Talk:Political correctness/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Adding “pejorative” to lede sentence

Not sure what sources state the term is always a pejorative. If there are sources stating this, please discuss them here. Otherwise this is OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1520:81B4:E1A3:4050:2F1:9C9 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Your most recent claim is that there is a "long-standing consensus" aginst including it.[1][2] Where is this consensus? The previous discussion you started on this (above) seems to neither be aware of this consensus nor to have supported it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The long standing consensus was that the term is sometimes, but not always, a pejorative (you can search the talk page archives for more). This was the version agreed to after discussion some time back. If someone wants to change it that’s fine, but at least include some sourcing before unilaterally overturning what was a contentious decision in the first place. You can look at the history of the article and see what I am taling about. 2605:E000:1520:81B4:E1A3:4050:2F1:9C9 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You have stated there is a long standing consensus. Please link to it. Your most recent previous discussion seems to be completely unaware of this consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please use the search function. The onus is on those who are looking to add/change information to provide sourcing. Nonetheless[[3]] here is a link a discussion back in 2016 establishing that PC is not strictly a pejorative. Since then there have been several more discussions on the topic, all of them concluding the same. My question to you is where is a source stating that PC is always a pejorative? 2605:E000:1520:81B4:B9DC:2F7E:A520:92F2 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That discussion seems to support including the term, not omitting it (indeed, it clarifies "generally" later on in the lead sentence.) I also don't feel that calling a term pejorative in the lead necessarily implies that it is always and exclusively used in a pejorative sense; our lead needs to capture the general meaning first, with more specific meanings (eg. the older ironic usage) listed further down. That said, the sources we have seem to describe it as pejorative, so if you'll want to remove it (something that the previous discussion, above, and the older RFCs you refer to seem to have opposed), you'll have to provide sources. Looking up, it seems like you were challenged to provide such sources and failed to do so...? Counting this discussion and the most recent one, I'm seeing at least five people saying that the sourcing supports calling it pejorative, and just you disagreeing with that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with pejorative being included in the lede, I think the change reads very poorly now unfortunately. I don't think adding pejorative at that point in the lede helps to clarify what Political Correctness is. Koncorde (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made a small change, reverting back to the original first sentence, but making the pejorative part of the second clause that discussed the negative connotations. However it now makes the switch between sentence 2 and 3 a bit grating, so maybe they need switching around. Koncorde (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Long term problem here is that whilst almost ALL sources agree that the term is pejorative, they are discussing use in public discourse (especially in the media and in political argument). Many readers 'drop in' and insist that the term is used in countless other ways in private use, or where they live/work. Of course this is the case with almost any term, especially a political term, ('conservative' might be an insult down your street!), but people seem to take umbrage about the discrepancy here. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC) ... The agreed long-term position is that the term is generally, pejorative, not sometimes. As I said, this is mainly speaking about use in public political discourse - for the simple reason that no sources discuss private/local usage nor use as a neutral term. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Question - where do the sources cited refer to PC as being “generally” a pejorative? (Or even a pejorative at all? I am looking at them and not seeing this. Also, someone removed the dictionary Definition that was previously sourced. In articles like this, where there can be confusion over what the term actually means, a dictionary definition can be cited. It is not prohibited or even discouraged by MOS. I think this might be a scenario where citing ((Or even directly quoting) the dictionary definition could be helpful. 2605:E000:1520:81B4:3160:9597:3D19:6C26 (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer - sources don't refer to PC as being “generally” a pejorative. The use of 'generally' was arrived at after a long RfC in which all the sources that categorically stated pejorative/derogatory/dismissive were weighed against other uses on a 'never', 'sometimes', 'often', 'ordinarily/generally', 'always' scale. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So if the term is "generally" (ie not always) a pejorative, why the objection to the sentence clarifying that it is used as a pejorative "by critics". This usage is supported by numerous sources cited in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.99 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Generally" is used as a compromise because there was an earlier ironic self-description (the two periods of usage for the term are ironic self-description, followed by co-option by conservatives in the 80's to use it as a pejorative against opponents on the left.) "By critics" carries an implication that there is a significant group of self-described "political correctists" (or whatever the term would be) - it functionally presents the topic as a group of people criticizing some definitely-real "political correctness movement" or "political correctness advocates" which that framing implies exists, and in doing so presents the political biases, beliefs, and rhetorical arguments of Bloom et. all as uncontested fact, when it clearly is not. That position isn't supported by the sources or the article, which cover the term (in its modern usage) as a pejorative whose current usage was invented in the 1980's by conservative writers as a way to attack their ideological opponents. And, more generally, the article is about the term, so "critics" in this case would be people who criticize the modern usage of the term political correctness (which is instead covered in the last paragraph of the lead.) ie. Will Hutton is a critic of the term; Bloom, D'Souza, and other conservative voices are advocates of the term, who argue that it accurately describes their political opponents. It makes no sense to label them as "critics" of a term whose modern usage and meaning they invented themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: So if the term is "generally" (ie not always) a pejorative, why the objection to the sentence clarifying that it is used as a pejorative "by critics". Because the addition of pejorative "by critics' doesn't clarify, it obfuscates. Firstly, and mainly, it is fairly obvious that a pejorative term is used solely to criticise - that's what pejorative means - a derogatory term. You could either say "is generally used as a pejorative" or is "generally used by critics/to critiocise", they would mean essentially the same thing except that "by critics" is less clear. Secondly, "by critics" of what? Critics of the term? Of the policies described in the previous sentence? So it is (at best) reduntant to add "by critics" to "as a pejorative". The addition muddles a very simple thought, which is that the term is generally (ie ordinarily, but not always) used to denigrate the "language, policies, or measures" which are being described as "PC". Pincrete (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative

Can someone cite the exact sources that justify including political correctness under the “pejorative” category? I am still not seeing it. Yes, the term can be used as a pejorative, but nowhere is it strictly defined as one. Even the dictionary definition has an example of Political Correctness used in a sentence: “women like him for his civil rights stand and political correctness". How in the world is that a pejorative??? Starcader (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You've been at this for years, sometimes under this user name, mostly under IPs. You've tried various approaches (adding OR and SYN, claiming there was a consensus for your change, etc.) and now you're upset at being labeled a single purpose account?

