Talk:Political correctness

---

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

Please Note: This article is not about language evolution in general, nor mere euphemism.

Former Featured Article Nominee

(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Political_correctness
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

Congratulations Wikipedia - A Lengthy Article, A Zillion Edits, and it Completely Misses the Main Definition of the Term

Terms like this are defined by their prevalent usage. Since such content or perspective is completely missing from this article, despite being a huge article and a zillion edits, you can learn more about "Politically Correct" in 20 seconds by punching "politically correct" into any dictionary site than you can from reading this entire article. BTW, here's one randomly chosen example of many:

"marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology"

Wikipedia articles on controversial topics are all in such a mess.....the otherwise-excellent Wikipedia system simply fails on controversial topics. One could do a much better job in informing by erasing this whole current article and just putting in links to a few major dictionary sites.

75.24.138.102 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your preferred definition misses a central feature of the term "political correctness", namely that it primarily applies to the use of "correct" language and symbolism. That's why it makes sense to talk about "right-wing political correctness", which would make no sense with the definition above. The definition in terms of progressive orthodoxy generally is mentioned as an extension of the primary one - it was removed a few days ago by an anonymous edit, but I've restored it.JQ (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. No offense, but a discussion that that widely acknowledged primary use of the term is an "offshoot" of a distantly secondary use of the term, or is merely the "preferred" definition of one editor and that such can block highlighting of the primary usage is an example of how the Wikipeda rules fails on controversial articles.

The mechanism is that an article can always get occluded or POV'd in a certain direction by filling it with selected sidebar referencable facts, where the "big picture" is inherently expert, objective synthesis...that which dictionaries and non-Wiki enclyclopedias (and non-controversial Wikipedian articles) are built on but which Wikipedia can and must reject on controversial articles. And so, respectfully, I think that 75 was right, despite your statement. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A condition of "Politically incorrect" is that it be acceptable to at least a reasonable fraction of society. Editors have occluded the definition by pretending that aggregious violations of near-universally held societal norms are examples of "political incorrectness" That like saying cannibalism is an example of people being un-vegetarian. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions to political correctness

There should be a section about how some exceptions to political correctness are permissible in contemporary society. Malighnment of white European males, particularly "dead white European males" is considered entirely permissible, as is the usage of epithets such as redneck, cracker, hill-billy, white-trash, etc. Open attacks on conversative women are also considered acceptable in contemporary society. ColDickPeters (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the double standard that such attacks are considered OK, but that the same attacks against people in different categories would be considered horrible isn't an exception to political correctness, it is exactly following the rules of political correctness.

Again, this is per the main current usage of the term, not all of the rare / obscure usages and non-example "examples" that this article is occluded with. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is part of the standard critique of "political correctness" and should probably be included under "critique". What is needed is to find a WP:RS making this point, with specific reference to PC. JQ (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But then you get to a complex question. Are you talking about the TERM "political correctness" or are you talking about the BEHAVIOR which the term seeks to deride? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Has to be the term. It's WP:SYNTH for us to include in our own voice a statement like that of ColDickPeters above, and to connect that with political correctness. We have to quote a notable RS using the term to describe this behavior.JQ (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search on redneck + "politically correct"/"politically incorrect". I found one list [1] which included a PC euphemism for redneck, and a couple of non-notable blogs repeating the complaint above. But the top hit was for a self-described "politically incorrect redneck. Looking at this and the Wiki article redneck, I'd say this term, though still sometimes derogatory, has mostly been re-appropriated as a term of self-praise. Same for cracker and hill-billy as our articles on this show point out. On "white trash", I did find something suitable [2]. There's a bit of irony there though - the writer is complaining about the term being used on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect". I've added this (without my side not on the irony). JQ (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

