Jump to content

Talk:Political correctness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.79.205.162 (talk) at 19:36, 16 May 2017 (→‎Navy name changes.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articlePolitical correctness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 8, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
May 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
July 14, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Untitled

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:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political correctness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide/Suicide Bombers

There are examples of Fox News using the term "homicide bomber" as opposed to "suicide bomber" when reporting on the Iraq war. Obviously, this is a less descriptive term as all bombers have the intention of homicide. Could we include this as an example of political correctness run amok? (assuming I can find sources where Fox changed the wording in an AP report for example). 2602:301:772D:62D0:D187:266:49EB:481 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, for various reasons, but mainly because we don't include OUR understanding nor simply examples, the article would be endless were we to do so. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added an image of the "Head of a Male Statue" with the sourcing that was previously asked for. I hope The Times is acceptable - there are several other sources that discuss the name of the ancient fragment as well 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For "Head of a Male Statue", you have one person rejecting "the notion that the museum was attempting to rewrite history or making its decision based on politcal [sic] correctness." I would say we would not include that here for the same reasons we wouldn't add it to Historical revisionism, Negro, hottentot, Khoikhoi, African-American, National Gallery of Denmark, art, painting or several dozen other articles. The source does not substantially discuss this as a claimed example of "political correctness". Significant examples will have substantial discussion in independent reliable sources. Basically, I would be looking for not the claim (or its refutation) that something is political correctness, but third party coverage of the back and forth. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being all over the place, but with the suicide bomber example, if I found sourcing that explicitly accused Fox of being PC, would that make a difference? 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the sources. If it's a marginal source and/or an isolated claim, no. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statue

Hi SummerPhDv2.0. Going back to the statue (I should have started a new section to begin with), would this source be more appropriate - please take a a look at it I think you will find it to be very interesting; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-art-of-being-politically-correct-h29j75p7nvx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.195.194 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MShabazz Hi, are you sure you looked at the correct source? It specifically says "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." in the first sentence, and then again on the second page second paragraph "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". I can certainly replace the current artwork with the image of a different work of art if you think this would be more accurate. Question: As a way to illustrate applied political correctness, do you have an objection to using an art piece whose name has been changed? Thank you 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- I mistakenly thought the "Local DK" was the additional source you had added. The Times requires registration to read the article and I'm not in the mood to register right now, so I'll take your word about what it says. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MShabazz ETA Also, according to SummerPhDv2.0 in order for the image to be included we needed a source that provided "not the claim (or its refutation) that something is political correctness, but third party coverage of the back and forth". The Times article provides exactly that coverage from what I can see. Bottom line, I am pretty rusty at this stuff, but I feel like there is not a clear instruction on what the source must say in order for the image to be included. 2602:301:772D:62D0:B9A9:D15D:E78D:EB49 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller With respect, three editors have not opposed the inclusion. SummerPhDv2.0 initially had a question regarding sourcing which I addressed. MShabazz did not read the second source I added - that source specifically covers the PC angle as the root of the name change. I am genuinely confused as to the opposition of this change. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ETA Doug Weller How is this edit warring? I added a photo - it was removed due to sourcing. I then found sourcing and re-added it. MY edit was again reverted, this time for no reason. I discussed my change on the talk page and added the photo again. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IF there is no opposition to the change on policy grounds, my plan is to add the photo again, as it appears to meet all requirements and is relevant to the page. If there is an opposition please, discuss here. 2602:301:772D:62D0:6004:4307:DA16:CDDE (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How it is edit-warring is explained in the links I gave you. Specifically read WP:3RR. At this point, if you continue to revert for any reason, you might be blocked. I won't do it myself but might report you to WP:AN3 and let someone else decide. You must get WP:CONSENSUS here. It's quite possible you will. But if you don't, then please just accept it. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missed something you said. However you put it, 3 editors have reverted you. Their reasons matter if you can convince them here you were wrong, but your reverts of them still count towards the 3RR rule.

