Talk:Political correctness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Political 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.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "Offensive or just too sensitive?". New Zealand Herald. October 29, 2005.  (details)

Statue[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Photo of artwork[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I came on this by accident, as I thought most of the titles were invented by museums in the first place (not the artist), there is doubt as to whether the renamings were thought to be anachronistic or racist. The Times seems blind to the irony of a UK newspaper telling a Dutch museum what it should do, while simultaneousy decrying political interference. There may be a debate here, I doubt whether it usefully has much to do with 'PC". Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am open for suggestions. Do you think it makes sense to perhaps add a photo of artwork with a brief caption explaining what you wrote above? By the way, Pincrete, I owe you an apology. At one point I thought you were giving me a hard time, but after reading your interactions with user:Sandra opposed to terrorism I realize you are a very good sport with the patience of Job! If anyone ever questions your dedication to improving Wikipedia, simply point them to said interactions, I can't think of better evidence of good faith. By the way, not sure if you were aware but "Job" (the Biblical character) is pronounced differently in the USA than in the UK. Here we pronounce it with a short "O" sound (as in "He is going to rob a bank".) 2602:301:772D:62D0:2482:2EA0:227F:DA06 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Cheers!
Changing 'Negro' to 'black' and Mohammadan to Muslim is a very trivial example especially as the critics don't ssem to speak Dutch. AFAIK this is not covered extensively, nor in academic sources. With a subject like this half a dozen mentions in newspapers, is the daily cliche. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Idea for improvement to the article[edit]