By the main common use of the term, Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect" was VERY politically correct, so, the show's name was ironic, but the statement you referred to isn't.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that "politically correct" means "disliked by conservatives", that might be right. But although that use is widespread, it isn't, as your comments have suggested, the dominant use. Even in conservative circles, it's more common to use the term to refer to a particular style of left/liberal politics, pretty much the exact opposite of Maher's style, rather than to anyone who holds opinions that are, from a conservative perspective, incorrect. As noted in Bill Maher, he describes himself as a libertarian, and satirises (his view of) political correctness. JQ (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello JQ Not sure that I'd agree that the predominant use/definition is any of those. I think I'd define the predominant use/definition as what is in the dictionaries; here's one I chose at random:

"marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues especially involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology"

With the closest (albeit imperfect) thing to that in the WP article being: "a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations"

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions, especially of current political terms, aren't that useful for encyclopedia articles. Even looking at the criticism above, it's clear that the primary uses of PC and its derivatives refer to language, rather than the policies they describe. A secondary use, illustrated by the reference to "orthodoxy" is the idea of following a "correct line". That's discussed in the article and referred to in the lead where "politically incorrect" people are noted as seeing themselves as unconstrained by (leftwing/progressive) orthodoxy. Again, Bill Maher would clearly see himself as politically incorrect in that sense - he favors lots of policies like social security privatisation that the left dislikes. An even broader usage, applied to anyone (like Bill Maher) who doesn't conform to rightwing/conservative orthodoxy on any particular topic, gets a mention, but it clearly is not (as I think you want to argue) the predominant usage. Finally, of course, there are the uses that focus on orthodoxy per se rather than ideology, as in the section on right-wing political correctness, which makes sense because excessive concern with "correct" language and adherence to orthodoxy is not the preserve of any particular political group. JQ (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

JQ, I could not understand your "An even broader...." sentence, which appears to be a key one. Was there missing words in it? North8000 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Should be "An even broader usage. Fixed now, thanks "JQ (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course those two words put together have probably been used in a zillion ways over hundreds of years. There aren't Wikipedia articles on all two word combinations and all usages of such. My point being that the only thing notable or useful for coverage is widespread meanings and uses. I do submit that the prevalent definition from the dictionaries (e.g. "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues especially involving race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology") is the prevalant usage/definition. The reality is that the term caught on amongst those who seek to deride or fight against widely entrenched "typically progressive" (liberal) orthodoxies in a FEW PARTICULAR areas. There are many other "rule sets" or othodoxies imposed by all groups (the right, the left, society as a whole) but I think that the prevalent usage (and thus the main definition of the term) relates to the narrower case described earlier in this paragraph, and not to all of these other cases. If we could find some study that counted and categorized uses of the term, I think that it would bear out the above and guide this article to being more Wikipedian. But as a quick gut check, when you see the left criticizing, right wing orthodoxy, do you REALLY see them calling such orthodoxy "political correctness"?

I think that the lead is 90% well worded, but the missing 10% is major. First it is missing the aspect that PC refers to efforts seeks to minimize social and institutional offense against CERTAIN classifications of race, gender etc. For example it is politically incorrect to say "women are dumber than men" and politically correct to say: "men are dumber than women". Secondly, the term clearly refers to "over the top" or excessive efforts to minimize offense, not such efforts in general.

You might be right about Bill Maher, I never knew him or the show that well. I was basing what I said on the highly publicized swipes that came out of the show, which were generally all against Republicans or the right, which are the politically correct swipes to take. If he was a fellow libertarian thinker, I wish I would have watched the show.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the "prevelant usage" shouldn't be what an encyclopaedia is about though, that is what the latest edition of a dictionary seeks to define. An Encyclopaedia should be more encompassing and thorough that just the latest way in which a term is used, it should cover all major uses and the history of the term (as much as space/patience/clarity can support that is). --86.179.186.239 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth be known, this probably shouldn't even be an article. It's prevalent usage is defined by dictionaries. It's #2 usage is the reverse of it's #1 usage, and then there are about 10 obscure unrelated meanings of the term, including historical. And since it's main uses are as a political tool, or a reverse meaning to deflect it's effectiveness as a political tool, the article will forever be uninformative and forever a contentious mess under current Wiki rules. Hate to say it, but it's true. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article should remain, the use of opinionated political pundits as verifiable sources should be removed unless in that context or as a quote from them.--DCX (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously proposing getting rid of it. Just pointing out that in addition to the usual things that doom "battlegroung area" articles to be an eternal unstable messes under current Wikipedia rules, this one had the additional challenge that it really doesn't have a subject. Unless you accept it prevalent use as being the topic, it is simply two words put together with zillions of different meanings and uses. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts regarding Blacks lower test Scores vs. lower intelligence