At some point you're going to have to hear what's been said repeatedly. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thats because usage of the term has changed in recent years. It may have been a pejorative in the past, but from what I can gather, this is no longer the case. I am simply going by what the sources say. I’ve asked several times what sources refer to political correctness as a pejorative - it’s interesting that no one is able to point out where exactly our sources say this. If they refer to PC as a pejorative - fine. If not, let’s work constructively to have the article reflect our sources. Starcader (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The most recent discussion with you about this was above at Talk:Political_correctness#Adding_“pejorative”_to_lede_sentence, less then 3 weeks ago. At that time, you had started out with the claim there was a longstanding consensus to NOT include the word, a consensus that you have not been able to point to and which does not seem to exist.

Now, you are claiming that the usage has changed over the years that you have been arguing this.

The current consensus (above) and the most recent RfC both support including it. If you wish to argue that there has been a shift in usage, you will need to provide reliable sources directly stating that or start yet another RfC. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Apart from any other considerations, it is not necessary that something be ALWAYS pejorative, in order to be in that category. I'm sure we can all think of uses of even the MOST offensive words which are sometimes used in non-pejorative ways. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of George Carlin references

George Carlin's "Euphemisms" routine is mentioned without sources. On the Dick Cavett show in 1992, George Carlin disavowed usage of the phrase "Politically Correct" because it was a "right wing term". Source is on Youtube (blacklisted by wikipedia) "George Carlin Dick Cavett 1992" at exactly the 10:00 mark. Ergo, George Carlin and mention of any of his routines should be removed from this page. Kire1975 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I get what point you think you are making. Carlin disavowing PC would serve to actually make it just as equally relevant as him not referring to it at all in Euphemisms (it actually reinforces it's relevance, and criticism of the euphemistic language designed to protect from offence). However in fact what he says is that he won't use the term "Political Correctness" in his show, and instead creates his own euphemism of "soft language" in a way to mitigate criticism of the themes he is then going to bring up. At the heart, the topic remains the same. Cavett actually somewhat leads the idea of disavowing PC, but it's interesting to listen to Carlin soft-shoe his response because reserving the right to being a douchebag expressly to tweak the nose of "PC" doesn't change what you just said. Hence why Carlin effectively says here, and in multiple other interviews and performances, that he see's the relative merit but thinks the good intentions are undone by those that take it too far. An aside, but that's the crux. As for sources, there will be those that discuss Euphemism and Carlins discussion of "soft language". Koncorde (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

*Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners* - George Carlin, a liberal himself, criticized the movement of the 1980s and early 1990s to affected American culture, politics and morality to a point in the late 1990s and 2000s, more people turned against the trend. In the 21st century and new millennia (early 2000s), there was talk of "Moral correctness" to appease conservative, right-wing opinions like "People should work for a living, regardless if they are disabled". And now in the late 2010s, "overcorrectness" described the present-day western world of societies less likely to air grievances and opinions out of fear it may be offensive or insensitive to social minority groups 2605:E000:100D:C571:59FA:BE91:70ED:D823 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

1960s right-wing uses

A search of the term on google ngrams (google books) yields an interesting 1968 reference, on p. 13 that year's California State Republican platform, with the term applied to the left by the anti-government right, and in quotation marks, implying that the use by the right was already established at that time: "... legislation to end movements by the government to instill "politically correct" values into public school curriculum, including programs such as Project X in Los Angeles which gready detract from the critical ...". Someone would need to get the actual document and check the context (as well as correct the presumed OCR error "gready"--really, already?), but clearly the term has a more varied back history than this article indicates. Hmarcuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a case of left vs right, rather than State rights vs Federal rights, and then some criticism of whatever Project X is, but in any case it's interesting to see any earlier reference. Unfortunately we need some better information about it / around it, and a reliable source for citation otherwise we are straying into WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Study on PC

Hi all, I wanted to raise an important empirical finding here, since I think it casts doubt on some of the language used in the lede. In short, a recent survey found that large majorities of Americans (including in minority demographics) agreed with the statement 'political correctness is a problem in our country.' You can read more about the study here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/. What it suggests is that the great majority of Americans don't think PC 'is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society' or that it describes a preference 'for inclusive language and avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race,' as it's currently described in the lede (and, of course, popular usage trumps dictionary definitions when it comes to a term's meaning). If those surveyed thought PC was either of those things, of course, they would hardly have described it as a problem. So, I would suggest re-writing those sentences to something that at least takes the views of most people into account, e.g. 'PC describes a phenomenon that many see as encoding excessive and restrictive limitations on expression, while defenders see it as doing nothing more than attempting to mitigate or eliminate offense to minorities.' I'm open to suggestions on how this study can be incorporated elsewhere in the article, but I do think it needs to be addressed (and that it makes some of the lede's language untenable). Many thanks, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This ostensibly global article is already saturated with contents about the USA. Let's not add more. We need more about the thoughts of the other 95% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Political Correctness = A. Lots of people dislike B. Therefore A = B and we should change the lede. Circular reasoning. Koncorde (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48 The study shows that a large majority of Americans dislike PC (and, obviously, don't think it's as described in the lede). I don't have any data about the rest of the world, though my guess would be that PC is less popular outside of the US (and that even fewer people would describe it in the terms currently in the lede.) If you wanted to discuss the study somewhere in the article, and then add a disclaimer that it only applies to the US and that we lack data from elsewhere, that would be fine with me. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde The argument is rather that if 80% of people think A is a problem, then they clearly don't think A is simply avoiding offensive behaviour. Otherwise 80% of Americans would have said 'I think avoiding offensive behaviour is a problem in our country,' which makes no sense. If the vast majority of people use A a certain way, that's what it means. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They never said they think A is a problem. They say B is a problem. The article actually states that none of the people asked the question were informed about what political correctness is, and the analysis points out therefore that we don't therefore understand what it is they object to. To quote:

One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.

