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

This article suggest Political correctness is a communist conspiracy

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

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

This article totally misses the point

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

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

Culturally-disadvantaged caucasians

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

Politically correct labeling to undermine

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

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

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

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

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

Had to remove the editorializing statement (and the multiple nutrality problems it presents) that ONE example of supposed consevatives questioning Global Warming proves a larger conspiratorial movement in which "ANY (emphasis, mine) policy or factual claim opposed by the political right" will wrongly "be criticized as 'politically correct'" Whatavividimagination (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that this section as written would survive 5 minutes at WP:NPOVN, but my goal is more to have a discussion to improve the article rather than being driven by any effort or having any issue regarding "sides". I think that this is an important section which should be intelligently covered, and I think that it needs improvement to get there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Having biases in both directions does not make it a neutral article! It makes it biased in both directions. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Winter holiday instead of Christmas

The link to a regional report in the NYT is about a small number of people and a rejected suggestion, this doesn't show that this is a common example, it suggests that indeed it is not very common (and it seems to have been hard to find references, if it's common they should be easy to find). I think this is a bit of an urban myth. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I found that one in 1 minute. I could find 100 more. This is pervasive. I can't believe that you are questioning it! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then fine one that actually says it is "commonly criticized" as politically correct. It's original research to just put it in as an example of something "commonly criticized" . Your source needs to make the specific claim. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See notes on RFC page. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious Offense

I just added "religious belief" to the list of offense contexts. I think this is a valid addition, but what do others think? Harvest316 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)