I think that making a broad statement like "Blacks having lower intelligence" rather than a narrower more objective statement (like "lower scores on IQ tests") is extreme. A condition of "Politically incorrect" is that it be acceptable to at least a reasonable fraction of reasonable society. With John Quiggin's newest wording, I think that the statement is too extreme to be used as an example of political incorrectness. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that in a bunch of edits, and meant to fix it. Neither of the versions so far was really satisfactory. No one disputes that the mean score of (US) blacks on IQ tests is lower than that of whites. As the cited source states, the mian dispute is over the claim (in particular, in the Bell Curve) that this gap is (largely/primarily) genetically determined. Those opposed to this claim are criticised as "politically correct". I've made this change. Hope that satisfies concerns.JQ (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Shouldn't we include something in this section that's actually relevant to Marx? He advocated political correctness (I forget what he called it) in one of his books. He believed that by controlling the language, you could control the people (or something like that.) PokeHomsar (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Why don't you? The Marxist tie in is unsubstantiated in my opinion and is an example of double speak, not PC.--DCX (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This article suggest Political correctness is a communist conspiracy

Politically correct language is intended to show respect to all people. Examples of this can even be found in the constitution, predating Marxist theories. The links to Marxism- Lenin and Mao are dubious and do not demonstrate politically correct language. Eliminating racist or otherwise biased and offensive or even divisive language has nothing to do with communism or socialism. --DCX (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is definitely pushing a POV. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Bill Maher nor "white trash" are PC

This line will be removed unless there can be shown some relevance.

The term "white trash" is not in the least bit PC.

Bill Maher host of "Politically Incorrect" is...by his own admission and title of his program...politically incorrect.--DCX (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (In case it needs to be explained, "white trash" implies that 'trashy' people are 'usually' non-white, thus the perceived need to modify 'trash' with 'white'.)--TyrS (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This section does not make sense and has no place in this article. It is clearly there as a POV bias against those perceived (incorrectly) as perpetuating PC-ness because of left wing affiliation to point out a perceived hypocrisy. I don't argue the fact that negative terminology for caucasions, Christians or Americans exists or was used on the program 'Politically Incorrect', but perceiving this to be PC is incorrect.

Further, titling this section "Exclusion of some groups" is incorrect because the example mentioned is clearly not an exclusion and is in fact ONE, incorrect example, "Exclusion of one group", which is still misleading because it is Larry Elder's misconception about what constitutes PCness.

I once again propose that this highly incorrect, opinionated, badly written, unorganized and base section be removed--DCX (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Loony Left" Link is not in the right place

I think it's worth mentioning the "Baa, Baa WHITE Sheep" incident, but it is in the middle of a section that has nothing to do with it. I propose adding this section somewhere else.--DCX (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This article totally misses the point

Haven't any of you noticed that this article is about the term "political correctness" rather than political correctness itself? Look at the "History" section; it only talks about the origin of the two words. What a pointless article! How could someone write so much and still completely miss the point like this? (Huey45 (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Your comment seems to presume the existence of something well defined that corresponds to the term "political correctness". As the article makes clear, this presumption is false - the term, like most pejoratives, is the subject of contest and dispute, which is why the article is written that way. JQ (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Culturally-disadvantaged caucasians

Is this term alive in the wild to describe those who might be subject to the slur "white trash"? Google suggests it is, but mostly by people citing Wikipedia - not this article but White trash. The increasing dominance of Wikipedia as an info source is certainly problematic as regards the concept of WP:Verifiability.JQ (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Politically correct labeling to undermine

