Talk:Political correctness/Archive 25

Problematic synthesis in 1980s and 1990s section
This paragraph claims;

"Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination – such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality – against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream."

Liberalism, contrary to Socialism, is not interested in class politics in the way that is implied here. They give lip service to being against racism perhaps, but I don't think liberals even pretend to talk about class at all and are essentially reactionaries who support capitalism themselves. We need to make even more clear that there is no connection between Marxist-Leninist "political correctness" (ie - rejection of revisionism and deviationist tendencies within Marxism) and the Liberal/New Left, Anglo-Saxon thing which is about promoting bourgeois ideas like feminism, homosexual "rights", transgenderism, etc. Specifically, we need to be even more explicit that Marxist-Leninism isn't about what is widely called "political correctness" today; bourgeois social liberalism and proletarian class struggle are not remotely connected. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Liberal' I interpret as being used in a generic sense, as it is widely used in the US and UK, to mean moderate-left-of-centre, including social democrats and moderate socialists, and liberal in UK usage definitely implies an interest in social justice - if not in 'class politics'. I don't find the use problematic though if there were a clearer term (or even omit the word?). This edit seems more problematic, it appears to be interpreting the source(s) in a number of ways. I will try to leave a fuller post later. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This might sound strange
I realize I will take a lot of heat for this opinion, but I am ok with that. I've done a LOT of reading on the subject over the past few months, and I have come to the conclusion that for the most part, "political correctness" doesn't really exist. Anyone who behaves with manners, and treats others with dignity, could be accused of being "politically correct". I believe I can find numerous RS to back this up. Does anyone feel there is a place for this argument in the article? I hope I haven't offended anyone with this theory (as it cuts to the core of this entry), but there are scholars out there who actually agree with me. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Until you have reliable sources to discuss, there is no point in discussing the theory. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We have reliable sources that the term is ordinarily used as a perjorative term and was previously used in various ways, incuding self-ironically - that the article already says so there is no need for any major change IMO. The article is about the use of the term, not about the 'phenomenon'. The majority of books on the subject would certainly support the notion that 'PC' is/was almost exclusively used by critics of certain policies, not by those advocating those policies, to that extent it doesn't exist except as a critical term - but then we are discussing whether there really are 'Uncle Toms', or any other critical/dismissive term.


 * There are several books from the 1980's that assert that it does/does not exist as a phenomenon, properly sourced and neutrally phrased, I would not object to the inclusion of that 'discussion'. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought it meant "polite conversation", but I guess that's why we need encyclopedias. 173.217.180.117 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The statue

 * There is a photo of a statue that illustrates political correctness due to its name being changed to avoid offense. I'd like to try adding it again if there are no objections. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...And we're back to the statue. What are your sources this time directly stating the name change was due to political correctness? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately until you actually show what you mean, working out what you intend to do or hope to include as improvements is very unclear.
 * Meanwhile IP will continue to bounce around frantically trying to insert lots of "examples" of things that have been accused of being "political correctness". Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, re the 'statue' (actually, I think, a head, which if I remember correctly, was part of an excavated, ancient clay figurine), the reason given by the museum for the 'label change' was that it was not clear that the head WAS actually of a black/negro/African person - and although I'm no expert on ancient artefacts - it was barely clear to me that the head was meant to represent a male, and certainly unclear what race/nationality was intended to be represented. I hate to spoil your fun imagining that museum curators have nothing better to do with their time than 'correct' imaginary offence by not describing objects as they are, but there is absolutely no reason to imagine that the single source that covered this example of 'PC gone mad', had actually done his/her homework. In WP terms, the incident was covered by a handful of sources at most, one promulgating the 'offence theory' and at least one (the Gdn if I recall) pointing out how factually inaccurate almost everything about the initial report was. In WP terms it's the non-event of the century, which, if a full and balanced acoount WERE included, would tend anyway to show how unthinkingly the PC accusation is thrown around by people who don't bother to check their facts (and how gullible some of their readers are?). But there is not a 'cat in hell's chance' of it being included unless we decide to start a 'silliest PC stories' section, since - whether you believe the museum or the initial journalist - the story is incredibly silly and utterly trivial. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears there is some confusion regarding the addition I speak of. The original editor who added the photo of the statue was not me - it was user:Edelseider.  Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_23#%22Negerhoved%22.  He tried to illustrate the article with a picture showing how the un-PC but specific designation of a sculpted head as "Head of a Negro" (Danish: Negerhoved) later evolved into the PC but generic designation as "Head of a Male Statue".  user:Pincrete had expressed concerns that this was simply a case of language changing or evolving, but this was not the case.  This was a situation where the title of an artwork became less descriptive.  Regarding sourcing, this was just one of the articles I had found:  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-art-of-being-politically-correct-h29j75p7nvx.  IF you take the time to read it you will see it states the following: "A top European art gallery has been accused of pandering to political correctness after it removed terms such as “Negro” and “Mohammedan” from the titles and descriptions of artworks to avoid causing offence." and then two paragraphs later:"The underlying cause of the name change? Both a nod toward political correctness, as well as an increasing effort toward inclusiveness in the world of art and culture".  Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion.  2602:301:772D:62D0:8CC4:29E0:C4C1:FDEC (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ETA - This is merely an illustrative example of what some people might call PC. We can certainly include both sides of the story.  In other words saying something like "Some critics, like source 1 accused the Rikysmuseum of pandering to political correctness when they changed the names of artwork.  Other commentators, such as source 2 felt this was an example of the PC label being thrown around unthinkingly". 2602:301:772D:62D0:8CC4:29E0:C4C1:FDEC (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...that is fine for the article about the statue maybe, but throwing it into this article is an irrelevance. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

