Talk:Political correctness

Why are we using a student's personal opinion as a source?

What guidelines or policies support this? I'm not just objecting to what I see as promotionalism but the use of the source rapt all. Do we have to go to RSN? Doug Weller talk 07:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If this is what is meant, I agree whole-heartedly. Apart from being a student opinion, it really doesn't say anything (exemplify what change?). The piece is actually very Trump-critical "the political correctness where an administration demands an apology from a Broadway cast is the first step on the road to an authoritarian government that silences critics with force and has no regard for free speech", but insufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. I think that much of the 2016 stuff is more about DJT than about 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sure the Daily Campus is notable in itself, but not sure how it fits as a Reliable Source - particularly for opinion pieces. I know it previously credited the statement to him (and IP has reverted back to that state) but I am not sure it even adds anything the other references don't. The section strikes me in any case as a lot of opinion. Koncorde (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

After noting that we already have 4 reliable sources for this I've removed the Daily Campus. It's probably inevitable that Trump has caused more discussion of PC. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What appears to have been widely commented on in last few years, is Trump's (and alt-right's?) rekindling of the term. What also seems to be fairly widely commented on is that DJT's use is much broader than traditional right's use and criticism of his use of the term is often coming from traditional conservatives. Where I think we may be going off-topic is when we stray away from use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a separate conversation around his anti-pc'ness being a kind of 'alt right political correctness' i.e. code words and in crowd language etc designed not to offend what they consider to be a marginalised group (Trump supporters). But that's a significant contortion of the euphemism, although the argument is very sound in the sense that all groups have their code words etc. Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern Pc Controversies

I noticed we have a section entitled "Conservative Political Correcntess" and "False Accusations of Political Correctness". As you may be aware, there was a recent controversy regarding Robert Lee, the commentator for ESPN. Unlike many other PC related controversies, this situation is much different because it is not the opinion of a single journalist. Reliable spurces have roundly defined this as a situation of political correctness run amok. As far as I can tell, this is one of the few scenarios where nearly all reliable sources (as opposed to a single journalist) have defined something specifically as PC. How might we for this in the article? I think it deserves a mention as it is not an opinion, unlike most pc controversies. 2600:1012:B05E:F8E7:DCA6:A1F1:CB8D:E4C (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is an opinion, it may be a widely held one, but it is still an opinion. We don't usually list examples unless they illustrate a point, just as the articles on other political terms don't simply list examples. Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC) .... this story seems like a storm in a teacup and not even an example of PC. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

user:pincrete, The following RS specifically (as in direct quotes) define the situation as pc, with the NYT claiming it is "perhaps the ultimate example of political correctness": New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Times, MSNBC, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Miami Herald, Sports Illistatsd and The National Review,. These are just a small sample of sources. This example is particularly apt because it illustrates political correctness in a broader context, as opposed to just being an insult. One of the ways this article is lacking is its failure to explain how modern PC is a cultural phenomena, not just a label. This story can help with that illustration. 2600:1012:B05E:F8E7:DCA6:A1F1:CB8D:E4C (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I get what this would add. The claim / accusation of 'political correctness' gets thrown around a lot, this is just another example. It is still here being used as an 'insult' by the way, in particular it is mocking the concept of being sensitive to the similarities in name at a controversial moment in time. Would people have associated the two? Perhaps not. But if they went ahead and someone did associate the two, the fall out could potentially be more severe.

Regarding Water Buffalo Incident previously removed, not sure why it would be a relevant addition. This article is not a repository for all incidents of claimed 'political correctness'. Koncorde (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how it is mocking anything. Certianly no one was being "sensitive" to the name. Rather the example illustrates how political correctness can become excessive and backfire. In this case the application of a PC philosophy harmed instead of helped. Rather than the best announcer being chosen for the job, an arbitrary variable was thrown in - the announcers name. Political Correctness is not necessarily bad, but when taken to extremes can be harmful. That's why this is a helpful example. It shows both sides of the coin. We dont currently have that anywhere in the article. 2602:301:772D:62D0:F444:71:7854:CB5F (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

By 'mocking' I refer to the mocking of the concept of "political correctness". I've just read 6 principle articles from NYT, BBC, Boston Globe etc and any mention of "political correctness" is generally referred to in context of people on the internet claiming it is "political correctness". Usually then with example tweets of people not using the exact words complaining about the decision from whatever point of view they hold on the subject.