I think I am finally understanding what everyone has been trying to tell me. SummerPhDv2.0 asked me if I had any ideas to improve the article, and I think I do. I have a suggestion that might help clear up some of the confusion that's been happening lately. As it stands, there is a section to the article entitled "False Accusations of Political Correctness", with examples following. How about having a section entitled "Incidents Widely Blamed on Political Correctness" with several examples following? I was thinking we could use the Navy example as well as the "Water Buffalo Incident", and perhaps the artwork example as well. This way, there are both incorrect and potentially correct examples of PC at work? Is this more acceptable to everyone?? Please let me know! Thank you! 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The problem is that the term is an extremely common political epithet; we used to have a list like that, but it invites people drive-by dropping whatever they personally dislike into it (because it's incredibly easy to find sources using the term for hundreds of things each year) - incidents end up getting highlighted because some editor wanted to call attention to them rather than because they enhance the article (which also leads to WP:UNDUE issues.) A list like that doesn't really do anything to help readers understand anything. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't really talking about uses as an insult or handwave or epithet - as a matter of fact I think those examples are best avoided. I was thinking more along the lines of two or three very well-sourced examples of the ideology itself at work. Examples like Summer and I discussed above - the opinion of something being PC resting entirely on facts of the incident at hand. Just like the examples under "False Accusations" resting entirely on incorrect facts. This would limit the additions of incidents simply labeled as "PC" by a source or two and would also stem the tide of editors driving-by and dropping in an example (you bring up a very valid concern by the way). 2602:301:772D:62D0:8540:DF61:BBBB:9649 (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Those sources, by my reading, are largely editorials criticizing the changes (that is, using the term to insult it), and news pieces quoting those criticisms. You concede this yourself when you say that the was the "opinion" of those generals that the changes they were attacking were mere political correctness - that isn't something the sources you provided support (or can support). Even if it were added, it would be added with a formulation along the lines of "General so-and-so attacked [thing he disagreed with], calling it 'political correctness gone mad'" or the like. And certainly your sources don't support your assertion that there is some sort of "political correctness ideology" - you cited people using it as an epithet and others reporting on that usage. It's a term that people (like the people quoted in your article) use to describe certain things they disagree with (with the insinuation that their opponents do not care about being correct or accurate but merely "politically" correct), not a coherent ideology or set of beliefs that anyone holds. Again, the article has an extensive history of the term and how it evolved into its current usage, which trace back to a push by several right-wing think tanks to popularize it as a line of attack against academia in the early 1990s. --Aquillion (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no factual way to say an incident was "political correctness" any more than you can factually say Breyers' chocolate is the best ice cream. We can, however, factually say that Elmer's Wood Glue is the best ice cream.
"Widely" reported is POV and such a list would quickly become both a battleground and an example farm. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is the crux of our discussion. Aquillion says: "(Political correctness) is a term that people use to describe certain things they disagree with (with the insinuation that their opponents do not care about being correct or accurate but merely "politically" correct), not a coherent ideology or set of beliefs that anyone holds".. I don't know if that is necessarily accurate. As I mentioned earlier, in the Unites Sates at least, political correctness is certainly a valid philosophy or ideology. I used the example of the mandatory seminar at my current job entitled "The importance (emphasis mine) of a politically correct workplace". Additionally, it still seems to me there is at least a perception of false balance in this article. We have a section entitled "False examples of PC" without any examples of incidents widely described in neutral sources as PC. Additionally, we have an entire category entitled "Political Correctness Controversies". In lieu of listing examples of PC, it would certainly make sense to at least link to the category somewhere in the body of the article itself. Finally, Summer PhDv2.0 has asked me several times for suggestions on improving the article - that's exactly what I am doing here. Obviously the editors here are far more educated than I am. I am a junior college dropout - not a PhD. So please AGF and realize I am learning as I go and genuinely attempting (with limited success) to improve the article. I would assume that most readers of the article also don't have a PhD. So something that is obvious to all of you may not be obvious to me (or a typical reader). When I first read the article, it seemed to not be painting the entire picture of political correctness. It's my intention for someone to read this article, understand what political correctness is (or is not), and also perhaps see an example of PC in action. Most of you have been editing this article for some time - again, please AGF and realize that a fresh set of eyes may be viewing the entry in a different light than you intended. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In order for something to be described as an ideology, it must have adherents, core beliefs, advocates, 'PC' lacks all of these and - more importantly for our purposes - reliable, reasonably authorative, sources that describe it as an ideology and tell us what that ideology is. I can claim that Harley-Davidsons are poetry, that they are my philosophy, but no-one has to take such claims seriously as anything other than rhetorical.
I'm afraid that how they use the term at your workplace (or how my friends use the term) is purely anecdotal, we can't write an article about a political term based on your or my personal experience. Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why we shouldn't at least link to "Political Correctness Controversies" in the body of the article. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I agree that labeling something as "PC" is indeed an opinion. However, if there are multiple reliable unbiased sources widely referring to an event as politically correct, I am not sure it is POV to refer to the event as "widely reported as PC". We report what the reliable sources say. Like I said, it will always be an opinion that something is PC - that does not mean legitimate examples (as reported by neutral reliable sources) don't exist. We don't have to say "this event is PC" - we say "this event was widely referred as an example of political correctness" 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Q1. We don't usually link to categories within an article, Q2. We might say "named person/paper described person A as a B", 'widely reported' is usually vague avoidance, a way of implying objectivety, but the main objection is why do we want examples? Do we put 1000s of uses of the word 'conservative' on the article with that name? Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As I was trying to say, "widely" is POV. Adding examples merely because someone dug up sources for them is a recipe for a battleground and an example farm. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0, I don't want to "dig up sources". We already have several well-sourced examples at the category entitled "Political Correctness Controversies". I was considering using examples that have already meet the burden for inclusion on wikipedia (consensus as to DUE, as well as being well-sourced and not POV). 