The rest of the article is discussing the fact that we cannot assume being progressive, or black, or any other group, is a homogeneous whole, that his twitter following and intellectual milieu overestimate peoples understanding of what it is, and their perception of what it is is coloured by the concerns that they have regarding their own lack of knowledge and awareness. i.e. they are frightened of being wrong, saying the wrong thing, and being castigated as a result. The article even quotes a person saying as much:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don’t term it right you discriminate them. It’s like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don’t know. But if you don’t know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

And it then summarises itself around the impact of failing to recognise the risks of underestimating peoples concerns. This is summarised by the sentence in the lede "In public discourse and the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted." It does not change the meaning, or intent, only reinforces the well established wisdom that people don't know what they don't know. Koncorde (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And just in case there is a lack of clarity here: if we were to ask peoples opinions about dihydrogen monoxide we already know that they will not understand it, and so therefore be universally opposed to it. This does not mean we go into the article on Water and describe it as how people misunderstand its chemical composition. Koncorde (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde My understanding was that they asked people whether they agreed with the statement, 'political correctness is a problem in our country.' 80% said yes. So, if A is PC, then they did, in fact, say that A is a problem. Now, I agree that this doesn't give us an exhaustive account of what they thought the term meant (as the researchers point out). However, it clearly rules out some possible definitions, e.g. that PC is just a common-sense avoidance of discrimination. In any case, as you point out, the study does give us some additional information about what people think PC is: they think it has to do with uncharitable interpretation of speech, that is, an excessive quickness to read prejudice into speech where none was meant. So, since this is the best data that I've seen on what PC means, I'd now suggest we put something along those lines in the lede. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good analogy for this case. 'PC' isn't something that has a chemical composition that can be checked. If 80% of Americans say 'we think PC is a problem' (and it seems that they said this because they take it to indicate an excessive policing of speech), you can't just say, 'Actually, you're all wrong about what it means - it really means common courtesy.' I mean, you could, but you don't have any empirical description to fall back on as with water. In the absence of that what you're doing (and what I would argue the lede currently does) is to assert a minority (and probably white and elite: see the study) definition of an important term when we know that it's widely taken to mean something different. I'm happy to have the article describe both uses of the term (though the common usage should probably take precedence). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Almost by definition, the term 'PC' is nearly always used to describe excessive policies or practice (which the lead already says "In public discourse and the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted"). So it hardly surprising that 80% of anywhere would think PC is a problem. It's like asking if overeating is a problem, it wouldn't be called 'over-eating' if it weren't seen as a problem, it would simply be called 'eating'.

We mostly rely on book sources, because there is so much passing stuff in the media - which of course almost always concludes that "PC has gone too far" - but no one is ever able to define what the "right amount" of PC is and while there are innumerable critics of PC - you will never find a defender of PC, for the simple reason that the term itself is only used by critics - just as there are no defenders of 'over-eating. Where I agree with Cleisthenes2 is that the article lacks a clear exposition of what critics don't like about 'PC', censorship of language etc. . But a passing survey is not the source for that, would we actually define 'conservatism' or 'liberalism', or any other political concept by a Vox-pop survey of how many people in country X think it is a good thing? In the case of PC, the result of the survey is a foregone conclusion, since PC means 'too much'.

PC isn't usually defined as over-sensitivity/tendency to take offence - that may be a related phenomenon, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a source that defines PC that way. It is almost always defined in terms of avoiding offence, especially on grounds of race/gender/sexuality/disability.Pincrete (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Cliesthenes, if you don't like dihydrogen monoxide as an example, just do a survey on whether people think universal healthcare is wrong, or if socialism is the greatest threat to the USA. Any nebulous term misunderstood by so many is going to introduce immediate confusion and elicit responses. However nobody will be redefining Socialism based on Americans lack of understanding of what it is (or what they think it is).

Meanwhile, as stated, our second sentence covers the aspect of its excess is seen as the biggest issue. That is the crux of the complaints. Everyone agrees with politeness. Presumably everyone agrees racial slurs are unwanted. People being concerned that they don't know what is and isn't a racial slur is as irrelevant as people being concerned they don't know how lift works when in an airplane. Koncorde (Koncorde) 20:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete When you say 'PC means 'too much,' I agree completely (and hence am confused as to why you then say the term 'isnt usually defined as over-sensitivity,' but maybe you can explain.) The term is generally understood to refer to excessive sensitivity about language. But that's not what the first sentence of our article says.

Koncorde I actually think the socialism example can help shed light on the argument you employed above. If there was a survey asking 'Do you think socialism is a bad system?' and 80% of Britons said 'Yes,' that wouldn't tell us exactly what they thought socialism was. But it would exclude some definitions, e.g. that socialism just means common decency, or fellow-feeling. Your argument would then be, 'But they weren't talking about socialism (which is just common decency), but about socialism, which is just their misunderstanding of what socialism really is.' The problem is that we could play this game for anything, which would allow us to make definitions while avoiding any data about how people actually use a word.