IP, I'm actually surprised how well I remember this 'statue' and the mini-controversy. No one doubts that a source described this as an example of 'PC' - though they don't as I recall, say how they came to that conclusion. Do a bit more homework and you'll find that the museum denied that the 'negro' change had anything to do with 'offence' and the Gdn said the Times was talking nonsense, (I think you'll agree that 'Mohammedan' is pretty archaic these days for what most people would call a 'Muslim' - though I don't know Danish - but the Times found even that change to be almost sacriligous). So, in the unlikely event of this incident being included, both sides of the case would have to be put. It's unlikely because hardly any sources bothered to cover the story AT ALL, either supporting or contradicting the Times accusation. You may like the story, you may prefer to believe the Times, rather than the museum, that doesn't alter the fact that, having looked at this incident several times, the concensus here is that this is simply a particularily silly 'storm in a teacup'. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide sources? I don't see anything supporting what you are saying here. 2602:301:772D:62D0:49D1:FF07:3C4A:58B9 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I can't be bothered, you can believe me or not about the other sources contradicting the Times. Since my substantive point is that the incident was trivial and was not covered by sufficient sources to make it note-worthy, the onus is on you to make a case for its inclusion - and a stronger argument is needed than "I like it because IMO it shows how silly PC is", which appears to be your sole argument. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Pet parent" - PC or a commercial gimmick?
See this article. "The American Pet Products Association estimates that total U.S. spending on pets will top $55 billion this year. That’s almost double the amount shelled out in 2001. To maintain that kind of growth requires the sale of more (and more expensive) pet foods, cat trees, and manicures. To sell additional outdoor habitats for indoor cats apparently requires owners to feel as emotionally and financially invested in their furry cuddlebugs as real parents are in their children." "Perhaps the most egregious attempt to push pet parenting is Pet Parent’s Day, a made-up holiday to end made-up holidays. It was founded in 2008 by Veterinary Pet Insurance, which is owned by Nationwide." Even this article, which is complaining about political correctness, also sas it's a term created by the pet industry. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a 404 on that article. But in any case it's just a commercial gimmick. This is why the big box list Bleland has put on the talk page here is a major problem and why I stated there "in particular several items are linked with feminism, sex positivism, marketing language (which may be changed to increase appeal of a situation or offer but is not necessarily related to political correctness)". In addition to increasing the appeal I should have also said "maximises potential long term investment". It's social engineering / manipulation. Koncorde (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's. I of course agree with you. Doug Weller  talk 12:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear god the advertising spiel is awful. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This page says that the term "pet guardian" was coined by the San Francisco-based organization In Defense of Animals in 1999, to avoid the associations between ownership of pets and ownership of humans, explicitly comparing pet ownership to slavery. I'm sure IDA didn't sit down and think "does this term run afoul of the rules of political correctness"; they just find this specific language objectionable for a specific reason. That's true for pretty much all the examples. "Pet parent" seems to be another iteration on the same theme, which is, yes, an example of a commercial business catering to people who prefer to think of their pets more like family members than property. When a conservative says, "Political correctness annoys me", I think it's reasonable to assume that "San Francisco liberals asking people to call them pet guardians instead of pet owners" is the kind of thing they are talking about, though I'll allow that any given person might say "oh, that's not political correctness" about any given thing they actually agree with, because it's a pejorative term. I'll add this term and these links to the table. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not political correctness because it has nothing to do with the concept. It may be accused of being political correctness - and that is the whole point of such 'examples', they end up having absolutely nothing to do with the topic and instead are just subjective claims, often unsubstantiated in any fashion. Elliot Katz reasoning behind his preference for the use of the word Guardian is clearly outlined in the article you listed. It was not political correctness (that is the claim made by the author). This is why 'examples' are utter codswallop.
 * What it is is an example of how "Political Correctness Gone Mad" is not the basis of this article. An article called "Mis-use of the term Political Correctness" might have more relevance. Koncorde (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Koncorde about this, including claims that 'pet parent' is or is not somehow more 'PC' than 'pet owner' is silly-story territory and an insult to a term that has significantly impacted on numerous political debates about university curricula, alleged social engineering, alleged reverse discrimination, and the limits of free-speech etc. WP is not a random collection of (poorly sourced, subjective, localised) trivia. Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most examples of "Political correctness gone mad" (or the more neutral "Misuses of the term 'political correctness'" would face the same problem as attempts to label examples here: 99% of examples are going to be someone's opinion. Additionally, the better the sources for the opinion, the more likely we will have opinions that the first opinion are nonsense. As repeatedly discussed with the dynamic IP editor, we are essentially looking for examples of "yummy ice cream flavors" or "upstanding politicians". We might as well be trying to build a List of yucky vegetables. Either its a list of every vegetable anyone has ever called "yucky" (which, seriously, is every vegetable) or it's an indiscriminate list of subjective examples that someone wanted to add. There is no objective value to such a list. Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually we have a list of "movies commonly considered to be the worst". This is just one example a subjective category off the top of my head. There are many more subjective entries on WP. I see no reason why we could not have a similar list of "Controversies related to political correctness". 2605:E000:8421:BA00:A914:8017:3BB4:427D (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a list of films that professional film reviewers have commonly labeled the worst ever. Recreating that here, we'd look for professional political commentators. "Commonly"? Hmmm, that's kinda tough, I guess we're just looking for a couple of comments. "The worst ever"? I dunno. So, what are the differences? You say "film critic" and I think Roger Ebert. For "political commentator", I think of Rush Limbaugh.


 * Ebert's job was to help you figure out whether a movie is worth $10 of you money and 2 hours of your life -- is it enjoyable, well made, thought provoking, engaging, etc. Controversies are few and far between and typically involve comparing a film he liked with one he didn't. If he loved one movie by a particular director, it didn't mean he would hate the next one.