2602:301:772D:62D0:6DAA:339C:ACCD:BBAA (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0 additionally, you have concerns about an example farm when the article as it stands has zero contemporary examples of Political Correctness, while at the same time listing false examples. I agree, we need to be measured in adding examples, but I think it is reasonable to at least have a few modern examples of PC. Pincrete asked why do we want examples, and my answer would be just as we have false examples, it would make sense to have two or three well sourced incidents. If someone reads this article, they should know what Political Correctness is and is not. While I agree it is an opinion, a non-controversial incident labeled as PC by multiple reliable sources can certainly help shed light on the larger phenomena. We don't have to label the example as PC in wikipedia's words - rather we can simply say (for example) "the incident received widespread publicity as part of a perceived trend of political correctness in the United States in the 1990s". That is exactly the wording used in the article on PC Controversies. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E8E7:7B7B:3A2A:959B (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The false/true is a completely fallacious argument, there is no such thing as a true example and the 'false' is probably badly headlined. Examples are intended to illustrate a particular point and why do you imagine people outside the US want to read about trivial recent uses of this term, which are actually relatively poorly sourced, since they are not in book length studies. The time wasted discussing this is one of a number of reasons why it is not a good idea. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete I disagree that this is a "waste of time". The article needs improvement. It is my intention to improve the article, and as I said earlier, something that is obvious to you may not be obvious to a new reader. Additionally, I am not referring to "trivial" uses of the term. The "Water Buffalo Incident" for example, is very well sourced in book length studies.[1] The existing wikipedia article on Political Correctness Controversies says the incident "received widespread publicity as part of a perceived trend of political correctness in the United States in the 1990s". This is neither trivial, nor poorly sourced, nor recent - in fact, wikipedia has a standalone article on the incident itself. 2602:301:772D:62D0:F57E:30E1:3D1F:BA00 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
What is a waste of time IMO is arguing for examples, simply because they are notable examples. I agree that the article needs improvement, however adding examples unless they serve exact purposes is not an improvement IMO, nor in the opinion of most other editors, but by all means go ahead and prove us wrong. Btw, it isn't necessary to 'name' people all the time. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
But there is no point in making the change if it will be instantly reverted. Initially the opposition to including an example was due to sourcing, recentism and the incident being trivial. I then found an incident that was neither recent, nor poorly sourced (it is in several book-length academic studies), nor trivial. Now I am being told that adding an example is not an improvement. My argument is that one or two well-sourced, non-trivial examples are an improvement - they help the reader better understand the underlying concept of Political Correctness. We have defined the word when used as a criticism, but I don't think the article does a very good job of explaining the philosophy of PC. Remember, I am not some Harvard-yard, ivory tower academic. I dropped out of junior college. 2602:301:772D:62D0:21FF:92DB:819D:2F10 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I gave it a shot. Go easy on me please. 2602:301:772D:62D0:21FF:92DB:819D:2F10 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you want to highlight those particular examples? From the second source: "The wackiest of these tales -- like the 1993 "water buffalo affair" at the University of Pennsylvania -- have received a brief flurry of remarkable media attention, but then were soon forgotten." That pretty clearly establishes that it's not a notable incident. Your sourcing is weak overall - the first source is a WP:PRIMARY account by Kors, who was heavily involved in that incident (and would naturally want to argue that it was important), the second is a cite to a book review (which dismisses it as something that received little coverage), and the last is a link to FIRE, a political advocacy group created to monitor campus culture as part of the liberal-conservative divide I mentioned above - naturally they're going to use the term, since it was created specifically by think-tanks on their side in order to provide them with an easy pejorative to imply that their political opponents were dishonest and censorious. Those sources aren't enough to show that the incident was noteworthy in regards to this topic, especially when the middle one specifically says it only attracted brief coverage. (With the implication, yes, that its author, like FIRE, feels that it should have gotten more coverage - but we have to reflect the coverage they deplore; we're not here to right great wrongs.) Similarly, the cites to for the Dave Howard thing are an editorial that doesn't even mention the term, and two news reports that mention it only in passing. Your final cite (to the New Yorker) doesn't mention political correctness at all. The problem is that we can't include incidents where people just mentioned the term in passing in order to give the user a "view" of political correctness, because the selection of incidents and how we describe them would become original research and synthesis - you said above that you want to cover "political correctness culture", but that's not really in the sources you're using. What you could do, I think, is focus more on the people who argue that that culture exists (eg. FIRE or Kors), and we could present their position as their position, provided we had the sources to show it was not WP:UNDUE. That would require better sourcing, though. Basically, we need a description of what people say about the topic, what they're coming from, and why (with brief cites to individual events they say are important), plus rebuttals from other people - not a list of events. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK that sounds reasonable. So I need a neutral source specifically saying that an event was an example of PC, why they label it as such, and then a rebuttal? Also, if I provided more sources for the Water Buffalo thing where the sources specifically use the term PC, would that be better? Thank you for being patient with me on this. As I said before, I feel something is missing from the article. It certainly covers the term PC as a criticism, but it really does not define it as a contemporary philosophy. That was my reason for examples. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C530:CAD7:A0A3:7AF8 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
A neutral source will not say it was political correctness. PC is an opinion. I don't see Kors or FIRE's reporting of their opinions as relevant here. Yes, an advocacy organization has opinions about their core issue, that does not make their opinion noteworthy. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources makes their opinion noteworthy. Taken to the extreme, for example, Stormfront (website) might very well have an opinion on one of these "incidents", but an article on the incident in The New York Times isn't going to so much as mention their opinion, let alone give it substantial coverage.
As I have repeatedly stated, I see no value to adding random examples here. Building a list of examples would require objective selection criteria: as we cannot list every incident that any source has ever called "PC" (an endless list), we would need sourced, objective criteria controlling what we list. There is no clear solution to this, thus a list of purported "examples" is not encyclopedic.
Where independent reliable sources directly discussing "political correctness" discuss an example as a benchmark example showing the history and evolution of the term/idea we have a reason to briefly mention it. These are already in the article. Take, for example, Car. How many well-sourced examples of cars do you think you could find? Easily in the thousands. The article does not, however, discuss random cars. Can you find independent reliable sources discussing the Honda Civic? Absolutely. Does it belong in Car? Absolutely not. Why is the Model T included? It was "One of the first cars that was accessible to the masses", a very significant stage in the history of cars. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not some Harvard-yard, ivory-tower brainiac. My father was an electrician for crying out loud. I failed out of junior college after only two semesters. So please, AGF, and take it easy. The article as it stsnds needs improvement. That's all. I am trying to help. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C530:CAD7:A0A3:7AF8 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Shadow University". Partners.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2010-06-16. 