There is no suggestion by ESPN themselves that this was Political Correctness. They have a quite well measured rationale of avoiding drawing attention to the coincidence for his benefit. Unfortunately someone leaked the change in plans and this has drawn attention to the coincidence and people have assumed (wrongly) that they are trying to censor Robert Lee's name (when in fact he was just moved to a non Charlottesville game). Koncorde (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

But there was no rational reason to move him, except to avoid offense. That's the very definition of political correctness.2602:301:772D:62D0:81A9:61FC:A420:66ED (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ESPN provided their own rational reason; none of it involved "political correctness". Their concern was, according to their own statement, to avoid the trolling of Robert Lee (the memes would have been inevitable), or the use of the coincidence of his name and location, to further someone elses goal. Only some opinion on the internet (largely attributed to Twitter / Social Media users) made any such link to PC. Changing the location a sportscaster is working in is not "political correctness". Koncorde (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

An observation for our IP editor from Torrance, CA: You clearly have strong opinions about what political correctness is, whether it is good/bad/indifferent and what you feel we should label as "political correctness". You've been discussing them here for quite some time. We've gotten nowhere. I don't see that changing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the observation. I believe you are correct, there does not seem to be much cooperation happening. - perhaps an RFC might indeed settle this. I appreciate the advice. 2602:301:772D:62D0:50B8:36DF:24A3:66DE (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the proud mother at the parade who observed, "Everyone is out of step, except for my Johnny!" - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes the article is out of step/aged, but I am confident it can (and will) be improved after an RFC. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You believe the article and all of the editors here are out of step because they do not match you. In Wikipedia's terms, the multiple editors who disagree with you are a consensus and you are pounding away on the rotting carcass of a horse that died months ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The article definitely could be improved, but if you imagine that an RfC is going to fundamentally change this into what a handful of US newspapers say is an example of PC, you are mistaken.

This is a political term, it has been in common use since about 1990. We don't cover political terms mainly with examples, if you look at the page for 'liberal', or 'conservative' you aren't going to find a list of the uses made by the term in news sources, certainly not solely US ones. What you are going to find will be mainly from books attempting to chart the use of the terms over time and place.

One of the things which IMO is missing from this article is WHY critics don't like measures which they describe as 'PC'. They find these measures ridiculous, and/or censorship and/or social engineering and/or reverse inequality. But the sources need to be neutral academic sources and balanced.

If you really want the article to be balanced in its up-to-dateness, you would have to record that most non-US news sources/non-US people think that 'PC' is about as dated as Abba. We can't understand why anyone would get 'het-up' about it, even less why US newspapers have nothing better to report on than that someone with a - currently unfortunate - name got moved to another sports event at a time the name might have caused trouble for him or the news-station. Getting upset about keeping/removing statues makes sense, getting upset about the name doesn't, but if his news-station did it in agreement with him, how is that PC? How is it anybody's business but theirs? Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the original source, a blogger. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that 'PC" or 'avoiding offence' was the motive for this action at all. The official statement included: "It's a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and we regret that who calls play-by-play for a football game has become an issue." ... Is there some reason to believe that the blogger (or the IP here), knows something that the broadcaster -and Mr Lee- didn't? Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The blogger has included the official statement above his own now to point out his opinion (and his POINTY opinion about ESPN) doesn't mesh with the given reason. Koncorde (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde, I saw, but neither the blogger nor the commenters seemed to notice or care. Especially comic was the picture of Mr Lee and Robert E. offered just in case 'lefties' were not able to tell the difference. Silly really, because the play-by-play commentator is voice-only, and we all know Robert E. has a deeper voice. Doesn't he? Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hooray for social "media"? Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at what ESPN says

"Given the amount of media attention being generated by one of the countless, routine decisions our local production teams make every day, I wanted to make sure you have the facts. There was never any concern - by anyone, at any level — that Robert Lee's name would offend anyone watching the Charlottesville game.

Among our Charlotte production staff there was a question as to whether - in these divisive times --Robert's assignment might create a distraction, or even worse, expose him to social hectoring and trolling. Since Robert was their primary concern, they consulted with him directly. He expressed some personal trepidation about the assignment and, when offered the chance to do the Youngstown State/Pitt game instead, opted for that game — in part because he lives in Albany and would be able to get home to his family on Saturday evening.

I'm disappointed that the good intentions of our Charlotte colleagues have been intentionally hijacked by someone with a personal agenda, and sincerely appreciate Robert's personal input and professionalism throughout this episode".[1]

No conern that someone would take offense. No evidence of political correctness. But hey, let's try to make a story anyway. And where is the NYTimes story calling it an ultimate example? I can find this which says some people said it was political correctness run amuk, but doesn't call it political correctness directly, and this which doesn't mention political correctness. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas for improving article.

Ok Ive thought a lot about this and rather than the RFC route, I would like to work collaboratively with other editors here. Summer has a point about beating a dead horse with the whole example thing. For the time being, I will no longer push for an example of PC in the article. It appears to be fraught with difficulty, partially because it is indeed an objective definition. I still feel it might help illustrate the concept, but apparently consensus doesn't agree. I really do want to improve this project - can everyone AGF for the moment and give me a chance here?