Koncorde I have thought a bit more about the water example. Another problem is that asserting that water is H20 involves in some sense a mere substitution of terms. With PC, it's not like 'avoiding discriminatory language' can simply replace PC in all instances without anything changing. In fact, that's precisely my point - if you replace PC with 'being nice to minorities' or something like that, 80% of Americans seem to be saying they don't like being nice to minorities (including the minorities!) So it makes more sense to think that PC simply isn't 'being polite to minorities' but something else.

Pincrete I'm grateful to you for seeing something in my comments that you can work with. I'm open to making the article more balanced in the way you suggest in other ways. I'm also open to citing this article (which I still think is important) in another context, for example, as part of a few sentences on studies or surveys of PC.

Koncorde You're right that the sentence 'In public discourse and the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted' notes that many use it as a pejorative. 'With an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted' to me suggests that we know they're not in fact excessive or unwarranted, but maybe I'm being over-sensitive now. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"The problem is that we could play this game for anything, which would allow us to make definitions while avoiding any data about how people actually use a word." Yes, that is how reality works. Gravity is defined by scientists, not by people who think stuff floats because it's full of air or because earth is travelling upwards through space and is a flat pizza shape. H2O is defined by scientists, not by people who are worried about dihydrogen monoxide. Political Correctness is defined by what sociologists, scientists, historians describe the phenomenon to be - bearing in mind that nobody used it outside of the ironic way until it was weaponised by US Conservatives. The Atlantic article does not change the opening sentence; the people clearly understand that the concept is about offence - the issue is that they do not understand what was offensive, and feel as if they themselves are somehow under analysis in situations they previously felt comfortable in. However they would not be able to say who they felt analysed by, and likely not for which words, because it's a bogeyman term.

And yes, the implication of using //scare quotes//"political correctness"//scare quotes// in an un-ironic way is solely to suggest that they are excessive. However the Conservatives who defined the modern usage are very careful not to actually explain what element of a given policy is essentially problematic, nor actually able to point at a policy in most cases. It's a dog-whistle that has ended up the common parlance. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde You're confusing empirics and semantics, which is established by usage. (As the most influential philosopher of language of the twentieth century put it, in a view which is now widely accepted, 'the meaning of a word is its use.') What people mean by gravity is the force that seems to make things fall down; that meaning isn't something the vast majority of language users can be wrong about, though they might be wrong about how the force they're referring to really works (and they were for a long time, as it happens).

Koncorde When you say 'it was weaponized by US conservatives,' 'it's a bogeyman term,' and claim without evidence that conservatives don't explain when they see PC as problematic, you seem to be engaging in cultural-warring. This isn't a political opinion site though, but an encyclopaedia, and we have a responsibility to maintain a NPOV. So, you may dislike US conservatives all you like, but we have a duty here to present a balanced view of what PC is (and, whether you like it or not, most people, as far as we can tell, don't think it's just avoiding discriminatory behaviour).

I'll also note that your reaction to my good-faith suggestion to incorporate an important and directly relevant study was to reject it insistently, rather than to try to work towards a compromise. My sense is that this goes against the norms and spirit of Wikipedia (a spirit that Pincrete has lived up to by making an effort to see where I was coming from. If you can't overcome your political tendentiousness (which you're welcome to indulge elsewhere, of course), I'd suggest you step back from articles on controversial topics like this one. If you want to make a suggestion as to how some of the things I've brought to the table might be incorporated, I remain very much open to that. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing anything, nor am I even going to enter into irrelevant philosophical discussions about words.

We do not define Wikipedia articles by what people misunderstand it to be. If we did, Irony would be at serious risk of devolving into the single sentence; "Irony is something Americans don't understand".

Speaking of misunderstanding, I am going to take it from your attempt to tone police me in this reply you have not actually read the article, nor the sources, upon which my comments are based. No I am not leaving, and on all likelihood will be here long after you as I am on hundreds of other articles attempting to build a better encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde If you really are keen to build a better encyclopaedia, you can take up the offer I made in my last post. But please don't obstruct reasonable efforts to improve things; I remind you that there are complaints processes for obstructionism and vandalism of that sort. Just to address your points quickly: you confused empirics and semantics (if you disagree, say why); the issue is directly relevant (since my point is precisely that a large majority of users thinking X means Y is trumping evidence of that); the sentence 'Irony is something Americans don't understand' doesn't offer a definition, but makes a claim about Americans. If you would like to say why you think I'm wrong about any of these points, I'd be happy to respond. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In short; no. You have presented a single source. We have pointed out why the single source does not say what you think it says, nor can it be used to change the lede. Pincrete has stated that he agrees the article fails to quantify what it is people object to, and it would be great if we could, but nobody wants to actually give such a definition because then it would so much harder to use it as a euphemism (which is pretty much the only common usage of this term boils down to). You were reverted during your original attempts to introduce this into the lede, and unless you can actually suggest an alternative wording that isn't wholly based upon this single article then I think this discussion is dead.