"Disadvantage" not used in cited sources in lede[edit]

I noticed that the word disadvantage is not used in either of the cited sources, while the term "used to avoid offense" IS used. PC is not really used to avoid disadvantage as far as I can tell - only to avoid words that can potentially trigger or offend a group. I removed "disadvantage" because it appears to be synth. Thoughts? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The opening text is much older than the 'dictionary defs', which are fairly recently added behind it. That opening text is a summary of a broader set of sources and citing is not necessary for the lead, which is intended as a summary of the body of the article.
Policies and language designed to ensure equality, (of gender, race, etc, or most controversially, 'affirmative action'), are not simply 'avoiding offence', ditto changes in curriculum, both of which have nothing to do with either 'offence' or 'triggers' or indeed verbal matters at all, ditto changes in rape or sexual harassment policies at colleges or wokplaces. 'Or disadvantage' is an attempt to summarise all these instances in a few words.
Many things criticised as 'PC' have, or have had, nothing to do with language. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then please find a source that specifically ties PC to a policy designed to avoid "disadvantage". As it stands, I dont see this supported by sourcing. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
None is needed, lead is a summary of article, can you think of a more concise way to 'bundle' all these non-verbal manifestations? Is 'affirmative action' intended to avoid offending people?Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete - NONE of the sources listed - zero - tie PC to policies designed to avoid "disadvantage". This is not sourced material. Please find me anywhere in the article where it refers to such. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, there was no "consensus". YOU added the whole "disadvantage" term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=next&oldid=665392031 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, how earlier there were so many worries about SYNTH and OR, and now when an example is found clearly exhibiting both, there is little concern. I am beginning to think this article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes, particularly since any changes are met with such hostility. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
1000s of editors agreeing to the text since my insertion = consensus. No political term article on WP limits itself to a single sentence basic dictionary definition. If you believe it to be OR or synth, start an RfC, or wait to see what other editors think here, until then the stable text stays. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This is complete synthesis. You added completely unsourced information (in the lede no less). None of what you mentioned above has anything to do with political correctness. You don't get to add unsourced information and then claim consensus. I ask again: where is a source that ties PC to a policy designed to avoid "disadvantage"? At this point you have added untrue and irrelevant information to the lede of an article. An article that used to be featured and is no longer. 2602:301:772D:62D0:74AA:ACF6:7F18:F048 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
In the article, which if you knew policy better, is the source for the lead, most leads in good articles do not have refs. Are you editing under several IP addresses? You at least should have informed us. One of the principal dictionary definitions of 'liberal' is 'generous', do you seriously think that the article on political 'liberalism' should start of by saying how generous all liberals are? Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a long time since I looked at those defs, however def 2 says "avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against" .... "avoiding expression or action perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult … … people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated" is reasonably precis-ed to "avoiding disadvantage to" IMO (though that was not how I got there directly). Summary is not the same as synth, but, if anthing, the opening sentence would need expansion, not trimming, to fit the defs. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Look, I not here to cause trouble, and I understand the rules allow people with seniority to manage an article. It is not my intention to cross that line - I respect the fact that you and a few other editors have spent a lot of time editing this article and are trying to keep a semblance of order. I really do get that. But it is frustrating when every single individual word I attempt to add is immediately reverted. Using the word "insult" instead of "affront" should not require a committee meeting. The edit is in good faith and the wording is more in line with our sources. 2602:301:772D:62D0:C4C3:9372:A87D:6911 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The sources indicate several times that "Political Correct" language is tied to ""historically oppressed groups". These are the individuals "disadvantaged" by traditional language choice. Pincrete supplied the definition linked in the lede "The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." which is pretty much the meaning of "avoiding creating disadvantage". Koncorde (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
At no point do any of the sources tie PC to policies designed to avoid disadvantage. If you can find one,please bring it to talk. 2602:301:772D:62D0:4085:202C:31FB:13C (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:nb edit conflict
A as already explained, there is no need for sources for the lead, the lead must however be an accurate summary of content and 'avoiding offence' certainly does not summarise the great swathes of policies which have been called 'PC' (see below and above) and which are covered in the article. B. The second dictionary def. does cover what you are asking for. If anything the response to definition two would be to expand what is meant by 'disadvantage', not remove it. If you don't agree I suggest taking the matter to a noticeboard such as the WP:RSN.
Minor correction Koncorde, "avoiding disadvantage to". IP what you appear to be doing is insisting that 'PC' relates only to words and only to 'offense', not to 'actions'. This is not even borne out by the second dictionary def, and certainly not by the longer studies. Changing sexist/racist terms, speech codes etc can all be seen as 'avoiding verbal offence'. But how exactly is 'affirmative action', equal ops policies and laws, curriculum changes (which were all accused of being 'PC' as often as the 'language stuff') , how is all that covered by 'avoiding offense'. Do you think changes in rape or sexual harassment laws were brought about to avoid women being 'offended' in some way? Even if you disagree strongly with some of these changes (and I disagree with some), can't you see it is nonsense to characterise all these changes as being intended to 'avoid offence or insult'. 'Disadvantage' barely covers all these, but a lead must be concise.
The second change you made (seen as excessively calculated), is quite good in itself, but it makes near-nonsense of the end of the sentence "the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive". Two excessives, almost not excluding no double negative.
I'm sure the article can be improved, at present there is no mention of women, race, sexual preference or disability, which have been the focus of most accusations of 'PC". Nor is there any mention of why critics don't like what they call 'PC'. These changes need to be in the body though and neutral and covering the balance of WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
PC has nothing to with rape or affirmative action, according to the sources for the article. PC is defined as an overreaction by changing speech to avoid offense, while at the same time making the speech less accurate (the reason I tried to add the painting example). PC only refers to words - not actions. PC policies are typically designed, again, to avoid offense or insult, not to avoid disadvantage to a group. That's the crux of our disagreement. I am going by what the sources say, and I still feel it is a quantum leap to say PC policies are designed to avoid disadvantage, as according to our sources. 2602:301:772D:62D0:3CE6:315B:9D17:6062 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course 'PC' has nothing to do with rape, it does have to do with changes in rape laws/policies, certainly in UK, and I believe in US campus policies, though those are not in the article. If you actually read the article, you would see that affirmative action and curriculum changes in US education were a much greater focus of criticism of being 'PC' than language changes. Ditto equal ops employment policies, unless you think women and minorities might cry if they weren't given jobs on an equal basis, this is clearly avoiding 'disadvantage'.
Regardless, you have no consensus for your changes, are not even attempting to pursue one or to seek confirmation from WP:RSN that you are right, and are either unable or unwilling to understand policy, which is that the most recent long-term version stays until a new consensus is reached. This is going to end badly and waste a lot of time. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Where exactly in the dictionary defs is the word 'undue', undue in whose opinion? What is the right amount of exclusion/insult etc, if 'PC' is undue? What happened to the words 'avoiding actions that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, etc', even if we were bound by these two dictionary defs (and we are not), this is an intentional distortion of what those defs say to fit an agenda that accusations of 'PC' relate only to 'doctoring language', they do not and never have.
'Doctoring language' is one aspect and I have no objection to a balanced neutral exposition of that element IN THE BODY, which is where everything must be first. You will probably not be very interested to know, that in the UK, even the worst right-wing press stopped using the term 'PC" years ago, even they realised it had became a toothless cliche. Over here, 'PC' is only marginally less dated than flared jeans, (though I don't have a source for that of course). Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Temp. text[edit]

As a temp fix, I have put a fuller version of the two dictionary defs: The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is sometimes used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[1] In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.