Moving forward, I had some ideas for improving the article. user:Pincrete, user:SummerPhDv2.0, and user:Koncorde, what do you think about the following: My idea was to choose one of the topics below, do some research on it, and then add to the article.

• A more thorough examination of political correctness as a real phenomena (as opposed to a pejorative or a way to dismiss an argument). The underlying problem is that labeling PC as a pejorative almost suggests that it doesn't exist. After all, the core beliefs of the PC doctrine are certainly something to aspire to, and there are plenty of sources discussing this. I think the perjorative sense refers to PC taken to the extreme - perhaps there is an "acceptable" level of Political correctness.

• Alternatively, perhaps an examination of the dangers inherent in attempting to communicate in a "politically correct" manner. For example, in an effort to avoid offending the most sensitive members of society, we ban the use of perfectly accurate descriptive phrases for fear of running afoul of people with a political agenda. (For example, if we don't know someone's legal status, the phrase "undocumented immigrant" may be accurate. But it is not necessarily an accurate substitute for "illegal immigrant")

• Finally, I was thinking of expanding how PC has evolved over the last 20 years and how millenials now view it (not so much as a political stance, but as a way of life). In the 1980's and 1990's it was a sarcastic reference to the "thought police", whereas today PC is less about enforcing a worldview and more about protecting people from emotional harm (like when that college told students not to wear Halloween costumes that might potentially be offensive. Maybe tie in how social media has amplified outrage?

These were three ideas that I had. If I am completely off base then I give up entirely. But I am hoping that one of the three bullets above describes a way to improve the article. I am happy to do the legwork and then you guys can edit or change or whatever. Let me know. Thank you!! 2602:301:772D:62D0:14D5:1D9B:B292:18B5 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No one objects to examples per se, they (I?) object to a random selection of examples. 'PC', largely speaking doesn't exist as a philosophy/as a practice/ as a policy etc.. 9 times out of 10 (in public discourse at least) , it is a criticism. If I call a policy or action 'politically correct', I am very rarely saying it is a good thing, I am probably saying it is stupid or unfair or censorious. I am usually not only saying it is a bad idea, but also questioning the motives of the proposer, as if they are simply lefty-clones incapable of independent thought, simply following a political orthodoxy.

The usage has changed in recent years (I think), especially in US. To some there the term is more 'normal', while for the 'alt-right', it almost means 'anything I don't like'. The trouble is we can't extrapolate from original sources to 'prove' this. Good secondary sources (mainly books), need to do this, and they haven't been written AFAIK.

What are the dangers of PC? What words have been banned or are avoided (anywhere). I don't know about any "Halloween costumes" stories, but since the beginning of time people have been advised to avoid wearing things/saying things that offended others. I suspect that this is one of those media examples which might be an example of a stupid policy or piece of advice in some obscure place somewhere, or which is just as likely to be an example of media misrepresentation (see above). Many of the examples in books in the 90's discrediting 'PC', were basically true. The trouble was that all the books used the same handful of examples to prove some general point. A single college/school somewhere comes up with a daft policy or implements it over-zealously perhaps, a book distorts its daftness further .... civilisation as we know it is ending. In the UK, almost all the examples in the media turned out to be fake or distorted beyond recognition, comedic effect and stimulating outrage taking precedence over accuracy. I have in my own life come across examples of speech that I regard as stupidly 'PC" but nobody makes me use, just as I don't have to use business/govermental euphemisms (downsizing? collateral damage?), that are also evasive. Most people use the word 'gay' and avoid racial slurs because they choose to, not because language has been banned, if people don't like daft policies or daft language, they ignore them. Most people don't see anything offensive about the word 'blind', so they use it, others disagree so they don't and medical professionals use medical terms. So?

Who exactly is forcing anyone to do be 'PC', and (from WP's PoV), where are the RSs for these assertions? Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe this will make what I am trying to say more clear. The article (as it stands) almost seems to frame political correctness as a term used to criticize a policy or rule or whatever, rather than framing political correctness as the motivating ideology behind those policies. Does that make sense? I believe we need to expand on the ideology itself - not necessarily the term as a criticism.

