Talk:Inclusive language

Geckat

This article comes across with a very conservative bent ("most/many people...") and completely lacks citations for anything related to the claims made here about what people are pushing for when they're discussing inclusive language. It ought to be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckat (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Seamusdemora

Does anyone else feel that the article should mention the possibility a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" may be a manifestation of mental illness? For example: Self-Absorption in the sense that one's own preferences or beliefs must take precedence over those of others.

Does anyone else feel that this article should include a diversity of views on the appropriateness of "Inclusive language" in certain contexts? For example, the section titled "Inclusive Language for People" in this paper "Inclusive Language in Theology & Liturgy". It seems that some of those involved in spiritual matters feel that "Inclusive language" is inappropriate in certain contexts. Should their views be given any weight, or perhaps mentioned in an unbiased article on the subject?

Does anyone else feel that the article should mention a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" could be a manifestation of narcissism?

Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from acknowledging that some are of the opinion that proponents of "Inclusive Language" have gone too far?

Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from a brief discussion of the possibility that diktats prescribing "Inclusive language" may infringe (at least in the US) on First Amendment rights to free speech. Of course the First Amendment applies only to "State Actors", but it may also apply to organizations that receive financial support from the state.

Does anyone else feel that this article should include criticisms of "Inclusive language" from those affected?; for example the criticism that "Inclusive Language" actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help.

Does anyone else feel that this article should attempt to identify actual instances/cases in which "Inclusive language" has provided any benefits at all to any person? If none can be found, should this be mentioned in the article?

Does anyone else feel that instead of a table delineating Examples or Recommendations for Inclusive language, the article should simply state that there are no coherent standards for what constitutes "Inclusive language", and the strictures vary considerably?

Does anybody else feel that the article should mention "Inclusive language" may be viewed by Westerners as politeness with authoritarian overtones? For example, studies have shown that the Chinese have an authoritarian orientation which is distinctly different than many Americans (or Europeans) do. Seen in this light, it seems only natural that some Westerners would prefer the personal freedom and responsibility for exercising their concept of good manners, and resent the autocratic methods favored by some proponents of "Inclusive language".

Does anyone else feel that this article should include a reference to the Wikipedia article on the "Busybody"?

Seamusdemora (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seamusdemora: Wikipedia articles can't just include one editor's personal opinions or opinions that a bunch of editors agree with. Especially with such a controversial topic, claims need to be verified by reliable sources. To maintain neutral point of view, opinions need to be attributed to third parties, and presented with due weight to their notability in the public discourse. The articles on self-absorption, narcissism, politeness, authoritarianism, and busybodies you linked to don't even mention inclusive language or political correctness, much less document that there are notable commentators who share what I presume are your opinions. I'm not aware of any examples of First Amendment challenges to inclusive language, and I would be surprised to find one given that U.S. government entities generally don't make rules about how people are allowed to talk, other than their own employees who don't enjoy First Amendment protection in their official duties. You did not cite any sources, but if you know of any that describe examples, that would certainly be an interesting addition to the article.

You didn't cite any sources with examples of how inclusive language has helped anyone, but it would be a helpful addition to include some discussion of what notable advocates, opponents, and commentators claim it is and isn't good for, and any scientific studies which have looked at those questions.

The source you referenced on inclusive language in liturgy is full of religious nonsense and somewhat difficult to interpret. It seems to touch on the controversy of how to translate gendered terms in the Bible, how to describe the gender of this denomination's version of the Christian God, and whether to change those that are used in ceremonies. It would certainly be interesting to cover those controversies in this article, along with similar controversies in other areas of life. To satisfy NPOV, each area would need to have a balance of perspectives, not just saying inclusive language is either good or bad for that area.

I watched the "The Problem with Inclusive Language" YouTube video you cited. The commentator's theory that it hurts oppressed groups if they are not exposed to demeaning language because otherwise people won't be able to cope when they're exposed to demeaning language...doesn't make logical sense. Regardless of my own opinion, it also does not seem like a random YouTube video with less than 500 views is a notable part of the public conversation on this issue. Perhaps there are more notable commentators with similar theories or more coherent theories from a similar perspective?

The article already mentions that some people think it has gone too far, the section "Criticism and limitations". The source that you cite on the topic of the word "American" doesn't really document that any notable commentators have that opinion. The debate over this word specifically is covered in detail at American (word).

I do think the article should have examples of what inclusive language advocates are pushing for. That's the whole reason I created this article, because after reading political correctness it seems many readers were somewhat unclear on what it meant because there were no concrete examples. The diversity of proposals should certainly be represented in this article. You did not cite any sources in your comment. Are you aware of examples where different inclusive language advocates are arguing for conflicting things? Most of what I came across was fairly consistent and it was a matter of how comprehensive the catalog of suggestions was. Certainly there have been some suggestions that just haven't caught on; it would be interesting to include some of those and give some statistics distinguishing those from suggestions which have been widely adopted or which are still only partly adopted. -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I wish that I had never commented. I can see now that my questions must have offended you. I conclude that from your statement, "The source you referenced on inclusive language in liturgy is full of religious nonsense..." I am glad to learn that you are an authority on what is a "reliable source", and what is not. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if some might wonder whether this article, and your great ideas for expanding it further - are nonsense? What is the saying - "One man's trash is another man's treasure"? But that's not actually an inclusive saying, is it? Whoops!