My only personal gripe with this version is that it is so complex as to be cumbersome, but it does include all the main points made by the two dictionary defs. Discussion as to whether this or the previous stable version, or some other variant, is best is invited. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reads like a laundry list over-definition, but it's still correct though. Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment on the current text: "The term political correctness ... is sometimes used to describe..." - "sometimes used" sounds like it has another meaning we're not explaining. "to describe" - seems like it's not the most common performative. My understanding of the term and the sources I've seen about it is that it's not simply describing but implicitly criticizing tailoring language or actions, or otherwise downplaying the importance/impact of such language. Although there are examples of it not being used in this way, of course, it seems like a more accurate general description, no? Anyway, I admit I'm writing this as I'm about to walk about the door and responding to edits to the article before I've actually read the above discussion. Apologies if I'm derailing or redundant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's because changing language is not always an example of being "politically correct", as it's accusative (when used as a pejorative) or would have to be explicitly called such in all situations by the originator for it to be all inclusive opening. Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, long ago, the article used to start "PC is a pejorative used to describe" ..... a lengthy RfC and discussion moved the 'pejorative' element to the end of para 1. Anecdotally, many editors noted 'PC's' use as a neutral term (synonym for codes of respect?), especially in the US and ironic use in the UK, but studies are pretty universal that the term is mainly critical, hence: "In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive", .... (i.e. this may not be how you use the term at work).
I look upon the above text as a 'temp fix' and a basis for discussion as to how much can be pruned and still leave an accurate and coherent para 1, and to settle an argument as to whether the 'old text' was supported by refs, if editors think it was, or can be improved, let's go back to what we had. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the definition used back when the article had featured status: "Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. ". That seems to be a succinct and accurate description. Thoughts? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The last time this was a "featured article" was in 2004, where it cited two sources. The process was mired in dispute between it being added unilaterally to the "featured" category by Sam Spade without review and subsequent process of retro-nomination for the purpose of stripping it of FA status. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it is a fairly accurate and succinct definition. I was curious as to other's thoughts on it. 2602:301:772D:62D0:656A:7569:D3BA:E84D (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The existing lede is more than fairly accurate and is sourced? Koncorde (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
A) Strange Mr/s IP that you prefer a wholly un-reffed version, since your objection to our long-term one above is that (in your opinion) it is not the precise wording of the dictionary defs. B) In your opinion, PC is solely concerned with words and 'offence', not actions and 'effects' (such as affirmative action etc). Your view is not borne out by either the dictionary defs,(which speak of 'actions that exclude etc') nor the article, which show that deeds were a principal target in the 1980's and '90's, which is when the term was most used C) I like the succinctness of the old version, but apart from the actions that exclude' element being missing, it frames the definition very much in terms of the critics' characterisation (critics almost invariably say "these people say they are doing this in order to avoid racism/sexism", those criticised have often provably said or done no such thing). Curriculum changes were often the subject of accusations of 'PC' and it is very difficult to see how those changes (for example including 'black history' or 'women's history') are designed to 'provide a minimum of offense', the principal group offended by such changes were people who were not black/female who felt this was propaganda, not education. Such changes, and other actions, would be covered by 'intended to avoid marginalisation/exclusion'. Maybe someone can find a better way to say "avoiding actions that exclude or marginalise ... disadvantage groups" than my "avoiding disadvantage to groups", (though if you look at the sources, people were actually accused of excessively/obsessively INCLUDING 'the disadvantaged', not of 'avoiding exclusion'). Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the websters definition: "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated". It occurs to me that some of our disagreement may be due to the fact that the term has different meanings in the US and the U.K. In the UK it may be true that PC refers more to the term when used as a adjective or even insult, whereas in the US, PC refers to the ideology behind the term. Maybe that is why the US and U.K. dictionaries have different definitions. What is the Wikipedia policy when it comes to a term having different meanings in the US and UK? What is typically used as the default definition? 2600:1012:B00F:418B:79D2:F96C:16C4:DB21 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
We are not a dictionary and are not bound by what a dictionary says, (the articles on 'conservative', 'liberal' and 100s of other political terms would probably not use a dict.). Some dictionaries will say more, some less, some will specify UK/US, the ones we use don't here. Finding a shorter dictionary def does nothing to answer why 'affirmative action', curriculum changes and equal opportunity policies were such a focus for use of the term in the US (ironically not the first 2 of those in UK). The term does not have significantly different meanings in US/UK, it may possibly have (slightly) different uses and levels of use, but a part of the reason that the article does not already say that, is because no source has said it AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Websters new dictionary (not Mirriam Websters) has an interesting show of the evolution in its definitions, and quality of the detail. Its condensed version was "holding orthodox liberal political views: usually used disparagingly to connote dogmatism etc." Its New College version was / is "1. Of, relating to, or supporting a program of broad social, political and educational changes, esp to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender and sexual orientation. 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with this program often to the exclusion of other matters". In short, longer, more detailed dictionaries often contain long more detailed and accurate meanings. Mirriam Webster is just one short form. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the current "see-also" categories[edit]

Current see-also categories are as follows. I've boldes the ones that I think have less relevance to the article than ACTUAL political-correctness controversies. Please take a look. At the very least, it makes no sense NOT to include the category especially considering it's not cruft, and its relevant to the topic. Political correctness-related controversies Anti-bias curriculum Christmas controversy Euphemism Groupthink Gutmensch (German expression for "do-gooder") Kotobagari (Japanese political correctness) Logocracy Microaggression theory Newspeak Opposition to immigration Political correctness-related controversies Anti-bias curriculum Christmas controversy Euphemism Groupthink Gutmensch (German expression for "do-gooder") Kotobagari (Japanese political correctness) Logocracy Microaggression theory Newspeak Opposition to immigration Pensée unique People-first language Politics and the English Language (1946 essay by George Orwell) Red-baiting Reverse discrimination Safe-space Social justice warrior Sprachregelung Trigger warnings Wedge issue 23.242.67.118 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC) People-first language Politics and the English Language (1946 essay by George Orwell) Red-baiting Reverse discrimination Safe-space Social justice warrior Sprachregelung Trigger warnings Wedge issue