 * Limbaugh's radio career was virtually defined by controversy. His job was to attack Democrats, liberals, the political left, etc. The terms "politically correct"/"PC", "Feminazi" and similar. You generally will not find mainstream newspapers labeling something as being "politically correct" (thought they will quote someone else saying it). For a period of time, it was hard not to find Limbaugh saying it. A list of issues called political correctness would be dominated by Limbaugh (and similar voices from the political right) attacking the left. A list of issues considered to be inappropriately labeled PC, would be a subset of that list: Limbaugh, etc. calling it PC and someone on the left saying "No, you're wrong." (It would be a smallish subset as most accusations on talk radio are not responded to by the other side.) Over the past thirty years, it's easy to imagine Limbaugh calling a few thousand issues "politically correct nonsense". Find me a professional film critic calling 1,000 films the "worst ever" and I'll find you an unemployed critic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The List of films considered the worst is sourced to the critics and sources giving those scores. As films are routinely graded (out of 10, out of 5, thumbs up or down,star ratings, or just in professional film critic articles in published media) there is a clear sourcing for the methodology. So while the scoring of why the move is bad ultimately comes down to opinion, the criteria for entry in the list is quite clear. Also, it is a list - not a category - so in and of itself it is an article with clear sourcing and attribution and reflects commonly held professional (or at least highly regarded) opinion from reliable sources about subject matter that they are considered experts.
 * In contrast every allegedly politically correct associated event has no clear criteria, and is undone almost immediately by the high number of articles stating things like "Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy" or similar ,, and the fact that the sources making the allegation are often utterly subjective opinion pieces where the actual underlying reasoning given (and routinely quoted in other sources) outlines other material reasons. Koncorde (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tag without consensus
user:beland You will see what we are struggling with in this article. There is a small minority's of users who continue to (without consensus) remove the tag you added. Would you suggest an RFC as the next step? 2602:301:772D:62D0:706C:B501:635:BDF5 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is needed to ADD material the tag, while there is some discussion about whether some specific historical examples would be a good thing, (I have no opinion on that except adding material sourced SOLELY to an advocacy group - as you did - clearly doesn't even pay lip-service to the idea of balance). However there is widespread agreement that simply adding examples willy-nilly would be detrimental. That is what your tag encourages. The reason this article never gets any better or clearer is because we waste so much time on going round in circles on matters long settled. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically this. The tag is suggesting a fairly drastic change of direction for the article; we'd need to discuss it and reach some consensus on it first.  In case it needs to be said, I'm very strongly opposed to adding any new examples unless they are specifically supported by sources discussing the term itself (rather than just using it); even then, they're not ideal sources and should be used very cautiously and only when strictly necessary.  The article should rely on things that people have said about the topic, not on editors performing original research by digging up examples of it themselves.  There's already several examples in the article that I think we'd be better off removing and / or replacing.  Even in less controversial articles, sections full of talking heads, examples / trivia / pop-culture sections, and things of that nature become dumping grounds for people to argue their own personal beliefs via proxy (and to try and boost whatever tangents they personally believe need more attention); in an article on a topic this controversial, it has been a constantly problem.  Trying to throw examples at the reader ourselves adds nothing; if we want to show people what the topic is, we should do so by citing scholars, authors, or other reliable sources who have gone over the examples themselves and report their conclusions.  If an example is truly as significant as you say it is, there should be numerous secondary sources discussing it in the context of the debate over political correctness, which we can then cite in the appropriate part of the article to show what it means rather than just throwing it at the reader (or, worse, imposing our own interpretation on it ourselves.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Pincrete With respect, you have made more edits to this article (including more reversions of other editor's contributions) than any other single editor on wikipedia. We thank you for your contributions and efforts.  However, maybe it is time to take a step back.  I agree the article is in dire need of improvement - it was a featured/good article before, and has deteriorated badly since then.  Perhaps a "drastic change of direction" is just what we need here.  This is not meant to be personal, it is just an idea. 2602:301:772D:62D0:49D1:FF07:3C4A:58B9 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what the article looked like when it was a "Featured Article" for 2 months in 2004, there are no inline citations or no reliable sources, and only two extant texts. The writing style is unencyclopedic; it is rife with opinion, synthesis and original research. And on the day it was made an FA it had an NPOV flag at the top, which indicates that there were significant issues even then. It was tided up a little a few months later, to be promoted, only to be demoted soon after again. You can read the archives of such opinions at the top of the page. Koncorde (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I cant find any evidence of how it got into the FA process in the first place. There is clear intimation however that it was done without due process at the time. Koncorde (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think our time would be better spent discussing changes to article content than having a meta-discussion. If there isn't broad support for the way examples were presented previously, we need to work a bit harder to come up with a more creative solution. I'll try and get things rolling with some draft content shortly. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Belatedly: It looks to me like there's consensus against your proposed change.  Again, going over the page and counting noses, I count roughly 5 against including examples, and 2 for it.  --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree there is not yet consensus for the two incidents mentioned above, however I am not sure why the tag was removed. There seems to be agreement that the article needs restructuring.  I am curious as to why the tag user:beland added is continually reverted. 2605:E000:8421:BA00:E0F6:5BE2:2A51:8E88 (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By my reading, there's a broad consensus against adding examples in general, so obviously a request for editors to start adding more examples is not appropriate for the article. The objections to the incidents mentioned above is not "these are bad examples", but "dropping examples into the article is not an improvement."  My feeling is that we should generally drop the entire idea of adding examples - it's something that has gone around in circle for ages and never managed to reach consensus - and instead focus on other aspects of the article that could be improved.  Eg. why do you want to add examples?  What important aspects of the topic are you trying to convey?  Is there another way we could convey that without using examples? Or, from the other direction, if you think that the article is unfairly unbalanced because it includes other things that you're trying to balance out - is there stuff you'd want to remove instead? (Often, I feel that op-eds, random examples, etc. proliferate on articles because people add them to "rebut" existing ones, when the real solution is to trim it all down and summarize the broad scope of the topic, ideally by citing a secondary source that provides a broad summary and survey of all the various opinions / examples / etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Slight dissent, I would have no objection in principal to a suggestion which appeared to be floated by Beland that we have a brief mention (possibly within history) of certain 'notorious' incidents in the US - we would largely be simply linking and would not need anything more than a 'mention'. I think we are mostly agreed that an 'example farm' adds nothing. I would need to see specific text to actively support though. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so interested in 'notorious', but if there was an actual genuine reliable source discussing political correctness within which they discuss watershed moments, or significant perceived trends etc that doesn't just boil down to unfounded accusation by a political press or tabloid etc then I believe we can constructively add to the sections with meaningful content. The risk with examples, as with most articles on controversial topics the habit is for it to become a race towards adding every single subjective allegation.
 * In summary; any examples should be because they significantly demonstrate a factual observation... not just because they are allegedly an example. Koncorde (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially interested in 'notoriety' per se, but in the same way that certain books and articles are part of the historical record of the 'spread' of the term, certain incidents became the focus of debate (particularly in US). Incidentally one of the books from the '90s (as I recall a discussion between two philosophers), points out that a small handful of incidents feature in almost all accounts from that period of the spread of this pernicious 'soul-virus/thought crime'. I'm 'on the fence' as to whether there is any benefit to including these incidents, but understand the pragmatic arguments for NOT spiralling down into an 'example farm'. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer questions raised by Aquillion:
 * Eg. why do you want to add examples? What important aspects of the topic are you trying to convey?

We have a variety of other articles that say things like "X is a notable critic of political correctness." When people follow that link, readers should be able to get some idea of what that person is criticizing. When readers hear someone at a party say "I hate political correctness", or "I hate people complaining about political correctness", they should be able to go to this article and quickly get an idea of what that person was talking about. The intro says "language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society". Well, which groups? What sort of language?
 * Is there another way we could convey that without using examples?

We could link to other articles that do have examples, but even that seems like it would leave this article without basic information on this topic. By examples I don't necessarily mean specific instances of where specific people have used a particular term (though if we can't find any documented instances of that, it's not a good example) but examples of words or phrases commonly considered to be politically correct or incorrect by people who use those terms to refer to these liberal language rules (like I put in the "Scope of political correctness" table).
 * if you think that the article is unfairly unbalanced because it includes other things that you're trying to balance out - is there stuff you'd want to remove instead?

That wasn't particularly a concern of mine, though considering the question we do slightly better at the number of examples-per-paragraph in the "Conservative political correctness" section, which mentions Dixie Chicks opposition to the Iraq War being called treasonous, and "freedom fries" and "freedom toast". I don't think those examples should be removed; they actually make that section a lot clearer and more interesting to read. On the liberal side (which editors seem to agree is the common meaning and should be the bulk of the article) the "History" section mentions "Paki", "spastic", and "queer", though those are buried in a very long text, and I don't feel readers should have to plow through that if they're just interested in how the term "political correctness" is being used now. The "Science" section mentions "killer whale" which is a great example, and then the remaining examples are talking about mainstream science orthodoxy, which is a different target than liberal political orthodoxy, but they are related and both have a liberal/conservative angle to a greater or lesser degree. -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Beland, if we do have articles saying 'person X is a critic of PC', we shouldn't! They should say 'person X is a critic of policies/actions Y and Z, which he characterised as being "mere PC" for reasons A,B and C'.


 * By definition, PC is normally perjorative and most users only use the term when they think the policy or practice being discussed is excessive/silly/pedantic or mis-directed. Therefore you are never going to find terms that are generally thought of as P-incorrect, nor terms that are generally regarded as being acceptable - unless you buy into the narrative that some invisible elite are trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable (if they are, they are failing - thankfully). As I say elsewhere, it is widely sourced that discussion about PC has often focused on race/gender/disability/sexual orientation/other issues in approx. that historical order and in terms of 'volume' of debate. Why not simply state that in text, rather than attempting to 'conjure up' examples of what are supposedly 'generally regarded' as being problematic and, (even more suspect), generally regarded as acceptable? Personally, I would never say "Peter is a gay person", but neither would I say "Peter is a gay". Why add a completely unnecessary indefinite article and an unnecessary noun that only serves to cast doubt on whether Peter is actually a member of the human race, "Peter is gay". Does our article on Obama say that 'Obama is a black person'? The construction is clumsy and unnecessary, and who exactly claims that this formula is somehow 'approved'.