Hi everybody, I have been asked to comment on that issue. I have stopped arguing about the inclusion of the Copenhagen head long ago because I realized that the discussion is futile and I have more important things to do, although I do like it when one of my photographs is in use somewhere. The Times article certainly confirms that well known fact: museums are renaming some works of art so that their title sounds less offensive, but by doing so, they are blurring the historical context. This can be stated objectively, without attacking either the museums ("politically correct cowards") or the givers of the original titles ("racists!"). So, in short, do what you think is best. --Edelseider (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SummerPhD in prev. section, it appears to be simply the opinion of one journalist that this is "PC", and even if we agree, so what? Everyday, somewhere on the planet, this or that act of (usually) a public body is described as being "PC", why would this example be notable? the article is using English to discuss a Danish word and there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the proper translation is 'negro', or 'nigger'. In English the general use of 'negro' to mean a black person is slightly old-fashioned, but not insulting, do we (or the journalist) know Danish well enough to understand the nuances of the use of this Danish word? Journalists who can't find anything worthwhile to write about love to find some trivial example of a word change and present it as being driven by 'PC". Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pincrete did you read the second source I listed? Not Danish and specifically mentions political correctness as the reason for the change. 97.33.195.193 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes this special? Every single week something done somewhere is supposedly because of 'PC', has this incident sparked a major controversy anywhere. Most of our sources are academic, or have been covered in them, is this covered in any? My point about Danish is that we are dependent on Eng sources, interpreting Danish words and as the negro article makes clear coloured/ negro/ black/ African are and all have been acceptable/ disapproved of in various languages, various places, various times. So what? Are we going to list every journalistic use of the term PC for the last 30 years? This seems an especially weak example. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) … … ps, no sorry I didn't read 'The Times'. I'll take your word for it that the journalist there says that this name change is motivated by 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pincrete So do you still have an objection after reading the Times story? There are other sources covering the controversy as well. Additionally I have a multiple other sources we can use if that is the problem. This was not some isolated incident - the names of artwork being changed due to PC concerns has been well-covered:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4a5758c0-67ff-4b30-acdf-dd7dd32dc1c0
https://www.rt.com/news/325923-amsterdam-rijksmuseum-political-correctness/
Here is one from reason.com, but I believe this is not considered a reliable source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/21/dutch-museum-renames-historic-paintings
I appreciate your feedback and only want to make the change if it will benefit the article. At this point it looks as though I have answered the previous concerns regarding sourcing. But I realize you have spent a lot of time on this article and don't want to step on your toes if you feel the addition is inappropriate. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RT is referring back to the Tatler/Times journalist. So what we have is that a Times journalist thinks that rewording the descriptions of exhibits in museums in Denmark and Amsterdam is motivated by 'PC', even if they use anachronistic terms like 'Mohammadan'. This is trivia IMO and the article is not a list of what individual journalists have thought were 'PC", it would be a monstrously long ramble if it were. Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But pincrete that's not what the Times article says at all. It is not "one journalists opinion". It is a discussion of the larger controversy. The journalist himself makes no judgement one way or another. The article is a discussion of the merits of changing existing works of art due to PC concerns. The names of the artwork were changed to avoid offense. In changing the names, some nuance was perhaps lost. The discussion is of the larger issue at hand . 97.46.129.245 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposed text? Why is this one piece important? I have already said I haven't read the Times (paywall). There is a difference between names given by writers/artists and those simply given by museums/history, changing the latter is trivial IMO. The name Holland is used much less frequently than they used to be, is that 'PC'?. This film was renamed in the US, 40 years before anybody had heard of the term 'PC'. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pincrete The proposed text is simply a photo of the artwork with a small caption about the name being changed. The names of the art were changed due to PC concerns and to avoid offense. This is well-covered in multiple sources. There is context that is potentially lost when changing the name that was originally given by the artist. On the other hand, a claim can be made that there is a benefit to changing names so as to avoid offense. This is the larger discussion/debate. I used the artwork example because it is a well-sourced controversy again covered in many different media outlets as well as academic sources. I can certainly supply more sources if that is your concern. Let me ask this - I'd like to add a photo of an artwork whose name was changed due to PC concerns so as to illustrate a modern application of PC. How can I do so that would make you comfortable? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of artwork

It appears there is no longer any objection to the artwork example, as I have provided the sources requested. If no one has a policy-based objection, my plan is to re-add it.76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial opposition AFAI can see. A source is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. We don't ordinarily include mere examples of what individuals, especially individual journalists, believe are cases of 'PC'. Why should this be an exception, what is so special about this instance, given the paucity of coverage and the inherent uncertainties of translation? The article is not a "list of decisions which have been described as 'PC' by individual journalists". These are all policy based arguments. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how else to say this. It's not "one journalists opinion". The journalist himself does not describe the decision as PC. He reports on the discussion. There are several sources, including an academic one discussing the controversy. Please read my comments above. There is not paucity of coverage. There is significant coverage. I realize the Times source is behind a paywall but you really need to read it. Then you will see it is not one journalists opinion. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete Let me ask this - I'd like to add a photo of an artwork whose name was changed due to PC concerns so as to illustrate a modern application of PC. This is a story and debate that is well-covered by many sources and is in no way "one journalists opinion". How can I add this photo in a way that would make you comfortable? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've hit on the underlying problem. You're going about this backwards. You decided what you wanted to add to the article then looked for sources to support it. The best articles tend to be written the other way around: Find reliable sources on the subject then say what the sources say. I have no doubt I could find reliable sources comparing New York City to Moscow, Paris or Seattle if that is what I look for. That doesn't mean that material belongs anywhere.
Additionally, rather than looking for the lack of new objections to your arguments in favor of that addition, you should be looking for a consensus to add the material. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok.fair enough. Obviously this does not belong in the article. I thought it did. My apologies.104.172.234.183 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may be widespread discussion about when/what to change in descriptive text or titles, but characterising ALL of that as being solely about PC is not AFAI can see widespread. To analogise, there are daily discussions on changing text or titles here on WP, sometimes one consideration is not causing offence, another consideration is not using anachronistic terms and mainly being as clear and accessible as possible while also being 'historically true'. Occasionally one reads all this described as simply "WP editors trying to be 'PC'". Pincrete (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navy name changes.

