Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2

Political correctness

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

An article that routinely offends its readers, prompts significant edits that are invariably reversed, and has to warn on its talk page to &#8220;read talk page discussions before making changes,&#8221; is not representative of the Wikipedia. Isn't that close to the opposite of our ideal? Even if it were well written, I don't see why we would direct readers to an article about an expression of such dubious origin, application, and implication. Nathan Hamblen 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I find most of these poor reasons for removal. Sam [Spade] 04:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sam. Ambivalenthysteria 06:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing the article from Featured articles, as I apparently should have done when first listing it here. Also, I'd like to add that in being controversial (it has msg:controversial on its talk page, and a history of carnage too), the article is strictly excluded from What is a featured article. Nathan 21:57, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * You appear to have misread, the statement is (must) "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." Sam [Spade] 23:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You appear to have bypassed the removal process and taken it into your own hands to remove this from Featured Articles. IMHO, this is not on. We have this voting process for a reason. Ambivalenthysteria 03:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Read the text at the top of this page. Nathan 05:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, that article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed by me and several other people. I could add the disputed NPOV notice back to the article itself, which would spark another edit war, invalidating the article from being featured in yet another way. Would that make you happy? Nathan 16:35, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. A I undestand it Nathan not only listed the article here (OK) and removed it from the Featured articles list (OK), but also unilaterally removed the "featured articles" notice from the article's own talk page. Is that how this is supposed to work? -- Jmabel 23:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know either... to me it made sense to remove that notice, but if you don't like it you can unilaterally add it back. I don't see a policy on it one way or the other. Nathan 16:35, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, while I don't think the article should be completely deleted (at least not yet) I certainly do not in any way believe this is 'Featured' article material. There are still problems with this page, and with so many other good ones, why on earth is this considered as being excellent work? --ArcticFrog 14:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog


 * Could you guys please provide some specific, fixable suggestions that would meet the objection criteria? Sam [Spade] 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uh, yea..how about using highly opinionated statements in the opening definition and supporting them with stuff like this:. How do you support an opinion with an opinion? I have made several recommendations about specific changes, most of which are reverted w/o good reason. It seems to me that someone dead set on using this article to make a political statement. If you can't stand to rectify this material, then not only should it be removed from the 'featured' list, but should probably just be deleted. The article should only state what everyone agrees on: that the term means using a substitute term for one that may be offensive. Anything else is a political jibe as there is no consensus on it and it only appears in unquestionably biased political pieces. Is this encyclopedia a soapbox or not?--ArcticFrog 19:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog


 * as I said in talk, I was providing evidence of usage. The article doesn't state that this usage is what P.C. means, but rather than this is what some people mean when we say it. Sam [Spade] 19:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I provided a couple more citations to that particular, just for good measure Sam [Spade]

I vehemently maintain my objection. "Evidence of usage" just shows someone's opinion. If this is to continue, we should go to the Rush Limbaugh page and after the intro, put this "And also, some people think he is 'a Big Fat Idiot'" and refer to the Al Frankin book. It's a fact that some people think that...right? So we should say it? It's irrelevant; it's nonsense; it's a political jab where none need be. I object to the citation itself, and the others don't look much better. --ArcticFrog 22:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

There's a reference above to objection criteria. I know of know such criteria, other than failing to live up to What is a featured article. Because the bar to be featured is so high, the bar to remove them is low, particularly for an article such as this one that was never voted into the featured list by the community. In my view, Political correctness falls short in the following featured criteria: As for "fixable suggestions," that's not my concern. I don't think it's possible for the article to be improved enough to be featured, at least not with its current attack-dog editors. If it ever is, though, that's when it should be listed on Featured article candidates and voted in like any other article. Nathan 08:25, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
 * Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say").
 * Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles.
 * Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars).
 * Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.


 * Support removal. I don't think the article is written that well.
 * The first sentence in the article should provide a simple definition of the term. It does not.  Instead, it says political correctness et al. are "terms that commonly refer...to a social idea...characterized by efforts..." etc.  It's unnecessarily complicated and doesn't really explain what political correctness is adequately.
 * The usage section has some good points, but I think it needs to be expanded. Specifically, what groups of people are concerned with being politically correct and thus are apt to use politically correct language?
 * The history section needs to be expanded. Why did concern for political correctness arise in the 1980s?  Why did usage of the term decline in the '90s?
 * The controversy section is all right for the most part, but the last paragraph contains some unfortunate wordings. The sentences, "They then changed it back and gave the name of the editor who had changed it. They then had to retract the name of the person who had edited it because it is Times policy not to name people who make changes to articles" come and go without any explanation of who "they" are (I assume the Times staff).  This section has now been significantly improved. Acegikmo1 23:56, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * A new objection: I find the use of the term "P.C." thoughout the article too informal. I'm especially disturbed by the appearance of "P.C.ness".  This not only looks bad, it also doesn't make sense to me.  Wouldn't the term "Political Correctness" be abbreviated to "P.C." as well?  Acegikmo1 23:56, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)  This has been addressed.  Acegikmo1 23:47, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess my real problem with the article is the quality of writing. Didn't Featured Articles used to be called "Brilliant prose"?  The article needs to be expanded so that it covers the topic more comprehensively, and several parts need to be re-written to make the article clearer.  If my points are addressed, I will reconsider supporting the removal.  Acegikmo1 08:48, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with the criticisms by Acegikmo1. I'll see what can be done about making improvements. Sam [Spade] 17:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I beleiev improvements have been made. Thoughts, comments? Sam [Spade] 18:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my support for the removal of this article. I now oppose its removal and would like to see it remain a featured article.  I believe that most of my specific problems have been addressed and (most importantly) the quality of writing has improved substantially.  I'd still like to see more specific examples or quotes in the History and Usage sections, but this is a minor point.  Acegikmo1 19:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read the article again and am happy to say that it's been improved. I'm sorry to say, though, that it still seems to be at odds with itself. About half the times that "Political correctness" appears in the article (strange capitalization, by the way) it is preceeded by the disclaimer "so-called." Ha! That's the name of the article, and people don't agree on what it means. (I'm in the "so-called" camp.) That was and continues to be my primary objection. Until the article represents a full and accurate disclosure on the expression's orgins, uses, implications, etc, and does so in an orginized and well written way, I will object to it being featured. Nathan 15:21, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think its only fitting that an article about politically correctness is not considered politically correct. JCreedon Jul 14, 2006 (UTC)