 * The chart is WP:OR and only makes sense if you think that there are certain verbal formulas that are widely agreed to be unacceptable (for PC reasons?) and other formulas which (some unidentified) people are widely agreed ought to replace them. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Examples of Political Correctness
user:Doug Welleruser:Beland This has been brought up several times with no resolution. The article currently contains false examples of political correctness, conservative political correctness, but no actual examples of political correctness per se. Earlier, there was an image of an artwork that had it's name changed to avoid offense, which I thought was the actual definition of PC, but the image was reverted several times. I believe the tag should stay, until the article has at least one example of political correctness. Previous concerns were the article becoming an "example farm" - something I understand. But there is a difference between an example farm, and having one actual example of political correctness = not in a pejorative sense, but the actual concept of PC in action. Any thoughts on this? 2602:301:772D:62D0:1941:8A18:9670:4949 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean it's been brought up several times and editors disagreed with you. You have a lot of IP addresses. You're the same IP as the one at the top section at this page. You've raised similar issues, the ones I can easily find are, ,, , and one that's the same as this one (not that the others were very different). You haven't pinged the participants in those. I'm not sure I have them all, but are among them. Beland, you never added any discussion when you added the template. Nor are you an active editor here, so it's a bit puzzling why you did it without discussion.  Doug Weller  talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My stance remains per all prior discussions. I don't support adding cruft about a phenomenon that is based around subjective feelings and politicised accusations. It would need to be an organic addition with qualitative value rather than just "this statue name was changed". Koncorde (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which statue 'name change' is being referred to, but there have been several such brought here in the past. In all cases that I recall, it was not a 'name change', simply a change of the description on the display label, in most instances, there was no indication that the change was to avoid offence - though a small number of sources leapt on the issue to claim this was solely because of 'PC'. If a museum in Holland decides to change 'head of a negro' to 'head of an African' because they are no longer sure -or never were sure- that the figure was a negro - or because they believe 'African' is now more commonly used in their country, what does that prove? I've no objection in principle to examples that fulfil some illustrative purpose as to what the underlying disagreement was actuallly about, but since nearly every day someone somewhere assumes that an action is motivated solely by PC - and castigates the absurdity of it - often without bothering to do their homework, I am extremely wary of including examples simply because source A says this was 'PC'. Would we illustrate any other political perjorative by citing examples of use? (In 2005 commentator X called politician Y a scumbag when he ....., whilst in 2006 Y used the same term of Z because of his ....). Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Pincrete I agree with your example regarding "head of negro" to "head of African". But this was not the case. It was an example of changing the name from "Head of Male Negro" to simply "Head of Male" (or something along these lines).  In other words, the name was changed to avoid offense, and in doing so, the name itself became less descriptive.  THis is the type of example I am referring to.2602:301:772D:62D0:DC29:E932:181:E669 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been through this one with you before. There is every indication this "name change" was a revert to an earlier name. While I can see where some might applaud the change to remove othering, we simply do not have the sources to support this. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Summer, that's not the case. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_23 for the first addition of the statue, and then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_24#Statue .  Originally, when the statue was added to the article, the editor was asked to provide sources, once those sources were provided, the addition was still removed. 2602:301:772D:62D0:DC29:E932:181:E669 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The editor"? Yes, you added a source with one person saying it was not "based on politcal [sic] correctness." I remember it. I remember the long, drawn out discussions, with multiple editors disagreeing with you. I remember the page protection to end your edit warring. I remember explaining that that is not substantial discussion of this statue as a significant, meaningful example. I remember saying that, as such, we wouldn't include it here much as we wouldn't add it to Historical revisionism, Negro, hottentot, Khoikhoi, African-American, National Gallery of Denmark, art, painting or several dozen other articles. You and I discussed this before at Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_23. How long are you going to keep beating this long dead horse? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "the editor" user:Edelseider was the person who originally added the statue - not me. I agreed with the addition though.  With respect, I would suggest you read the two archived discussions I referenced above.  As far as beating a dead horse, again it was not me, but Belland who added the tag to the page - and again I happen to agree with it.  2602:306:330B:7B00:C41C:BBBB:487F:6E9D (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I added the "missing info" tag because as it stands it's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't already know what political correctness is to get an understanding of it from this article. I didn't drop a note here at the same time because it seems self-explanatory. Anyway, I'm sure we can come up with a list of well-documented examples that show the phenomenon in different domains, and explain various controversies more concretely.  If we do it in prose instead of a list, we can put a cap of say, five strong examples, or one example per social domain, or whatever, and if someone wants to add a new example make sure it either covers some area the existing examples don't cover, or is a better example and we remove an old one to keep the overall number from growing without bound. -- Beland (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You do mean documented by reliable sources as examples of PC, right? Not the sort of undocumented examples the dynamic IP seems to be arguing for. I don't understand your suggestion that people won't gain an understanding of political correctness from the article (and I doubt anyone will be reading it who isn't familiar in some way with the term) Given the past discussions it wasn't at all obvious what you meant. Doug Weller  talk 17:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Beland I had added a couple strongly sourced examples previously and they were reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=781564862&oldid=781400485 99.48.183.176 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One person mentioning in passing that something is not political correctness is hardly a "strongly sourced" example of something that is political correctness. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, I would suggest you read the sources. Political Correctness is mentioned specifically. 99.48.183.176 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, the source that you originally added has one bare mention of political correctness, along with mentions of historical revisionism, Negro, hottentot, Khoikhoi, African-American, National Gallery of Denmark, art, painting and several dozen other article topics whose articles would not benefit from including this detail about this topic. More to the point, it is quoting someone mentioning that it is not political correctness. If we had a reliable source quoting someone mentioning that shingles is not a respiratory disease, we wouldn't add that source to Respiratory disease. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe there is some confusion. The source specifically makes mention of how the Water Buffalo incident was an example of "political correctness run amok".  I might suggest you read the sources for a better understanding.  99.48.183.176 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you have switched incidents, abandoning the statue and now referring to an edit of yours including several sources for several incidents. Please clarify: which incident, which source and when you originally added it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to take sides in whatever argument has already been happening here, I'm going to focus on the changes needed to the article. Taking another read through, it looks like there's one example of criticizing language in "Science", general description of criticism of orthodoxy in "Science", and several examples in "Conservative political correctness". What seems to be missing, off the top of my head: -- Beland (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Core examples euphemism treadmill terms for identity groups, and core examples of sexist, racist, or otherwise insensitive language (which might be introduced as part of talking about any of the below)
 * An example in "2016 US presidential election" of what Trump was criticizing
 * Other examples from politicians or elections in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, which highlight some of the controversies of various decades political correctness touches on
 * Example from a university speech code which has been criticized as political correctness
 * Example of liberal university bias outside of speech codes which has been criticized as political correctness
 * Example of criticism of language in the media
 * Example of criticism of liberal media bias (like a specific story or two) as political correctness
 * Concrete examples from the books mentioned in the intro
 * Looking at the reverted commit referenced above, the Water buffalo incident is a great example of criticism of language by a university speech code being itself criticized as too extreme, and "niggardly" is a great example of criticism of racist language itself being criticized as ignorant or excessive. I think both of those would be good to include, but with briefer summaries than in the reverted commit, and put in the context of other examples of speech codes and racist language that faced less backlash. -- Beland (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another consideration is examples of political correctness as understood in more cultures. For example, objections related to the Prophet Mohammad is mentioned; do majority-Muslim countries use an equivalent term, and what do they mean by it? -- Beland (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with you user:Beland. This is exactly what the article needs. 2600:1012:B05A:456B:D966:E9A1:202B:47A5 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been strugggling with the best way to add examples of PC in action (not as a pejorative but the philosophy/concept itself. Your ideas are exactly what we were looking for.  Perhaps you can help us best formulate a way to add these examples.  In the meantime I will work on re-adding the previous examples using your suggestions.  Thank you for your help! 2600:1012:B05A:456B:D966:E9A1:202B:47A5 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no credible sources that support the idea that it is a "philosophy / concept" itself; the things you listed are themselves just examples of it being used as a pejorative. And listing a bunch of examples of people accusing other people of political correctness would be original research, especially if we were trying to steer the reader towards a particular (unsourced) conclusion about what the term is and what it means - we should rely, instead, on secondary sources discussing political correctness itself as a term. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see zero advantage to listing op-eds that have called this-or-that political correctness; it's a popular pejorative term, so people swing it at each other all the time. We should rely, instead, on secondary sources that discuss the term directly.  I would totally support removing any remaining op-eds and the like in the article - anything that simply uses the term, without discussing the concept, is 100% unsuitable as a source and shouldn't be anywhere in the article.  We don't need to illustrate the term's usage through WP:OR when we have sources specifically describing and characterizing that usage; and trying to throw together a bunch of random people using the term and then summarize or characterize it is inevitably going to step into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, especially when many of the people most eager to add big lists of sources have fairly explicitly said that they want to do so to lead readers to a particular conclusion about what the term is and how it is used.  Perhaps that reading is correct, but if so, we should find sources describing that usage, rather than trying to perform the research ourselves by throwing in every single incident where anyone ever used the words. --Aquillion (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Aquillion I believe I had mentioned this before, but there are numerous credible sources discussing PC as an applied concept. Here is a book-length academic source entitled "The Philosophy of Political Correctness".  https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Politics_and_Philosophy_of_Political.html?id=O_XWAAAAMAAJ.  The article does a fine job of discussing PC as a insult, but it falls very short in discussing it as an applied concept/philosophy. 2602:301:772D:62D0:49D1:FF07:3C4A:58B9 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read it? It mostly describes the things you want to add as "examples" as manufactured controversies.  It vaguely equates the term with postmodernism, but I feel that that's a fairly WP:FRINGE perspective, at least in academia.  Regardless, while we could potentially use that book as a source, I continue to maintain that we cannot use a list of examples to try and WP:SYNTH up our own definition of the term, which I feel you've pretty clearly indicated is what you want to do here.  I'm still a hard no on adding examples, and by my reading I'm seeing a rough consensus against it - I read at least five people opposed, and at most two supporting it.  --Aquillion (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My thanks to others for doing the heavy lifting, particularly User:Aquillion whose comments above I support so I won't repeat them. Doug Weller  talk 09:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Scope of political correctness
What this list is not:
 * A list of all the possible PC, un-PC, and disputed words and phrases
 * A list of all the incidents where people have used un-PC or disputed language and generated a media controversy