The article dances around it, but doesn't directly point out how calling something politically correct can be used to undermine a legitamte topic or at least to challenege a viewpoint without having to debate that viewpoint on its merits. 24.211.184.77 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true but it's a 2 way street that I think mostly goes the other way. The behavior that the term "political correctness" is applied to is is an orthodoxy which does not permit debating the viewpoint on it's merits, and pillories anyone who tries to do so.North8000 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article misses the most crucial aspect of its own subject: power. It's about the power over language, over who decides what is or is not to be spoken, how people control other people via social pressure. It's also about the language itself, but that is already covered in the article.

It's also interesting that the term "politically correct" itself, oncce used by people who identified with it, is no longer considered to be politically correct.

Finally, I object to too much of the "right wing-left wing" emphasis in the article. A lot of people on the left wing object to the notion that certain words are righter than others. And the right wing employs PC when it's to its advantage - e.g., if waitresses are told to refer to themselves as "servers" by employers to avoid negative reactions from customers, even if the waitress wishes to be called a waitress. Oh, and of course waiters too. ;-} 207.216.13.209 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The "As an engineered political term" section needs major surgery to stay in the article

Right now, that section, starting from the the title (which implicitly says that one side's assertion is fact) to 100% of the content is just a soapbox for one side's views on the topic of the section. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need any surgery. The section is about a significant opinion concerning the phrase. I don't see where it says one side's assertion is a fact, it's just giving one explanation about its use and development, nothing in the article indicates that it is the correct, or I should really say the only, explanation. You seem to be complaining that a particular point of view is being presented, but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. But admittedly I was perhaps overly brief on my first point, and so here it is expanded a little plus a response to your note. I think that there are a lot of folks )amd a significant opinion) who think that this term came into being and gained popularity as a tool to define and attach a negative label to the orthodoxy that is now called "political correctness". I think that only a small fraction of them (= a small minority viewpoint) would think that the above process was organized and centralized enough to call that process "engineering" of the term. The title essentially that "small minority" viewpoint as being a fact.

My second main concern is that ALL of the material in that section is from the one side / one point of view on the issue. NOWHERE did I say that the viewpoint should not be covered, as you are saying that I did.

My third point is that the last quote was beyond a personal attack against his opponents, it was basically making up lies about what his opponents said, and then making ad hominem attacks based on the lies. Basically saying that [persons against political correctness are those "who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them," That's like a vegertarian activist saying that those arguing against vegetarianism are the people that want to practice cannibalism. Such is not suitable for the article. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia works. We don't determine the truth of a statement, that's not our role. He said it, it's significant enough to be in the article, whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter, although I know you won't like my response. As for your 2nd point, 'major surgery' to me is not the same thing as 'something needs to be added', which is what you are saying now. If you have reliable sources commenting on this 'engineered' concept, fine, bring them here, but they have to specifically comment on this concept.

Your comment on the way you think it came into being confuses me - it already seems to be in the article in the "Current usage" section, what's missing from that that you think should be added? Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

While being assailed from both the left and the right is not a guarantee of correctness (let alone political correctness), it's striking that the comments on this page are about evenly divided between those who think the article is biased one way or the other. As Dougweller says, the aim is to report all points of view in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT, not to arbitrate between them.JQ (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To y'all. I didn't claim there was any bias in the overall article, just severe problems and bias in that one section which clearly violate wp:NPOV. And, responding to Dougweller on the "came into being" section, I was really saying that to analyze the last quote. Basically it was an ad hominem attack against persons with a particular viewpoint rather than a comment on the issue. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how having various povs in the article violates NPOV. The quote looks relevant to me. Toynbee is a prominent commentator, and I really don't see how it is not a comment on the issue even if it is a criticism of people with a particular viewpoint - and that isn't a reason not to use it. But there is the NPOV noticeboard if you think you want to take this elsewhere. See WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)