Meanwhile I have given several tongue in cheek examples of why we do not use the general public to define a thing any more than we might let a flat earther define the scientific method and you have gone off on a tangent about empiricism and semantics; which just triggers my bullshit meter. Now you are into what I can only assume is a hand-waving threat to wiki-lawyer me. Either do something, or present something tangible beyond continued waffling. Koncorde (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the source is even worse than Cleisthenes2 thinks. As part of broader research about political polarity, people were asked a series of binary questions "which of these two is closer to your belief" no grey areas nor nuance allowed - responses were mapped across a political spectrum from radical left to radical right (those weren't the actual terms used for the L-R spectrum). The research wasn't about PC nor even American's responses/attitudes towards - whatever it is that they think PC is. The questions were intentionally polarising. But even if the research were more focused on 'PC', why would we want to use it? Would we expect an article on communism to say that X% of Americans thought communism was the work of the devil - or an article on capitalism to say what % of N Koreans despised it? What would that tell us about either? Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. I see the study itself as something that could be used more appropriately in the Political polarization article (which we might want to add as a "See also" on the PC page). There are a few sentences at the end when doing their summarising that are better put together than the Atlantic article itself which could be focused upon for the Media subsection here, but there are a few sentences throughout that might be relevant in a.n.other situation but it would still only be a single study for what are generally un-controversial claims already made. Koncorde (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde 'In short; no.' Not an argument. (I could just reply, 'In short 'yes,' but I don't want to be puerile.) 'You have presented a single source.' Indeed, an important one that's clearly and directly relevant to PC. 'We have pointed out why the single source does not say what you think it says' - incorrectly, as I showed above (e.g. you asserted that survey respondents didn't think PC was a problem; as I noted, they were, in fact, asked if they thought PC was a problem in their country, and most agreed. 'Nor can it be used to change the lede.' I'm sorry, but are you in charge of this article? Is that how this works? I thought this was supposed to be a democratic process, and we were supposed to make a sincere effort towards compromise. 'And unless you can actually suggest an alternative wording...' You may have missed it, but I suggested several possible alternatives above (e.g. a separate section on research on public perceptions on PC citing this important study). '...then I think this discussion is dead.' I'm sorry, but, again, you're not in charge of Wikipedia, and the conversation isn't dead when you say it is. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete 'The research wasn't about PC nor even American's responses/attitudes towards.' The researchers asked a sample of Americans whether they agreed with the statement 'PC is a problem in our country' (see e.g. p. 14 for the graph of the results to this question). 'The questions were intentionally polarising.' I disagree, and this in any case seems unlikely (the study was carried out by More in Common, an organization dedicated to combating polarization.) 'Would we expect an article on communism to say that X% of Americans thought communism was the work of the devil - or an article on capitalism to say what % of N Koreans despised it?' Yes, I think survey information about what large numbers of people thought about those topics would be entirely appropriate. 'What would that tell us about either?' It would tell us a lot about public perceptions of those concepts - and would rule out certain definitions, e.g. that 'communism' in American English just means 'working together.' So, here, the fact that 80% of Americans think PC is a problem mean that PC cannot mean that PC is simply being nice, unless we think 80% of Americans think being nice is a problem. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde 'Meanwhile I have given several tongue in cheek examples of why we do not use the general public to define a thing' - which we in fact do, as is the consensus position in modern linguistics. '...any more than we might let a flat earther define the scientific method' - another analogy that misses the mark: if 80% of people meant X by the phrase 'scientific method' that is, in fact, what it would mean. '...and you have gone off on a tangent about empiricism and semantics' - it's actually directly relevant, but you don't seem to be able to rebut the arguments, which is why I think you're now saying it's irrelevant. '...which just triggers my bullshit meter' - which isn't an argument, but an attempt to denigrate me (again, I could reply in kind, but I'm not that immature). Also I do value Wikipedia norms, and if you try to bully others rather than engaging with their arguments and suggestions in a reasonable way, I wanted to remind you that there are processes for that kind of disruption. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde 'I see the study itself as something that could be used more appropriately in the Political polarization article (which we might want to add as a "See also" on the PC page).' Thank you for this reasonable suggestion. I would be happy to link to it there, although, since one of the questions asked directly about PC, I think it would make good sense to mention it here too. (Note also that the result about PC was what hit the headlines in the Atlantic, NPR, National Review, Salon, Business Insider, etc.) 'There are a few sentences at the end when doing their summarising that are better put together than the Atlantic article itself which could be focused upon for the Media subsection here, but there are a few sentences throughout that might be relevant in a.n.other situation but it would still only be a single study for what are generally un-controversial claims already made.' I'm sorry I didn't really understand this bit. Could you clarify? Cleisthenes2 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Words. Try fewer. I am not even going to attempt to read the above because I can again see from the briefest glance you are not listening and still reverting to arguments about empiricism and semantics. It's bullshit. Condense yourself down to what you think your single source says and what you think it should change. Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading. Try more. I am not even going to attempt to re-phase what I've written because I can again see from the briefest glance you are...etc. Try engaging with my arguments properly or stop wasting everyone's time. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of enhancements

Added following sections. Summary of changes, thought process, and additional enhances still pending, etc explained to make the review easier for you so as to inspire you to make further enhancements:

• A. "Politically incorrect" section: This is redirected to this article but there is no section for this in the article. I created a section on this.
  • A1. "Definition" subsection: Added subsection with definitions from "Merriam Webster" definition of both "Political correctness (PC)" and "Politically incorrect (PI)". Added an example of PI from Urban Dictionary, article already contains several examples of PC. Feel free to add few more short contrasting examples from other sources showing both left and right wing perspective.
  • A2. "Subjective usage" subsection: Describes how the term PI is subjective, contextual, how left and right both use it to label each other. Section needs expansion and more citations.
  • A3. "Conflict from the subjective usage" subsection: Tussle mentioned in A2 has led to conflict, specially majority of people in certain places (majoritarianism) including right wingers feel unheard and not respected. Section needs expansion and more citations.
  • Note: Point A1 to A3 is new text. My first cut, hence needs your help. Please review. To make the article future-proof please help especially by balanced phrasing and by finding more sources to show both left and right wing perspectives, their resulting conflicts, etc, to that there is no contentions from other editors in future. Due to perennial left-right wing tussle, I expect more frequent edits to this section. I seek help from editors of both wings to please add this article to their watchlist to ensure article stays balanced. Please take care to not dilute by ploys to keep opposing text out or by paraphrasing with weasel words. I have piped the term "woke" in the "see also" without labeling if its left or right term, since both can be "woke" against each other, let readers draw conclusion.