What this list is:
 * Something that explains in concrete detail the topics political correctness deals with
 * Something that gives a flavor for the content of the philosophy, which is enough information to help readers form their own opinions about it rather than just reading other people's opinions

We have a lot of existing articles we can link to for more detail, whether about an inclusiveness topic in general or specifically related language controversies. Examples listed should (and I may not have entirely succeeded at picking the right ones) be fairly widely recognized by those familiar with U.S. political discourse as "language some liberals will complain about or find grating" if they read in the newspaper or hear in conversation. That should be something easily verified from a dictionary or by finding opinion pieces discussing the language controversy explicitly. If we can't do that, then we may want to find stronger examples. I haven't put in the work to assemble a ton of citations yet, because it was enough work just getting this list together, and it would be helpful to focus that kind of research on examples that are questionable or which I may have gotten wrong.

I put a big disclaimer at the top because Wikipedia is not trying to be the arbiter of what is and is not politically correct. If there are disputes about what is the most politically correct way to say something, that would actually be interesting information and mentioning the different options being fought over would help illustrate the contentiousness and plurality of views in these debates.

I am hoping this list will not snowball out of control, because there a finite number of general topics this covers, and at some point any new examples we can think of will be obviously redundant.

Anyway, below is a draft of what I'd propose to put in the article, in a new section. -- Beland (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the table below is very helpful and illustrative. Thank you for taking the time to compile it!  The next step is incorporating it into the article.  Bravo!  2605:E000:8421:BA00:E0F6:5BE2:2A51:8E88 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

'''NOTE: This section has been edited for illustrative purposes to address feedback. -- Beland (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)'''

In the sense of language that conforms to liberal sensibilities for inclusiveness and sensitivity, the chart below lists some of the main topics these conventions cover, and examples of "politically correct" and "politically incorrect" language on those topics. Those who identify as politically liberal or who are members of the groups in question may not agree that all of these changes are necessary, and may disagree with some. Some of those who support the "politically correct" versions may deny that "political correctness" is anything more than a label adopted by critics of these suggestions. These proponents would prefer to describe, for example, not using language with implied sexism as a good idea because everyone of all political leanings should agree that sexism is inherently bad, not because this language fits into a larger scheme of "political correctness" associated with liberalism.

The neurodiversity movement including the Autism rights movement sees various neurological conditions not as diseases to be cured, but differences to be embraced, like left-handedness or homosexuality. Proponents might object to calling autism a mental disability, and might prefer "neurotypical" to "healthy" or "normal".

Comments about personal appearance might be interpreted as lookism or sexual harassment, depending on the context, neither of which would be politically correct in the sense of this section.
 * Table added here by user Beland. Pincrete (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments on table