Your very first problem starts with your fourth word: " categories". None of them -- none at all -- are "categories". --Calton | Talk 10:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that 'Christmas controversy' is simply an example and not a very notable one IMO, but I'm UK. The others mostly appear to be about the 'doctoring' of language for political purposes, and therefore valid 'SA's'.Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Pincrete why did you revert user:Srich32977 addition? Political correctness related controversies is indeed a category relevant to this article. At this point you have reverted every edit I've made to the page no matter how small. Please AGF and work with me here. This is a minor edit and imo adds to the understanding of PHILOSOPHY (not the insult) of PC. Thank you 2600:1012:B012:ABC:412B:5535:1561:2674 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The parent category is 'PC', why would we exclude the dozens of aticles in that category by using the child category 'controversies'? ..... Find a reliable neutral source that refers to 'PC' as a 'philosophy'. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair question. There are 'multiple categories relevant to the topic. That's why we have etiquette, perjoratives, etc. I re-added the parent category of "Political Correctness" per your suggestion. Adding PC controversies again helps illustrate PC as an applied concept or philosophy. 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That was not my suggestion, no article puts both parent and child. An article is not a category. No source refers to 'PC' as either an 'applied concept' nor a 'philosophy', since you appear to be too intelligent to not understand that, I presume you are 'trolling'. How original! Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the hostility or lynch-mobe mentality. Not do I appreciate the sarcastic reference to my stupidity. I am not stupid - I do t have a PhD but I am not stupid. Here is a reliable, academic, book-length study calling PC a PHILOSOPHY: http://theareopagus.org/docs/Politics-and-Philosophy-of-PC.pdf. I expect an apology. I am not a troll. I've been working very hard to improve this article AND YOU KNOW IT. 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete, just so you know, I added PC Contorversies to the "see also" section. user:Srich32977 told me it was more appropriate to move it to the category section and did so. You the came in an unilaterally reverted everything without any discussion. As I mentioned before every single edit I've made to this page has been reverted by you without any discussion first. I've listened and made few attempts to restore info you deleted. This time it does not make sense as it's. it based in policy. And yes, there is not enough coverage imo, of PC as a PHILOSOPHY. You can call me a troll for having that opinion or you can make your way down from your ivory tower and attempt to work together with someone who is genuinely trying to make an improvement. Who knows? Maybe you can teach me something. Maybe we can learn from each other. 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
SRich told you no such thing. The reason that there is not enough coverage of PC as 'a philosophy' is because it isn't one. A philosophy has to have core beliefs/adherents/texts extolling those beliefs, Derrrrr where are they? Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete, i just linked to a reliable book-length academic source calling PC a philosophy. Why the attitude?! 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Nb edit conflict

The fact that somebody writes "the philosophy of PC, doesn't mean PC IS a philosophy. There are texts called "philosophy of gardening" and similar, meaning philosophical aspects of gardening or approaches to gardening. I've only read a little of the .pdf, it talks about PC-ers, have you ever heard or read somebody say "I'm a PC-er?", is there an Association of PC-ers? Or is this some secret society whose members only know each other by their handshakes? This .pdf is a (very early, 1992) and very rare instance of 'PC' apparently being used by non-critics, though it is unclear who produced this edited version and it certainly does not describe a philosophy and is very critical of conservative attacks on academia. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You said "No source refers to 'PC' as either an 'applied concept' nor a 'philosophy', since you appear to be too intelligent to not understand that, I presume you are 'trolling'. How original!'. You were dead wrong. And your pathetic attempt to block me from editing the page has AGAIN been exposed and foiled. Now, I actually respect your knowledge and would like to work with you to improve the article. Can we both AGF and move forward? 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
"You were dead wrong." The abstract of the text you're flogging says "In their book, Choi and Murphy describe the historical background and the philosophical basis of Political Correctness". It does NOT refer to "the philosophy of PC" nor call it "a philosophy". Word order counts in the English language, you know. --Calton | Talk 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
user:calton I agree with you about consensus. Pincrete reverted a change that had been agreed on by multiple editors some time back. I have no issue with reverting it back but let's discuss first before making a change. If you read talk above you will see I have no problems with self-reverting if consensus

dictates. Right now I see no discussion about removing PC controversies from the list of Categories. 2600:1012:B017:2A44:7DF1:2E93:3024:304E (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"I agree with you about consensus" No you don't. You're unilaterally edit-warring to include something. I'll note that you have not only failed to satisfactorily justify its inclusion, but you've also dodged the question of your fundamental misreading.
"a change that had been agreed on by multiple editors some time back." First I've heard of this, certainly from you: see above. Evidence? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't care a huge amount, but it feels weird to me. "Political correctness", as a topic, is not itself a political-correctness related controversy in the sense the category was created for. In any case it's a bit silly to suggest that that's the last stable version when it has been immediately reverted every time it appears - the point of WP:BRD is that there's an assumption that a stable version enjoyed at least some consensus at one point, and that never has. --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess the question becomes should we add it to the "see also" category or to the "categories" section. Either way., "PC related controversies" is relevant enough to the article to deserve some kind of mention. Initially my intention was to add examples, this is a reasonable compromise, again the question becomes what's the best way to do so? 2602:301:772D:62D0:B4F2:768:9CAC:CCEC (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't an appropriate Category. The category is designed to say "X is part of Y", in effect "Political Correctness is part of Political Correctness controversies" per Aquillion, Calton and Pincrete. As a Category, it isn't a "See Also" as it isn't an actual page of content. Koncorde (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Question. Is it a policy that a "category" can not be listed under "see also"?2602:301:772D:62D0:996A:A917:48F0:8137 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to linking "Political Correctness Related Controversies" to the article (in some fashion)? 2600:1012:B017:2A44:7DF1:2E93:3024:304E (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
1) Philosophy of sex, does not mean sex is a philosophy. 2) There are no policy reasons AFAIK why a category can not be a 'see also' ..... However 3) We have heard not one single reason why the sub-category should be highlighted in that fashion apart from 'I want' .... 4) No one supports the addition AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
See Also is for an article, to my knowledge this is a given. There is a "Category see also" separately but that is for sub-categorising on an existing category page so you don't get circular looping between Category's (which likely are already linked to each others categories given how willy nilly people like to add them like ad-words). Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Political Correctness Controversies[edit]