Retained the following pre-existing subsections in the article and relocated those under the PI as they are more closely related, these sections serve the purpose of showing the perspective of left wing, political liberal wing, and even islamic wingers, etc.

• • A4. "Right-wing political correctness" subsection: new heading, changed from earlier "Conservative political correctness".
  • A5. "Labeling Political correctness as conspiracy theory" subsection: new heading, changed from earlier "Conspiracy theory".

• B. Enhanced readability, self descriptive headings, TOC:
  • B1. Headings made self descriptive to enhance the glance through TOC readability and navigability.
  • B2. Reference section "hierarchies" created
  • Example: Headings of subsections in history section enhanced to show how the term PC was first used by conservatives/orthodox (right-wing presumed as their subset) to label their followers who fell out of line. the PI in 70s was adopted/appropriated by left-wing as well. This led to debate about the "definition" and "who owns the term" from 80s-90 onward. This enhances the flow of article as well. Perhaps history sections needs expansion, how labeling eahc other as PI by left and right has led to some "major" conflicts in the past. I enhanced headings of this sectiosn but left the text untouched.

• C. Adding contextual richness:
  • C1. Article "See also" section at the bottom of article neatly categorized for glance through comprehension and contextual.
  • C2. "See also" added to subsections in PI to enhance contextual richness. Feel free to add more to show "depth" and "balance" of left and right wings.

• D. Enhancing traffic to this article:
  • D1. Sections in the article anchored for referencing/piping from elsewhere to drive traffic to this article and to add richness of context to those other articles. Anchoring would ensure that piping linkages form elsewhere to here would not be broken if ever headings are changed.

I have left the lede and other sections untouched. Article still has more of a left wing slant, especially in the lede and "usage" section. Please address the issue bu adding counter and counter-counter views. Thank you for your time. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please assume goodfaith.

• Article has major issue of leftist WP:POV, attempt to fix that POV is not POV.
• Drastic edits does not make the edit invalid, unless specific objections are provided as mentioned earlier.
• Please use "cooperative-iterative approach" to enhance.
• Instead of vague generic blanket objections, please provide the
  "a. itemized" list of
  "b. specific",
  "c. actionable", and
  "d. substantiated" objections (cite the corresponding policy and the specific passage in the policy). This is collaborative way, so that each object could be remedied.
• In worse case scenario, retain the good edits (verifiable, reliable) even if they disagree with and end up correcting/adding WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRALITY to the pre-edit (before my edits) editorialised leftist POV.

• Insert the appropriate edits tags for the enhancement of the recent edits.

• I have spent whole day doing these. Show same respect, thoroughness and reciprocal effort and intention to collaborate please.
• Demonstrate efforts to communicate, collaborate iteratively instead of silently sneaking in big five-seconds revert to undo several hours of goodfaith edit. IPs are not insignificant flies/dogs/etc.
• It is violation of wikipedia policies to revert enhancements
  (a) without making any attempts to engage with enhancement contributing editor's post on the article talkpage and
  (b) without making effort to inform that editor on his/her talkpage of quick reverts to huge amount of efforts, hence revert needs to be undone. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

58.182.176.169|58.182.176.169, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for substantive changes - not on others to justify reverts, especially when vague comments like 'leftist' POV and nonsense objectives like "increasing traffic". This isn't Amazon, we aren't trying to sell anything. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Pincrete is correct and his reversion of your big change is in accordance with policy WP:Bold, revert, discuss. As a general principle, before you make a change to an article as substantial as that one, you need to confirm that a wp:CONSENSUS is going to agree that it is a reasonable summary of wp:reliable sources. Wikipedia has no use for your personal opinions, nor mine. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear John Maynard Friedman and Pincrete, BRD policy says its "optional and there are better alternatives to this" e.g. discuss first "BRD-Discussion is a major part of BRD and must never be skipped". He did not discuss on talkpage here and sneaked in revert without reply to my edit summary in talkpage or without pinging me. BRD says any revert must be accompanied by "specific feedback". "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged." Pincrete, its just wiki and not personal, let us please maintain WP:civility and avoid repeatedly saying ""nonsense objectives: and "some [edits] are pure nonsense". Also, Let us both drop vagues like POV, etc and stick to specifics edit-by-edit discussion. How do we go about building consensus? What next? I have provided the itemized summary of my edits on the talkpage. Both of you please help me move forward to enhance the article by providing the feedback to my points above. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear John Maynard Friedman and Pincrete, please the message above too, I posted 2 consecutive messages. Copy paste from WP:BRDR policy "What BRD is not":

• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but * discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
• BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.
• BRD is not a valid course of action when using advanced permissions.

I believe he violated all these points. He didnt provide supporting policy with the list of policy violation in my edit to be fixed by me so that I can move forward to consensus building by fixing. He reverted twice so he already violated the policy. BRD is not a mandatory or first-go-to preferred policy to use, especially those not using diplomacy/civility. I keep repeatedly requesting him to rephrase/enhance/edit-tag my edits but he has shown no inclination to do so. Without a partner willing to collaborate iteratively how do I move forward?