 * This is pretty much the dictionary definition of what should be avoided. It's a subjective list, the inclusion rationale in and of itself is not fundamentally linked to Polticial Correctness - in particular several items are linked with feminism, sex positivism, marketing language (which may be changed to increase appeal of a situation or offer but is not necessarily related to political correctness) etc. "Transphobia" is not a political correctness issue. It's a human rights issue. Binary genderism is not a political correctness issue. It's a social issue. Using the specific terminology by and of itself is not "political correctness". It might be 'accused' of being political correctness (if someone honestly objects) but it is unlikely to be framed by the people framing the requirement for change as being based on 'political correctness' or PC. Koncorde (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Konkorde that the list is basically subjective as to what supposedly PC is - or even of what it is criticised as being. Air-hostess to flight attendant has much more to do with commercial/legal decisions to employ men in that role. I've never heard of anyone advocating the use of 'pet-parent', but to my ears it sounds sickeningly sentimental (or downright deviant if treated literally!). Some papers in the UK criticised some local authorities for adopting 'access points' instead of 'manholes'. What they didn't seem to know is that UK civil engineers have ALWAYS called these 'access points', 'manhole' is the popular non-specialist term and the whole matter has nothing to do with 'PC'. This is one of the problems here - so many of these stories are apocryphal or have nothing to do with 'PC' - unless one thinks that 'PC' covers any kind of linguistic change relating to race, gender etc. or any use of euphemism. Among the many things supposedly due to 'PC', I once read a columnist arguing that 'collateral damage' was a PC term - whatever the US military's motives for using that avoidance term - I fail to see how it could possibly be anything to do with not offending the sensibilities of those inadvertently killed. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe 'Collateral damage', like a lot of these claims, came from a report after the event which listed things like destruction of homes, personal property, quality of life etc and was essentially the adoption of legal / insurance terminology to place a quantitative value on the destruction wrought (i.e. value a human life at £200,000 and it's easy to say what damage you have done as a monetary figure). However people have then taken this as a means to an end type of calculation process the military engages in when deciding if it's worth dropping a bomb on a residential district.
 * You will note it is rarely mentioned in the context of anyone elses bombing or military efforts.
 * Subsequently the verbiage is adopted without the context and it becomes 'PC' when in reality it's probably people trying to sound official / educated etc Koncorde (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, this term is a military euphemism intended to downplay 'inadvertent consequences' and to avoid emotive terms. My main point is that a huge number of linguistic choices/changes have at some time been described somewhere, by someone as being due to 'PC'. Whilst we would probably all agree that overtly racist terms and overtly sexist terms would certainly NOT be thought of as 'PC' (though before the invention of the term, most people avoided such slurs anyway, finding them ill-mannered at least). Apart from those obvious examples, no two people are ever going to agree either on which terms are 'incorrect' or offensively-loaded and even less on how to replace them. I'm not persuaded that many/most of the examples in the chart above have been endorsed by anyone of significance as being either PC or un-PC. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Koncorde and Pincrete, I think you're successfully articulating the liberal position that the language preferences here are not motivated by a desire to be "politically correct" as if there was a central repository set of principles, but are motivated by a desire in a specific circumstance to be factually accurate, or to deal with a social issue. I can see why this presentation might look like it's actually trying to be that, so I altered the headers on the table to try to make it clearer that it is the critics of these rationales that label them as "political correctness". "Hey, we're not being PC, there's this other reason we're using this term, so stop over-reacting" is definitely a part of the "is this political correctness and is that bad" debate, and it sounds like the "access point" example is a good illustration of that. Though just because "access point" has been used for a long time, doesn't mean that people aren't arguing on the basis of sexism that the alternative term "manhole" should not be used. I agree there are some apocryphal or potentially apocryphal stories on this topic. I think those belong in the "false accusations" section if noteworthy, or just not in the article at all. For example, I came across a claim that a school required someone to use the term "spring spheres" instead of "Easter eggs", but I couldn't verify to my satisfaction that this actually happened, so I left it out of the table. Most "politically correct" language change suggestions probably qualify as euphemisms, but there are definitely some euphemisms that have nothing to do with political correctness (like what you call what happens when you use the toilet). It should not be hard to distinguish between the two based on source research, and I would exclude marginal examples; the number of people who consider something to be a politically correct euphemism should be substantial, not minimal, but clearly not universal because it's mostly only critics of the euphemism that would be calling it that. After discussion in another section I found some references on pet ownership euphemisms which clarify the tie there; I will look into sourcing for the other claims made in the table to address Pincrete's doubt about these actually having to do with political correctness. A quick search did not find anyone calling "collateral damage" "politically correct", so I'm not adding that as an example. -- Beland (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a note on the "stewardess" example: the term "steward" is available for men, so it's not simply a matter of using a gender-neutral term because a female-only one can't be used. It's a choice between two gendered terms, and one neutral one. I changed the table to reflect this. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Liberal or not is irrelevant. Putting things in tables like this does no favours to any sourcing. It turns the article into a Gish Gallop of claims, with no clear inclusion criteria (effectively so long as someone somewhere says the magic words it gets thrown in regardless of weight, reliability and factual basis). Koncorde (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur wit this. The table isn't a useful way of conveying information; and stringing together a bunch of random links to situations where people have used the term "political correctness" adds nothing to the article.  Any examples we use should be worked into the article text and backed by citations that specifically and explicitly cite that example as something particularly meaningful to the history or understanding of political correctness as a term or concept.  A random grab-bag of situations where people have used the term adds nothing to the article, and including stuff based on whether random editors here think they are important or representative or whatever would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  If an example is genuinely an important, meaningful aspect in the history of the term, or if it is particularly helpful in understanding it, then it should be easy to find secondary sources going into depth on that connection.  But searching for every situation where a talking head has called something politically correct is not helpful and would add nothing to the article whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course the use of 'collateral damage' isn't generally regarded to be a PC matter, but where is the evidence that referring to jobs which are no longer done by a specific gender by a neutral term is mainly a PC matter? Where is the evidence that using 'policemen' to describe those two burly, bearded personages at the door this morning and using 'policewomen' to refer to the two bra-wearing officers who arrived later, is looked upon by anyone as being either sexist or non-PC? It is only the use of gendered terms for the generic which is ever disapproved of by anyone that I know of.


 * Where is the evidence that being an Irish person who doesn't like your country being referred to as a 'British isle' is generally regarded as a PC matter? Where is the evidence that the replacement terms are somehow 'approved' - if so, by whom? Silliest of all, why should we take the claim of a single journalist about people who share their homes with the animals which they have purchased, ought to be called, as being worthy of inclusion AT ALL? The chart appears to be a mixture of subjective opinion (aka WP:OR), poorly sourced claims (which are often very WP:FRINGE, and/or localised - 'flight attendant' is mainly US I think), all put together with absolutely no consideration of what the WEIGHT of RS have to say on the topic.


 * It is extremely well sourced that debates about PC have often focused on issues of race and gender (sometimes, but not primarily about nomenclature), to a lesser extent on 'disability' and sexual orientation issues. Issues like "species-ism" have barely got a look in, but have surfaced as peripheral parts of debates. All this is solidly sourced and capable of being rendered in text. What is the advantage of a random selection of un-weighted, context-less examples?


 * Almost everything has been connected to PC by someone or other over the years. News articles are full of apocryphal (or tongue in cheek?) stories and claims about this or that term supposedly being banned or disapproved of because it is not 'PC' enough. How on earth are we supposed to argue with the next IP who has just read in his local paper that "football manager" is about to be banned as it is a sexist term - if we ourselves are presenting such randomly selected, semi-digested fare as this chart? Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm open to doing prose instead of a table, though when I was putting it together I thought the table format would eliminate a lot of repetitive language. Prose would definitely allow us to put in more context about specific disputes if we didn't mind things being significantly longer.  I'll probably use the talk-page table to build up citations before attempting prosification.


 * I agree that our selection of examples should not be random, and just because "someone somewhere says the magic words" that doesn't support inclusion. We should apply guidelines similar to Notability (but appropriate for mentions in an article rather than whether or not there should be a standalone article).  Mostly I'm looking for examples where most people who use "political correctness" as a pejorative would agree that this is a good example of that.  I agree I haven't provided any sourcing for most of the claims; that's still a work in progress.  I would argue against inclusion of "football manager" as an hypothetical example because a.) we already have examples of gendered occupation terms, and b.) those would presumably be sourced as being part of a national or international debate about those terms; a dispute that is solely local is not as notable.  I would argue in favor of inclusion if the specific issue was deemed notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article we could link to.  The political correctness article should give a flavor of the types of words that the endless stream of "term banned for being un-PC" news stories discuss, because that is the core essence of the political correctness controversy.


 * Disputes confined to the vocabulary of the United States only are fine by me; there are 325 million people who live here, and the existing article seems to be saying that the political correctness controversy originated here or is most virulent here, but certainly also happening in other English-speaking countries. However, I would label any dialect-specific vocabulary, and I think it would be interesting to have examples from a diversity of dialects.