I realize that compared to others here, I am a novice when it comes to editing Wikipedia. That said, my goal is to improve the project. In order to do so requires cooperation from others. When I read the PC article, I noticed that there were "false" examples of PC, but no actual examples of PC-related controversies. I felt that the article explained the history of the term, it's use as a pejorative, but not the philosophy behind the termn. Over a month ago, I attempted to add a photo of artwork I believe helped illustrate PC in action. It was promptly reverted. I then attempted to add several more well-sourced examples to the article, which were all in turn reverted as well. While obviously frustrated, I decided to defer to the better wisdom of veteran editors.
Recently, I made an effort to link to the category of Political-Correctness Related Controversies, first as a see-also, then as a linked category. Again, both were reverted. While reasonable minds can differ, it would seem to me that someone who wanted to learn about political correctness, and happened upon our article, would benefit in being able to easily reference actual examples of PC controversies as defined by Wikipedia. So my question is again this, does anyone have an objection to somehow linking this entry to "PC Related Controversies"? As I mentioned before, I have shown my willingness to compromise. I genuinely believe this addition would improve the article and the reader's understanding of political correctness in general. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The question has already been answered several times above, what reason is there to highlight one aspect of 'PC' over all others? It's fairly unclear why some items are even in the 'controversy' category, South Park seems to have offended almost everyone at some point or another, is intentionally 'pushing the boundaries' automatically a 'PC' matter? Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I could understand the inclusion of some of the "controversies" listed within the satire section, for instance the Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy specifically cites the artist as saying he wished to "examine the political correctness within the boundaries of the art community". It is a notable example of satire that was controversial, but whether it is notable because of political correctness or because of subsequent death threats is not ascertained. The Charlie Hebdo murders are the same, it was satirical re-publishing of images in defiance of threats - there's no suggestion that it was related to Political Correctness. Looking through most of the links in the controversies section, their link to political correctness really isn't defined (in most cases the only "controversy" is alleged in the reporting of the event, not of the actual event) which falls under the Media and Media Bias section at best. Koncorde (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe there may also be a cultural disconnect here, as I suggested on a different article. Words have different meanings in the USA and U.K. I am originally from Chicago. If you were to ask someone at a Chicago tavern where "the entrance to the toilet is located", you may very well be (justifiably) punched in the mouth. At least in the neighborhood I grew up (Canaryville). Fools are not suffered gladly there. So PC I am beigining to believe has a starkly different connotation across the pond. This might explain some of the difficulties we are having. 2602:301:772D:62D0:9940:EA73:2E8C:E31E (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what you are on about, or what that has to do with Political Correctness or Political Correctness Controversies. Is the word "toilet" related to a politically correct controversy? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of WP:FORUM, but I have to ask why checking where "the entrance to the toilet is located" justifies being punched in the mouth? I'm from the UK, and understand that in the US the accepted term is either restroom or bathroom, but unless there's some slang or street term here that I (and Google) are not aware of that seems a weird example to try and use.
Although I also have to concur with Koncorde in that I don't see what relevance it has to the article topic - in my experience, both personal and in the media, politically correct terminology seems to transcend national borders, so a nonspecifically destinationed individual is used, even if they are known as a vagrant in the US, but a tramp in the UK. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me for pointing it out, but the only place that 'nonspecifically destinationed individual' is used, is on 'joke' sites presented as a parody of 'PC' speech. The term joins 100s of examples of 'PC', the most notable feature of which is that no-one, or almost know one has ever used them. Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I know - although I did once hear a tour guide at the National Air and Space Museum genuinely ask the group to make way for both the "Chronologically intense" and "vertically challenged". The point remains the same though - why does asking for a toilet rather than a bathroom result in a (justified) punch in the mouth, and where is the connection to Political correctness? Chaheel Riens (talk)