Please help me move forward, tell me which items I need to fix. I urge you to please go to my OP above and respond to that please or suggest any other alternative. I am very open as long as it gets user Pincrete to start co-editing/collaborating or at least give me itemized feedback. Both/all are welcome to give me that feedback, which I can fix/act upon, please give me something to work on "which edit is objectionable, which is accpetable". Meanwhile I will make a coffee for all of us here. My dear Pincrete do you prefer a relaxing chilled beer instead of a coffee buzz, sending you both the virtual beverage :) Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll tackle a few changes right away, and then maybe the IP will understand why we don't want to get into having to piecemeal undo such bold changes;

1. The section "Early-to-mid 20th century: usage by conservatives" has a paragraph that is indeed referring to its use by conservatives. However the second paragraph states "As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine in debates between American Communists and American Socialists." additionally the use of "conservatives" and subsequently "left wing" while potentially adding some level of nuance, are not equal terms, and clunky.
2. Reading further I am seeing what appears to be contradictory statements ("PC is not about being inoffensive, PI is not about being offensive, here's a dictionary definition saying PC is about being inoffensive and PIC is about not caring if you are offensive") and there is quite unnecessarily complex language being used, and it often seems unsupported.
3. " individuals use the contextually-contingent subjective notion driven by their own ideology and motives" A. it's unsourced, B. it reads like a pop-psychology quote. C. This also adds a bunch of "see also", the link to which is unclear.
4. "Concept of "politically incorrect” means not adhering to a particular ideological line of any entity which self-entitles or has the power to determine what is correct, speaking truth to power is an example of it." Does it though? A lot of political incorrectness is, broadly speaking, the act of specifically saying what is known to be offensive because it fits an ideology (or more importantly, opposes the ideology of "being PC".
5. "Dichotomous concept of Politically incorrectness is similar to non-dichotomous concept of parrhesia in terms of "to speak candidly"[57] but differs from parrhesia's concept of "to ask forgiveness for speaking candidly"[57] since the essence of being politically incorrect is "being unapologetically candid". This has both grammatical errors, in addition to basically being unreadable in its current form, and unsupported by the single source provided (which is a definition of parrhesia).
6. "For example, as a manifestation of left-wing fascism in former communist nations (e.g. Soviet Union)" PC does not require fascism. Appears wedged in as a POV.
7. "any views opposing the party line were labeled as politically incorrect." do we have any evidence of the Soviet Union using the term political incorrectness? Appears a pet theory.
8. "Labeling majority or conservative views as politically incorrect could could lead to conflict since it could make people feel their views were not being herd or respected." I can't even fathom out what this is trying to say.

In short, you should demonstrate efforts to communicate, collaborate iteratively and not make sweeping unsourced changes to an article. Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Koncorde,

* "demonstrate efforts to communicate": I left a detailed itemized edit summary.

* "collaborate iteratively": I kept asking for it repeatedly. Finally, my persistent worked and I at least got it from you, and I am thankful to you for this. This is enough for me to move forward, to discuss what to drop, what to rework and retain.

* "not make sweeping unsourced changes to an article": I spent several hours in draft mode to make series to changes which I submitted in single edit. did make several changes, there was sourced content to. It would have been one short easy feedback to me from any willing editor to say "thanks for effort, drop all the unsourced content, I will rephrase headings I disagree with, I agree with point xyz in your edit summary, but delete abc and lets discuss the rest".

I need your opinion. Do you mean instead of one big edit submission, it would been better if I made a series of smaller submission? Wouldn't hat be taken as same as cumulative "big big submission"? What would you have done in my shoes to preempt edit dispute (submit in chunks in a day, submit all in one go, or submit over several days)?

58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

definitions of the PI and PC were sourced so try to retain those.

demonstrate efforts to communicate, collaborate iteratively and not make sweeping unsourced changes to an article

IP, 58.182.176.169|58.182.176.169 I don't intend to to answer oceans of text, such as yours above - especially when they show little understanding of WP policy or practice and when much of it is little more than your opinion (there is zero evidence for example that the term is used to describe orthodoxy in former USSR, which you label "left wing fascism"). However, about these 'enhancements'. Your first heading, the section is not about 'conservative usage' - unless you consider Nazi Germany or US socialists and US communists to be conservatives! The term at that period is beginning to be used - mainly by moderate left-wingers - to describe excessively doctrinaire 'party liner' communists, it has other occasional 'literal' uses, such as to characterise the people Nazi Germany would allow in to report.

The next section equally is not about 'left-wing usage', it is about a fairly obscure ironic usage - mainly by new-left/campus-y people, but it is how it is being used, not who which is the defining feature. The next heading "debate on definition and ownership of the term" - there is no debate about either the definition or the 'ownership'. The term from the late '80s was almost entirely used - by centrists and conservatives - to criticise liberal and left policies (often apocryphal policies btw). The term went into general usage then, with approximately its main current usage, to criticise left/liberal thought and policies and to imply that they are excessive, unduly restrictive, 'bonkers', over-earnest, reverse discriminatory etc. All books on the evolution of the term, document those distinct usages, some go into further detail, but none characterise the phases as you do.

So the first three headings are all nonsense and bear no relationship to the content they are -supposedly- summarising or to books on the subject, and the 'see also's have - at best - a very tangential relationship to the subject. At their worst they seem intentionally muddling or provocative (why is PC associated with "speaking truth to power", honesty or sincerity?) - and what do these 'see also's' have to do with any definition of PC - which we have already defined BTW in rather more detail than either M-W online version, or 'Urban' can do?