 * The Wiktionary page (flight attendant) does not indicate that it is specific to or more common in American English. If there is a different preferred term in the UK, I don't know what it is, but that would make an interesting addition to the dictionary. -- Beland (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My impression is that 'cabin crew' is more common in UK, but that is neither here nor there. Where is the evidence that the change in job title was prompted by PC considerations, rather than the more obvious explanation that a gender-neutral term was necessary for legal and business reasons? Sure, they could have opted for 'air-hosts and air-hostesses', 'stewards and stewardesses', but firms periodically 're-brand' job titles. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Article structure
It seems there are several different related definitions of "political correctness" the article is discussing:
 * 1) The original meaning: in alignment with the political doctrines of the local Communist Party
 * 2) By analogy: In alignment with the doctrines of any orthodoxy
 * 3) In alignment with politically liberal ideas about inclusivity and cultural sensitivity, especially with regard to language, but also certain attitudes and government policies
 * 4) In reaction to the third meaning, "conservative political correctness" has come to describe is a similar sensitivity to language, attitudes, and government policies based on a different set of values, especially patriotism

Related to the third and fourth senses, there are third rail and culture war issues that are unrelated to inclusivity or patriotism that are part of the political orthodoxy of a particular faction, where politicians loyal to that faction face potential outcry. Perhaps these would be part of "political correctness" in the second sense.

It makes sense for the History section to describe all these meanings in chronological order, but maybe in the other sections they should be considered separately. Confusingly, the article intro only describes the third meaning; it should probably be rewritten to have an overall summary, and some of the details moved elsewhere. Some of the controversies are related particularly to the third and to some degree the fourth sense. For example, because certain aspects of language are politically charged, these have become markers for accusation of political bias in the media and education, and identity markers for political factions (and possibly some of the minority groups under consideration in liberal political correctness?). -- Beland (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Beland, there are actually some RS that say that the term was first used by Chinese Communists (1920/30's) and taken up by Comintern (both using the term 'literally', to mean 'correct doctrine', usually having nothing to do with race, gender etc). The same (book length) source says that the term migrated to US, but almost immediately became ironic - ie used by socialists and non-doctrinaire leftists to mock the 'party-liners'. Both these uses were however in very marginal sections of the Western population. There are a handful of 'literal' uses between 50s and late '80's, but the term is mainly used as self-mockery among 'liberals' in this period, including about matters of gender and race (mainly mocking their own earnestness). Your third section represents the explosion of use in the late '80s and 90's and represents an accurate description, as long as one understands that it is almost always critics (both moderate liberals and more notably rightists) who are using the term - mainly to disparage certain trends at that time (mainly in higher education in US, mainly in local govt and public bodies in UK). I'm not sure that your fourth category ever gained widespread currency, it is more 'reactive' ie "the other side also censors language you know".
 * I think the article has to mainly deal with your third category, which is the prevalent modern use of the term (and the thing books are written about). The 'history' section is mainly relevant as "how did the term come about". This is a somewhat unloved article, but I could point you in the direction of book sources if you wish. What I think are two significant omissions are 1) why critics dislike 'PC' (censorship, social engineering, reverse discrimination etc) and 2) the spread of the term outside US - notably UK.


 * One of the many problems about using examples, is that the users of the term often don't explain what they mean, like many perjorative terms, the intention is to get the 'mud to stick', rather than to argue a case. This is especially true of the current US president, who throws the term out as though his meaning is self-evident. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Very much agreed. Your summary of the history is actually pretty close to what it feels like the intro needs. I can probably draft that, and something about the criticism of political correctness that hits on exactly the points you list.  How it's used outside the U.S. would take some more research at least as far as my personal knowledge goes, but that's what we're here for. -- Beland (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We actually have an entire category entitled "Crticism of Political Correctness". As a start, what do you two think about adding a link to this category under "see-also"2605:E000:8421:BA00:A5B2:C157:8007:4C07 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Beland, I recommend Hughes (used as a ref in article) for a strong history of the term. My only beef with his whole analysis is that he makes no attempt to distinguish between 'substantive issues' and ones that were probably always conscious headline-grabbing/mischief-making. For example, he takes at face value an attempt by some women historians to change the name of their subject to 'herstory', which seems like a fairly obvious attempt to 'make a point', rather than a serious proposal. Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Water buffalo and niggardly incident
user:Beland had said - "Looking at the reverted commit referenced above, the Water buffalo incident is a great example of criticism of language by a university speech code being itself criticized as too extreme, and "niggardly" is a great example of criticism of racist language itself being criticized as ignorant or excessive. I think both of those would be good to include, but with briefer summaries than in the reverted commit, and put in the context of other examples of speech codes and racist language that faced less backlash". In that vein, I am going to include both incidents in the article, with smaller summaries than I had initially written, per his suggestion. It appears we have consensus for the change, any suggestions/comments on how to go about doing so? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...there is clearly not consensus. Also creating new threads of conversations makes it difficult to track the progression of discussions. As it stands, anyone looking to verify anything you have stated would have to go back and re-read the context of his statements and any responses. Gish Gallop springs to mind. Koncorde (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's just me agreeing with you and other editors disagreeing, that's certainly not consensus. There's also the question of what context would be presented and what sort of summary you're proposing.  For the second example, instead of describing any particular incident (a list of specific incidents is starting to veer into example-farm territory) I would probably just want to link to Controversies about the word "niggardly" from a list or table or at most a sentence just pointing out that some find it racially offensive and some find that an over-reaction based on the etymology.  For the first example, this really is a specific incident that is probably worth mentioning, but before going down that road I'd kinda like to get a better sense of what qualifies a specific incident for inclusion in this article and which ones are we picking, so we don't snowball out of control. -- Beland (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with that. Previously, we had a link to "Political Correctness Related Controversiess" (the category), but it was removed without explanation.  In all honesty, having a link to that category made everything much cleaner.  We didn't have to worry about the article becoming an example farm since we just linked to the entire category.  I can try to re-add that link if there are no objections. ETA - Any thoughts on linking to the category "criticism of