After doing some reading, I was considering adding a section on the US Navy changing titles due to political correctness, then reversing their decision after receiving a tremendous amount of criticism. This was a very notable controversy and is well-sourced. Here are some sources:
From The San Diego Tribune
From the Capial Gazette
From the Wshington Times
And another from The Washington Times
I think this is much better sourced than my previous example using the artwork. My issue with the article as it stands, is that Political Correctness comes across as a bad thing, or a way for the right wing to dismiss left-wing views. Nowadays, that's just not true. In the corporate workplace it's important to be politically correct, and it is viewed as necessary and even noble. But the current article does not have any real world recent applications of political correctness. While the Navy example isnt great, it's a start. Ideally, the article should perhaps have an example of how political correctness made an effective or beneficial change in policy, that was my initial plan with the whole artwork thing. Thoughts? 2602:301:772D:62D0:A52B:9D01:4BF1:ADA7 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all academic sources acknowledge that "PC" is ordinarily a critical term when used in public discourse, implying that the measures are excessive, it is rarely used of more conservative measures, the examples above tend to endorse both those points. Some people believe that this is no longer always the case (especially in the US?). Are there academic sources saying the term is now neutral? What applies to the above art discussion and here is that the term 'PC' is being used by those criticising. Did the US Navy really say they wanted to be "more PC", or is this a characterisation made by the critics of its actions? Almost by definition, "PC" IS critical in public discourse, however people use it in private life. Again why is this example especially notable? Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because it's a controversy that has been well covered in multiple sources. I feel like I am missing something here...do you not feel that the article should have an example of political correctness in action? I don't want to keep wasting my time if every idea I come up with is going to be shot down by you. Believe it or not, I am trying to improve the article. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you may be missing is that the article is in no way short of examples. At some point -- and it's hard to say where -- including more and more examples to an article actually subtracts meaning. The goal of the article is to describe what "political correctness" purportedly is. A few carefully selected examples can help clarify. Too many examples starts to blur the issue and the article starts to slant toward the "example farm". While a neutral topic's example farm can be spun off into it's own article and simply becomes a dumping ground of no real value (e.g., List of signature songs), a contentious label in the mix (such as the present one) creates fertile ground for the growth on divisive nothingness. No one particularly cares whether or not "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is Judy Garland's signature song. When you start labeling people or their actions as "political correctness", "terrorism", "fascist", etc. you've entered a new realm where building an encyclopedia is eclipsed by scoring points in some absurdist contest.
The examples that are currently in the article seem to speak to the evolution of the term rather than labeling the actions/events. So yes, we include "freedom fries" in the section discussing the term's typical political direction as an example of the reverse.
We mention Foucault's self-labeling as a guard against dogmatism, a use later evolving into mild satire, with an example. Further examples are used as pseudo-benchmarks for the continued evolution toward its current use.
Your proposed examples are not discussing the term in any of its particular iterations. There are thousands of articles where we could add millions of examples. In evolution, we could add a century and a half's worth of examples from top shelf peer-reviewed journals and graduate level texts. In right-wing politics we could add decades worth of articles from hundreds of daily newspapers. The articles would quickly be swamped with examples, counter-examples, refutations, etc. Every would-be political spin doctor would be arguing and debating to make sure that everyone who reads Wikipedia knows for damned sure that Politician X is more interested in Q than doing their job.
The best examples for these cases are the examples that are discussed in numerous sources about the topic of the article. Someone thinks the new tiny cans of soda are political correctness run amuck? Maybe they're right; maybe they're crazy. I don't care. All I know is it doesn't clarify our coverage of the topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
v2.0 I really appreciate you taking so much time to better explain things. I thought the Navy example is a little different because it is so well sources and was such a matter of controversy. This was legitimate national news. And the kicker is "PC" was not a label given by critics - the political correctness label was something well documented in neutral sources. Not a journalist's or critic's opinion. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would all establish that it is well-sourced, not that it adds anything to the article other than another example. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
v2.0 So you are opposed to adding another example correct? I guess I just dont understand how wikipedia works. I am being attacked on another page as we speak. I have no axe to grind and went to bed near tears last inght from frustration. How can I help this article??? Why is everyone (not you) attacking me and my contributions? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summer PhD has given a fuller and better explanation of why don't simply collect examples than I ever could, however just to clarify something. Describing something as 'PC' is, and always will inevitably be individual opinion, normally of journalist(s) or politician(s) or commentators(s), there is no such thing as an objective assessment of whether something is 'PC' or not, and it is extremely rare to find examples of use which are nor critical (or ironic). Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete With all due respect how can you possibly say this? The company I currently work at has a mandatory seminar for new employees entitled (quote) "The importance of a politically correct workplace". Political correctness is not a criticism or a joke or anything of the sort, particularly not in the United States. I consider myself to be politically correct. On a general level it means respect for differences and using language that is constructed in a way so as not to offend. Your view may have been true in the 1990s - today it is a different story. American culture today is embracing PC like never before (with some obvious political exceptions). Not to mention, your opinion tends to push the unhelpful and inaccurate narrative that "Political Correctness" is merely a way for commentators to dismiss left-wing views. This is simply not the case, nor has it been for years.76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&oldid=780716806"