And regarding your question about the dangers of PC, I probably phrased that poorly. What I was trying to say, is political correctness can lead to the ban of accurate descriptive phrases for fear of offending people with a political agenda. Again, if we don't know someone's legal status, the phrase "undocumented immigrant" may be accurate. But it is not necessarily an accurate substitute for "illegal immigrant". The danger is context becoming lost. ETA - Pincrete you mentioned that you don't use racial slurs - neither do I. But what about the word "niggardly"? It's most certainly not a racial slur but several years back in Chicago there was an uproar leading to an alderman's resignation for using the word. (he was eventually re-hired I believe). Do you see how there was an overreaction in this case? The alderman was initially asked to resign because it was believed his words caused offense - even though there was nothing offensive about them. This is the type of thing I am talking about. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not political correctness, that's stupidity. The issue is decisions are taken by people based upon unknown factors, and someone points at those factors and says "that's political correctness" but there is then almost no actual verification or validation. It's just an accusation / defence. Is that a phenomena? Possibly. Is it one that has been discussed in reliable sources? Not to my knowlwdge, but if they exist then they would add to this article.

In the end you need to bring sourced material. Without that, this is a fishing expedition and close to WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'niggardly' incident did happen, I know, but so what? A stupid misunderstanding which was sorted out, a mistake more easily made in speech than writing. Any 'rule' (legal or social), can cause unforeseeable results occasionally. A child gets caught simply retrieving his ball from his neighbour's garden and ends up in police custody ... so let's get rid of burglary laws? I'm more familiar with UK examples than US ones and it is pretty reliably documented that most of these media stories are apocryphal, or are turned on their heads to make sure that councils/schools/govt are presented as being too soft on non-whites, women, foreigners, gays and the disabled. The target moves, 25 years ago it was mainly blacks and lesbians, these days it's mainly Eastern Europeans, refugees and Muslims.

Most of the 'millenial' stories in UK are apocryphal. What HAS changed, and is probably a bad thing, is that UK schools etc are now more afraid of exposing kids to physical risk (in pursuit of sport etc) than they were 50 years ago, but the reason for that is increased legislation by govts from both the left and right. Everybody blames it on 'PC', everybody says it's a bad thing - until of course their child is injured, when they immediately sue/complain.

But this is all 'off-topic', phenomena discussed extensively in RS are what count here. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ps re: the motivating ideology behind those policies. Unfortunately that would necessarily be WHAT CRITICS SAY is the motivating ideology behind those policies because those who advance policies never say "I'm doing this in order to be more PC" unless they are being ironic, nor do THEY characterise what 'PC' is, nor do they see themselves as having a single philosophy, all of these are solely in the eyes of the critics. This is full circle to what I say earlier, we identify that critics don't like certain policies (eg speech codes), we don't say WHY the critics object to these policies, but doing that neutrally is not easy. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone does something. A writer calls it "political correctness gone awry" or some such. That tells us something about the event and something about the actor(s) and the writer. If later sources about the event, actor(s) or writer discuss it, the matter might deserve mention in a Wikipedia article about the event, actor(s) or writer. It does not cross the threshold for this article, much as Murder does not include an indiscriminate collection of murders.

This article is not about the events, actors and writers involved in situations that one or more of them call "political correctness". An indiscriminate list of situations that have been called PC here would tell us more about the person or people creating the list that it would about "political correctness".

A cupcake, car, tree or shovel is a thing. For the most part, most people will agree that a Honda Civic is a car and an oak is a tree. Yes, in Car we can certainly discuss which cars to show in the main image and which cars, images and examples are good to discuss in "lighting", "weight", "safety", etc. -- with coverage in independent reliable sources leading the way (I'd be hard-pressed to imagine a section on car "Mass production" that doesn't discuss the Model T). Car buffs, collectors, etc. no doubt have their favorite cars and would like to see them in the articles, but swapping out a photo of a Honda Civic's wipers for those of a Toyota isn't really biasing the article.

Political correctness, racism, tokenism, homophobia, etc. are concepts. People will disagree as to whether or not relabeling "raisins" and "grapes" as "sun-dried raisins" and "fresh grapes" is political correctness or just good business sense (really). We cannot present one incident as the example par excellence of PC. There are countless thousands of would-be political commentators, spin doctors, trolls, etc. with favorite causes that they would like to see included in articles as examples of whatever they would like to label them. Independent reliable sources directly discussing political correctness must lead the way. It allows us to objectively decide whether "racism" more often refers to, for example, Jim Crow laws (according to the New York Times, various academic presses, the United Nations, etc.) or affirmative action (according to Stormfront, Breitbart and the American Nazi Party).

Either you get it or you don't. So far, you just haven't gotten it. Johnny needs to skip a step or get out of the way. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing lede from negative to positive

Currently the lede states that PC is the avoidance of language, policies etc which may be offensive. Per MOS, would it not make more sense to have the lede state something like "PC is used to describe language, policies etc designed not to offend". It's a small difference but is supported by sources, and describes PC by what it obstenaibly does as opposed to what it avoids. Any thoughts? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)