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

POV?

Addressing the edit summary with the recently placed POV tag, "Political Correctness" is a pejorative term, and the characterization of certain behaviors as such. I think the person placing the tag made a logical error, basically assuming that the article is about the behaviors being characterized rather than the characterization of them. In short, the TOPIC IS a POV, the coverage of it is mostly not. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm not going to take the fight. Let it be noted for the record though that I did not commit the logical mistake that you refer to, but I think the way the article is written it basically gives a free shot in favor of a particular conservative viewpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I said it badly when I said "error". Your last sentence is probably correct, but I think that such arises inherently from covering the term rather than from POV'ing of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is clearly written from a left wing perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness vs Freedom of Speech.

One thing the article fails to mention is that Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness are mutually exclusive. Where society tells people what words they can use and what words they cannot use, there is no Freedom of Speech. Where people are afraid to speak their minds, Freedom of Speech does not exist. Thereof you can have Political Correctness or you can have Freedom of Speech, but you cannot have both. Rxantos (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources - see WP:RS -- for this. This isn't a discussion forum, but society (as opposed to governments) always shape what language we can and can't use. Go shout F**k in church and you'll see. But if you can find sources discussing the issue, bring them here for discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the term (or at least per it's common meaning) was "invented" to chide the idea of taking that restrictiveness too far in certain areas. But, I think that our job is narrower here....to cover the term, its meaning, usage, history etc. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

More rightwing PC

Nowadays we are making controverse on what Roosevelt knew before Pearl Harbour. No one dares so mention the America First Movement (nice name for it). Is that not an example of PC that just had to make a hit from the right? And what about the time Franco sealed the border? Nice airport BTW. I will desist from mentioning Peter King. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't make any sense out of this. Perhaps we should remove it? North8000 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition

An accurate and generally accepted definition is critical. I do not think that the current "behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related context, and doing so to an excessive extent" is right.

There are at least six elements in that definition: behaviour (is it behaviour, an attitude, or accurately a belief?); aim of minimizing offense (is it, or is the behaviour of changing views, not minimising offense?; is it just social and institutional?; are the areas limited to those listed; and does the aim go too far? How much, if any, of this is correct?

More fundamentally, isn't PC not the aim of reducing offense (isn't that the traditional definition of an English gentleman - the PC brigade and the antithesis of gentlemen, English or not!), but of changing views and attitudes for political purposes, as the name implies? Consider the origins of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are purposes, they might be political, ethical, religious, etc. Your view is just that, your view. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To 124: With respect to behaviors, we're talking about behaviors as characterized by a term which is asserting that they are excessive. This has made the article's job a bit complex in that area. At first glance (since the subject "noun" is ostensibly the behavior itself) one might think (as I believe that you do) that this is an article about the behaviors themselves, but it really isn't. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One needs to consider that PC is about opinion, not always about truth. Even a majority opinion can still be wrong. (Voting records over many decades tend to prove that!) I accept that PC is intended to be "least offensive" in a language of politics.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)