Political Correctness" as a "see-also"? 2605:E000:8421:BA00:C9C2:8DA:555:C17E (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to categories from articles are someone disfavored, as the usual gateway to categories is by putting articles in categories. But I have made that type of link myself sometimes when there isn't an article that's a good summary of the topic, and readers are otherwise likely to miss it.  In this case, I think it might be a good idea to have maybe a one- or two-paragraph summary of that category, since there are a few dominant themes.  Then maybe a "further information" link to the category from the section?  But some care would need to be taken to consider criticisms beyond those raised by the article in that category; in some sense, the whole notion of political correctness, if you take it as a pejorative, is itself a criticism of political correctness.  Maybe that means "Criticism of political correctness" shouldn't be its own section, but the material in that category should be summarized in the article in a more distributed fashion? -- Beland (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Political Correctness Related Controversies was removed because it was filled with POV and was a subjective category. Rather than being "cities in Wyoming", "WW2 spy planes" or "planets in the solar system" which are objective categories of something, the grouping of something alleged to be both controversial is first subjective, then whether it is related to political correctness is similarly very wobbly.
 * Also, you do know the reasons, why and when, because you have been asking at various venues under one of your myriad IP addresses where 7 additional users also endorsed the closure, the deletion log can be found here also. This is why your continued attempt to use the Teahouse or other admin boards to canvas and besmirch the names and standing of established editors (while at the same time making statements such as "This is not meant to be personal, it is just an idea") is seen for what it really is. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only users who "endorsed" the closures were you, Pincrete, Acquillion and one other editor. The category was removed because the three of you (who in all honesty had a conflict of Interest) controlled the voting. I've cast no aspersions on anyone, all I suggested was for user:Pincrete to take a step back and allow other editors to take a crack at the article.  2600:1012:B015:6FEF:89FE:E744:7FCF:B6F3 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We define conflict of interest as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you can't substantiate this about these editors you need to withdraw the claim. Conflicts of interest must always be declared. How did they control the voting? Threaten anyone who they could tell through some mysterious means might vote? You say you're casting no aspersions but of course you just did. Doug Weller  talk 17:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Declaring that there is a CoI is an aspersion. Declaring at Teahouse that a "minority" opposed your views effectively rendering established editors as disruptive. And of course, numerous other instances of attempts to control the situation via pleas to Admins and etc.
 * In the end there is no possible outcome for the category, and the review found likewise effectively shutting down any claims you are making.
 * You still also refuse to sign up for an account, which makes tracking or tracing your myriad interactions difficult, which in and of itself would usually indicate little, but based on your method of interaction with others still suggests something is going on. Koncorde (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, it seems everyone here has now attacked everyone else for perceived past conversational misdeeds, and this is not helping us improve the article. I'm going to follow Assume good faith and assume that people here are interested in discussing the substance of the article, which had been happening before we got derailed onto all of these process questions. Sometimes when discussions like this get stuck, it's a good idea to bring in more opinions, but so far it seems to me both sides on the "more examples" question have legitimate points that have not been addressed through research and solid attempts at writing, and new editors coming in would have the same concerns to begin with. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , are you really saying that pointing out that saying that editors have a CoI with no evidence was an attack on the IP? Or that such unfounded comments aren't aspersions? Those comments made only a couple of hours ago are not "perceived past conversational misdeeds". That was a contemporary comment and in no way could help improve the atmosphere here. What would improve the atmosphere here is the IP apologising. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing, single user, multiple IP's. Check my Sandbox out for all prior IP's tracked down. The use of the multiple IP's makes conversational tracking impossible, gives an inflated perception of multiple contributers to the subject, and then the user pulls dirty tricks to try and force it's way (unilateral declarations of consensus being top of the list, then arguing reverts on the talk page). You can assume good faith all you like. I cannot assume any such thing about the IP or its contributions. Koncorde (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor has just signed up for an account as User:Starcader to facilitate communication. I'm not interested in debating what is and is not an attack, so I don't dispute any opinions anyone has on that question. -- Beland (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to disagree about the need for civility and good faith then, something that I think as Administrators we should encourage. An editor who makes unjustified accusations of COI (a fairly serious charge) or calls editors a cabal should at least be advised that it's a bad idea, not given a pass by an Administrator. Doug Weller  talk 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

On the question of a link to Category:Criticism of political correctness, I noticed a lot of the articles there are linked from the "Satirical use" section, though there are a lot of other articles that are not about satire, so that makes things a bit more complicated. -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An example of why an inclusion criteria is a basic requirement of categories. Koncorde (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for events
I'm opposed to filling the article with examples in general, but it is absolutely essential that any examples we do add have specific sources that relate the controversies they're about to the term "political correctness". (Ideally, not just mentioning it once in passing, but going into depth on the entire debate over the term itself and how this event relates to it.) People constantly adding random stuff that they personally feel relates to political correctness is one of the many, many reasons examples were removed in the past - any incidents we bring up need specific sources relating them to the topic, as directly and thoroughly as possible. Basically, sources that don't use the term "political correctness" are no use to us, and events that are only citable to those sources (or to sources that only use it once in passing) aren't enough to merit inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that, per WP:RS, we should avoid relying on individual studies; I'm particularly concerned with the two cites to Pinta and Yakubu, both of which are given massive blockquotes. This is, I think, pretty unequivocally WP:UNDUE, so I'll take them out if nobody has any particularly compelling reasons why we need to focus on them in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly not from me. Condensing the wordiness of the article would help focus it on the actual elements that form it's foundations. At the moment it remains crufty with what seem to be things that I am increasingly aware don't express what has been written about it. Koncorde (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should be removed, simply because it is in illustrating how "Political Correctness" is a force or concept (as opposed to the term "Politically Correct" which CAN be used a pejorative).Starcader (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been done to death, 'political correctness' is a concept to the same extent that 'uncle tom' or 'cuckservative' or 'snowflake' are concepts. It is a concept that seeks to characterise and impugn the motives of the person/policy being discussed. We've had several RfCs on this subject and whilst almost everyone (including me) can come up with examples of use that are not overtly perjorative among our private circles - in public discourse, about particular policies - the use is always critical. The books on the subject are absolutely clear on this subject, but on a more informal level, can anyone come up with an example of politician X or commentator Y saying "this policy is simply PC", where the intention was not to criticise the policy? A term which is only used to negatively characterise, is - by definition - a perjorative.Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PC IS a concept. It is the concept of avoiding disadvantage to particular groups through policies or measures.  Those other words are just insults.  And there are many very well sourced examples of political correctness being described as a concept or philosophy.  Calling someone overly "politically correct" can certainly be a pejorative.  But today, in the USA, "political correctness" (note the distinction) is a concept and certainly not an insult.  Pincrete, in those RFC's you were typically the person arguing for the definition to say the term is "always" or "almost always" a pejorative.  This MAY have been true 25 years ago, but in the USA, it is  absolutely not the case today. Starcader (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You should have no issue providing the source of a policy that says "this is political correctness" that isn't pejorative then? Koncorde (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what we are discusing above. The Pinta and Yakuba journal where they discuss how Political Corrctness is useful in education.  No to mention we have an entire book-length, academic source entitled "The Philosphy of Political Correctness" that goes into great detail about the underlying concept of political correctness as well as the application of those philosophies.  The book does briefly mention how the label of being overly "politically correct" can sometimes be used in a critical sense, but also takes pains to distinguish how this is different than political correctness (the philosophy).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcader (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a policy though? It's a theoretical discourse. From Nigeria, not the USA. Koncorde (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never argued, nor claimed that the term is always perjorative ... in fact I got the 'qualifier' in "public discourse and in the media" added to the definition precisely because there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that people use the term in umpteen other ways in real life. Among people I know the term is primarily used ironically .. implying an excess of politeness or excessive deference to sensitivities. I also accept that the term may sometimes be used as a neutral description for a certain class of 'minority' issues in the US - there is enough anecdotal evidence from US editors to persuade me of that. But that's the problem, we can't base an article on either our own anecdotal evidence nor on our interpreting whether certain uses are perjorative/sarcastic/ironic or neutral. Nor can the article be about how people may use the term in private, it has to be about how the term is used in political discourse or we are straight into WP:OR.


 * One of the constants about the term is that those 'accused' say that there is no such thing as 'PC'. How can you have a philosophy that those who are supposedly adherents of, don't know - or won't acknowledge - even exists? Are they part of some secret cabal whose beliefs are only known to the initiated? If PC is a philosophy, which philosophy depts teach it, in which philosophy textbooks are its tenets expounded? I can only presume you mean philosophy in the 'everyday' sense meaning 'manner of thought', but even so, if this 'manner of thought' is only characterised as such by those who disapprove of it, it's fundamentally a critical term. It could well be that the use of the term is changing (especially in US perhaps), but we can't base articles on subjective impressions of use. Lastly, if 'PC' were really generally used simply as a neutral description of sensitivity to others, what on earth was wrong with the terms 'good manners', 'courtesy', and 'respect'? What is distinctive about this term? Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)