'm gonna take a leap now and say lot of criticism will note weaponazied use and abuse.Sourcerery (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's why there is a modern usage section, and also a section by country. If you can suggest an improvement / expansion, go for it. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But what section would that be in modern usage? It's not education, it's more general discourse or popular culture? I will expand and improve 2016 election, lot of material in these sources for that, section is pretty smallSourcerery (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article is in dire need of “criticism of Pc” section and has been for some time. I think a much better way to do this would be something like “proponents of PC” vs “opponents/criticism of pc”. That way we are covering both points of view. 2600:1012:B06E:76A2:508:8583:701E:360C (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain; what is criticism of PC? Who are "proponents of PC"? Is this self identification as PC? Or is it accusative? Etc. Koncorde (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes exactly, I think all of the above would be an excellent start. Perhaps with a subheading "Proponents of Political Correctness vs Opponents of Political Correctness" and then answering the above questions starting with "Who are the proponents/advocates of PC?" and delineating each group's arguments. And giving examples in both the accusative and self-identified form. I think this could go a long way toward clarifying some of the more confusing concepts behind political correctness. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

“Generally” a pejorative / outdated sources in lede

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

Not pejorative? Really? It's possible. The last source is from 2011 (or maybe 2009?). I haven't seen any sources lately which do not treat this as pejorative, or at least which don't assume sarcasm or insincerity. However, if you know of reliable sources, please propose them. Academic sources discussing the term are more desirable than journalistic ones discussing the term. Examples of sources using the term without discussing it are much less likely to be useful for these purposes, as this risks original research. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 6 sources cited at the end of the sentence, all over 20 years old, with the exception of the one you are referring to. This particular source does not define political correctness as “generally” being a pejorative. The fact of the matter is that the statement of political correctness “generally” being a pejorative is not well sourced. At all. I am putting together a list of recent, reliable sources that define PC as well as give examples/context of its use. My understanding is also that sources like the New York Times, Newsweek, and Time are all acceptable sources, particularly when defining modern usage of the term. Academic sources are ideal for delving into the background of PC as an idea/belief/philosophy. This is about the sentence in the lede stating how the term is used today. 2600:1012:B06E:76A2:508:8583:701E:360C (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources should be directly about the term. Attempting to interpret examples of usage is a form of WP:OR, as we do not assume that Wikipedia editors will agree on things like sincerity or subtext, among other issues. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead actually says "In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative". It is framed that way precisely because many editors reported examples of use away from 'public discourse', which were more neutral or ironic - though these uses are almost never the subject of study. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a couple of things here; 1. I am struggling to think of a time when it isn't used as a political football. And if it isn't being used as a pejorative, in what form is it being used?

2. The age of a source is generally irrelevant. The quality of the source is the critical element. If there are newer sources redefining PC as something else then by all means present those sources, but that does not invalidate the existing ones.

3. There are more sources in the main article body to reinforce the pejorative use. Koncorde (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the question was directed at me, but I agree that this article is necessarily about use 'as a political football' - partly because sources looking at the term (as opposed to simply using it), only study that context. There are however examples of use in which the term is largely a neutral synonym for 'tact', 'courtesy' or 'diplomacy' or in which we are left to surmise what exactly the term means to that writer. But even when used relatively neutrally, it is almost unheard of for the advocates of a political policy to describe it as 'PC' - even less for them to say "this isn't PC enough"!Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It was just a general follow up of train of thought. I agree, I think we will struggle to find an instance of a University or similar saying "This is how tomorrow we will be Politically Correct" and then issuing a guide to political correctness, or talking about it in that sort of context. And if they did, so what? Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This would be a good example of what could be included under the "proponents of PC" section of the "Proponents vs Opponents of PC" heading discussed above. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you would have to find someone who described themselves as a "proponent of PC". Hen's teeth are easier to find! Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why I mention sincerity. It's pretty easy to find sources that describe "political correctness" is a dysphemism for "basic decency" (here's an arbitrary example). Basic decency, at least for now, remains somewhat popular, so this is easy to defend. Rhetorically defending political correctness is not sincere, it's done to point out that the term's inherent flaws as a pejorative. The concept is not widely defended, because the term's definition is empty. That's why people use it in the first place. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not be the most common usage, but the term is used non-ironically by adherents / proponents (as our lede states, it not always a pejorative). I am not referring to interpreting examples, as this would be OR. I am taking about RS where the author defends the actual concept or talks about those who embrace/defend political correctness. In other words an approach NOT from a critics point of view. My suggestion is a Proponens vs Opponents section where we can dig into the evolution of the phrase. We could even discuss how some feel it is strictly a pejorative, others feel it does not exist, and still others think it is a good thing. All of this is backed by RS.2600:1012:B05C:94A0:6DB0:75C6:EB9A:A8B4 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we have such a proponent in a reliable source? Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing sincere/genuine proponents of PC? Certainly there are plenty of reliable secondary sources describing both those for and against the concept. 2600:1012:B02F:3FD0:2507:10A1:CD27:AF66 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Soooo... Koncorde (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional source

• Jaggar, Alison M. (2006). "Whose Politics? Who's Correct?". In Burns, Lynda (ed.). Feminist Alliances. Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 20. ISBN 978-9-04-201728-3.

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

Chinese version of PC

• Li, Yuan (October 11, 2019). "China's Political Correctness: One Country, No Arguments". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2019.

Should we include it? Mariogoods (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No. There is only a single use of the term (in the headline), so apart from anything else, it says nothing about PC (except that NYT can apply the term to China). Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say "no", but we could probably source the concept of government censorship misinterpreted as political correctness. It is a phenomenon. Koncorde (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, just found this. Unfortunately not a reliable source, but it's a really interesting discussion between academics. Interesting to see the top two 'recommended' are the blanket assertions compared to the vast amount of nuance discussed below it. Well worth a glance if you just like reading boffins being overly polite on this subject! Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sources by user Greyfell

user:Greyfell has removed 3 long-standing sources from the lede without any discussion on the talk page. Not sure why this was done. For a phenomenon such as political correctness, it makes sense to reference a DICDEF as some readers want to know what the term means. I understand the importance of secondary sources, but this seems like an ideal article to at least reference the dictionary definition. Especially light of recent discussions as to whether the term is a pejorative. 2600:1012:B055:39F0:A4C6:F691:4904:9FF5 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Without speaking for Greyfell, they weren't actually being used as a reference. They were just ... there. If anything, they would be external links, but either way they're kind of unusual. If there's something special in one or more of them that should be in the article, by all means use it as a ref. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)