Well in the USA, "toilet" means the actual plumbing device you sit on. "Bathroom" or "restroom" is the location (or room) where the toilet is located. In the UK "toilet" means "restroom" or "bathroom" as we use the term in the USA. So for example in Chicago if you said "John will be here in a moment- he is in the toilet washing his hands" you would get a very strange reaction. The punch in the mouth depends on WHERE in the USA you said such a thing. In some neighborhoods there is more of a "swing first, ask questions later" mentality if you think someone is being smart with you. A few weeks back some poor tourist bastard had his back broken with a softball bat because he unknowingly sat in a regulars seat at a tavern. Etiquette and manners go a long way, and lack of then can bring a very rapid response. I am sure it is this way in many large cities no matter what country you are in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B045:CFA7:ADFC:9DC8:7A48:3A76 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Getting back on track, I'd like to request an RFC about the best way to link the "PC Controversies" category into the article. Normally, such an addition would not require an RFC, but in this case OWNership of the article by one user is so severe that literally any addition to the article not meeting his approval is immediately reverted. Not to mention he will make comments like "there are ZERO sources referring to PC as a philosophy". When later presented with a reliable, book-length, peer-reviewed, academic source entitled The Philosophy of Political Correctness, said editor will STILL claim that the source is not referring to PC as a philosophy. Ownership of this article by said editor has been going on for years - you can review the talk page archives. I believe enough in the project that this situation will eventually be resolved. Others are aware of the problem as well, and have voiced their support in the matter. In the meantime I've been advised to request an RFC and word it in a way that is agreeable to other editors here. So I am open for suggestions. 2600:1012:B045:CFA7:ADFC:9DC8:7A48:3A76 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I think most people know the difference between this and this and only those who have never seen a US film/TV programme will not know that the word is almost never used for the room in the US. The question was, what on earth does that have to do with 'PC'? Clearly nothing. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't link the category. Some of the controversies may fit within the existing sections as examples, but they are (in most cases) not even superficially related to Political Correctness by the content.
As for RFC, and the content you have tried to add, there are plenty of well thought out replies above. The "Philosophy" point is quite clear. Nobody practices "racism" as a philosophy, but you will find reliable sources indicating "the philosophy of racism" exists. It's the difference between an academic study, and an attitude or principle. From the accusations, I see only several months of a single editor (Mr. Magoo and McBarker) pushing specific pointy edits and there being routine to and fro to reach consensus. Fraught and tense, but generally speaking bland. I can see several thousand character additions to the article unchallenged [1] and significant contributions by several dozen other editors without much issue.
It would be a very odd thing to ask for an RFC when your issue appears to be a personal conflict with Pincrete, and would come across in much the same way as your issue on a previous article as an attempt to railroad an article with your POV (and continues to be under some effort from yourself on Godrics talk page). Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
How on earth is adding a link to "Political Correctness Related Controveries" as a see-also from an article about political correctness POV in any way, shape or form?? Please tell me. We have "perjoratives" as a see-also, "baa-baa black sheep" as a see-also, but you think it is "pov" to link to actual real-world examples of political correctness. Interesting. 2600:1012:B01E:2406:74D6:4A7F:6C7E:CDEA (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
There's an entire page of your POV push above this section with responses to which users have explained the issues with the forced inclusion of a category. And it has been explained that examples of Political Correctness controversies that can be identified as controversies of political correctness in reliable sources can be included (and several are already under the relevant subsections of this article). By going to Category:Political_correctness linked from the bottom it takes you to the existing list of articles grouped with Political Correctness, and the sub-categories. You do not re-loop a category to its sub-category. Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
To clarify with clearest possible example of categorisation I can think of:
Islam
It's category is Category:Islam
Islam category has sub-categories including Category:Islam-related_controversies
This is not included as a "see also" or anything along those lines as it is not relevant. Meanwhile the wording is quite clear as to the intent of categorisation:
This category is intended for articles dedicated to documenting actual controversies, only. It is not for inclusion of articles that concern topics that have somehow "been described as controversial" by some sources or other. There is a difference between articles about controversy, and articles "about controversial topics". The parent article of this category, dedicated to discussing controversy surrounding Islam, is Criticism of Islam. Only articles which are directly sub-topics of this should be included here.
There is then:
Criticism of Islam
Its category is Category:Criticism_of_Islam
You will note they do not link Category back to the main Islam page either because that would be an incorrect use of categories. Koncorde (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
IP, Re: We have "perjoratives" as a see-also, "baa-baa black sheep" as a see-also, no we don't, not either. And I agreed with you that Xmas controversies should probably go, since it is solely an example and not even a very notable one. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion @ Categories for Deletion, Political correctness-related controversies[edit]

There is a discussion over at Categories for Discussion relating to Category:Political correctness-related controversies users may wish to contribute to. Koncorde (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

See Also section[edit]

Per recently removed pair by Pincrete, just looking at some of the below and feel they could be clarified with an annotation per MOS:ALSO or maybe someone can see the link or may agree with me where I am struggling to see the rationale.

Any comments or thoughts? Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

is there anything here of any use that couldn't be better linked to inline? I would consider omitting the section entirely. Artw (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a few would possibly be a bit forced to include in-line, but could see a few as being actually quite good for expanding on as a "see main article" type subsection or more appropriate linkage from an expanded subsection. Koncorde (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree with the analysis of Koncorde above. What is apt here depends very much on what one thinks 'PC' is and was. In the US the focus of the term was originally higher education, in the UK it has always been public bodies, especially local ones, in both cases mainly matters relating to women, non-whites, gays and disabled people.
If one thinks 'PC' is mainly about consciously avoiding racist/sexist language and attitudes, red-baiting is probably off-topic, if one thinks the term is also a pejorative (what this writer calls: an “exonym”: a term for another group, which signals that the speaker does not belong to it.) ie crudely, a bit of mud that the right likes to throw at the left in order to discredit it, then red-baiting is apt.
I have no problem with including closely related terms in other languages, but will happily follow majority opinion on this. Pincrete (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So the See Also is trying to provide a link to other politicised language, fair enough. Amazed this article hasn't picked up an awful lot more pejoratives in that case!
I will annotate the foreign language ones missing a description, and remove the couple obvious nobody has objected to. Will see what can then be linked in-line with some context. Koncorde (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)