A question: Am I correct in assuming that you found my ill-fated efforts to revise the Elaine Massacre article after reading my comments here? If so, I hope you've concluded that I do take some things more seriously than others.

And in closing: It seems that you have been on hiatus for 2 years - as I have. I would also like to say that I will be perfectly happy to remain on hiatus - forever. Yes, that's how I feel. I'll offer a deal: I won't ever comment on Wikipedia again, if you won't ever reply to my prior comments - OK?

Thanks & have a nice life.

Seamusdemora (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your very reasoned response, Beland. —Wingedserif (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Political correctness

@John Maynard Friedman: Greetings! Regarding the removal of this article from Category:Political correctness...I added it because as the article itself says, 'often the term "political correctness" is used to refer to this practice'. It seems weird not to have this article in a category that's used as a synonym for the topic. "Political correctness" is not always used with a negative connotation, and certainly this categorization isn't intended to convey any opinion one way or the other. -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beland: It would need a citation of course but a more accurate way to express it would be to say 'often the term "political correctness" is used pejoratively to refer to this practice'.

But specifically, this article is not about PC, which is the criterion we agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:Political correctness should apply for inclusion in the category. Category:Linguistic controversies is relevant but I see we already have that one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about political correctness, in the sense that sometimes when people use that term, they simply mean inclusive language. It's true that with the other definition, this is a class of examples of political correctness rather than its totality. I just thought ignoring one of the common definitions and dropping the category makes it harder to find the right article when navigating the category tree. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge that is not one of the egregiously WP:soapbox categorisations that provoked my original CfD so if you want to reinstate, I won't oppose again. My concern is that it feeds into the trope that all "liberal" (US sense) causes are ipso facto PC (xref discussion preceding this one) but conservative causes are "common sense". So it opens the flood gates maybe only a little but again as the preceding discussion illustrates, there is a flood tide bursting to enter.

IMO, "Article must be about PC" is a defensible position. If exceptions are made even from the best of motives, it ceases to be such. WP:other stuff exists has never been a great argument in my view, except in cases where the WP:righting great wrongs needs to be deployed, so we need to be very reluctant to create such "other stuff" deliberately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

I know people are going to come into this article with low expectations. I've been pleasantly surprised by a lot of articles on WP, but generally I know what to expect. But I'm leaving this comment here mostly so that people can use my timestamp to look up this date in the article's history to see some of the worst use of in-line citations in contemporary WP.

The Think podcast citation cracks me up particularly because it's used seven times in completely different contexts without a timestamp, quote, or attribution. That's a 50-minute-long listen required for verification, by the way. And the citation itself only lists the host as the "author", when it's a round-table with three others. So every reference to this citation could be one of the four talking, it could be all four agreeing, it could be the host talking and all the expert(?) guests vehemently objecting -- if that page rots we would have zero idea.

The article could be rewritten from an academic angle: linguists and psychologists have done actual research for decades into language policing, language sensitivity, language inclusivity, etc.. The article could be rewritten from a political angle: politicians have grand-standed and governments have passed laws, again for decades, regarding the use and misuse of language in culture. Basically the article could be anything that is completely different from what it is now and be better. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice 74252

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KoolKat1031 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jd34087n, Alexisellise.

— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Some current issues with articles content

Reading over the article I found a few issues with the list of supposedly non-inclusive language and the supposedly more inclusive synonyms proposed as replacements.

1. First, the list seems to assume that ever advocate for “inclusive language” agrees with everything on the list when in fact some of these advocates agree with some of them and not others. For example, I know of very few advocates of inclusive language who agree that we should never call a person with a pet a “pet owner”. I also haven’t heard many objection to brown bagging it due to as opposed association with “brown paper bag test” and colorism, and I suspect that not that many younger people even known what that test is.
2. Second, some of them “non-inclusive terms” might be seen as objectionable in some contexts but not others. For example, terms like citizen, refuge, or Indian.
3. Finally, the some concept of micro-aggressions is controversial in at least some circumstances because it’s argued by some critics of the concept as currently described that it’s not always clear what is or isn’t a going to be seen as a micro-aggression either due to false assumptions possibly due to paranoia so trying to avoid micro-aggressions can be difficult if it’s hard to know what might qualify or not as one.

Basically, we need a disclaimer that says that not every advocate of “inclusive language” agrees with every thing on the lists of possibly non-inclusive words. We also need to make it clear that some words are only non-inclusive in certain contexts (For example: Calling a person from India an Indian is different then calling a Native American an Indian. Same with Citizen, say when discussing who can legally vote, or refuge when talking about war refugees seeking refugee status under international law). The term Patient isn’t viewed a not inclusive in all contexts such as a doctor talking about their own patients/clients so far as I know. There is also the issue as to whether an individual or group of oppressed people can agree to allow a term others in that group argue to non-inclusive. Can a group of married women allow others to call them Mrs or a mixed sex group be Ok with “you guys” over “you all”? Can a female homemaker self-refer themselves as housewife? Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bias-free communication into Inclusive language

Articles seem to have identical scope. Daask (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)