Needless to say, no later content is referenced, much of it is little better than an opinion piece, and at times again is plainly wrong (the opposite of PC is not P incorrect, the two terms are used in wholly different ways, the first is almost always used to criticise others' words, beliefs, policies - the second is frequently used humourously - sometimes provocatively - and often about oneself) and why say "Political correctness does not mean "politeness" or "inoffensive" (sic). Who said it did? What is the point of saying what a term does NOT mean - "PC does not mean rhubarb nor does it mean cabbage."

The harder I look, the more your additions look like a mass of WP:OR and personal opinion, neither of which we write here. Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Koncorde, At least you gave me something to work with. This is exactly I had been seeking since I made the edits, because I spent an hour writing a summary of my changes. I love you already :) 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, Finally. Would have been better at least you gave me some of it upfront and by now would have been making iterative changes. I have been making excessive efforts to reach out to you. What do I respond to a person accusing me of lack of WP, etc, while he himself shows great reluctance to follow wiki polices and sneaking in reverts without informing me. This attitude is not at all good, no matter if edits/reverts are right or wrong. Please this tone is counterproductive and never ending cycle. We both are better and more mature than this. Civility is lot better. Since you are giving specific now, lets do it in a friendly loving way. Come, let me give you a big hug. IN the next I will offer a step by step alternative solution. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit proposals

I am not emotionally attached to my edits. All I want o see is someone takes my edit to next level, chop, change, do what you like, at least start that process please. Thank you all in advance.

Proposal-1: For now, lets agree to leave out everything that is not supported by sources. We can revisit later to see if something needs to be re-added afgter finding the reliable sources. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-2: Please review my edits to "see also" at the end of the article. Hopefully, this would be lest contentious. Can we agree that one of you please re-instate it, feel free to whatever revisions you make. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-3: Instead of lengthy discussions here, fastest way is any one of the editors here please go ahead and make the progressive revisions to my edits directly within the article. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-4: Go through the my edits to "headings", direct rephrase in the article as you deem fit. Please try to make heading "self descriptive to capture the essence of the section" to aid TOC glance through reading.58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-5: Please create a "Politically incorrect" section, retain whatever you like from my edits, leave out what you don't like, just apply direct to the article. I arrived at the article randomly, after searching "Politically incorrect". I did not see a clear cut section, definition and its comparison/contrast with PC. I ended up spending my whole day, been 18 hours stretch now. When i randomly arrived, I had been expecting to see a clear easy to find and definition, understanding of PI and its comparison with PC. I am sure scores of others who arrive here expect the similar. Since you guys have been watching this article, please go ahead and at least create a PI section with at least the merriam webster definition and anchor to it and we can decide what else to add there. Go ahead decide where do you wish to place the new "PI" section, at least it will still be visible in TOC. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-6: Retains the anchor to sections. They have no impact on contact. With anchoring, heading rephrasing will not break the piping from elsewhere to this. Its just a good practice. About driving the traffic, without the readers traffic there is the point creating article no one reads. Its is also a good web designer or editors technique to maximize traffic even to not for profit. We must be worried if traffic drops, that means some other platform has replace wikipedia and all our individual cumulative edits and our combined edits have diminished in value. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-7: Reorder headings in "usage" section in alphabetic order. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-8: "See also" in sections: Retain what do you feel adds value, move some to the Article's "see also", see if some can be piped within the article, the rest can be dropped, just leave a shot list of dropped her. Use a moderate/medium approach instead of minimalist (keep as least item as possible) or maximalist (maximum possible). Retain the item in the "section see also" a random googler expect to see when they arrive, but also some items what will wow/interest them "wow i did not know that" kind of stuff that stretches their mind, this is how people love to come back to wikipedia. At least thats how I go to wikipedia, I feel excited when I discover new unknown exciting topics through piping, "see also" in the section and article. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-9: Parrhesia: Either rephrase the way you like and retain it in the article in the PI section, or at least move it to article "see also". 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-10: John Stapleton (Australian journalist)'s statement: It is an example of PI, it also shows nuances of how PI people get frustrated etc. I do acknowledge additional content is needed on this and PI, feel free to add your own if you wish. Meanwhile just drop your "thought outline" here how do we frame the PI section. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-11: Conceptual discussion from this point onward: Can we evolve a common understanding of what PI means, and how much of it we wish to show in article. It could be a very wide scope e.g. excessive PC is also PI, or a relatively narrower traditional range of what PI mean. We can decide to add it some explanation even if its unsourced. In future if some editor finds reliably sourced info, then we all would have to give higher weightage to that even if it defies any consensus we build now.58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-12: Can we agree that PC can lead to meaning is lost in the clouded communication, PC could cause communication distortion? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-13: Are PC and PI subjective and contextual i.e. how people personally a subjective definition to these labels and how do they use it similarly or differently to label others with the same term? What is your understanding?58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal-14: What do you feel is missing from the article? From my perspective as a reader, someone who randomly arrived here 20 hours ago, following are missing:
a. a section on PI with everything in it which pertains to PI, definition, how it is similar and different from PC, what are the other similar concepts and terms and how they differ or match PI, how people assign this label to oneself and their favored entities vs to label others with PC/PI whom they do not like, i.e same label but different context/person/meaning/feeling, etc. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion point-15: Since no citation, dont need to add it in as yet. Since Pincrete asked me about this so let me explain to him how I understand the concept of "Political correctness does not mean "politeness" or "inoffensive". Nor does political incorrectness mean "rudeness" or "offensive".”" As a background, think of these concepts first, dualism (e.g. bisexual with fludig gender identify who sometimes self assigns his psychological gender as a woman and sometimes as a man), dichotomous (I love you but I hate you, i love to hate you, I hate to love you, etc), contextually-contingent (bf slapping gf in public will be taken down as a psychopath, gf slapping bf might evoke some laughs), etc. and many other concept. Now many of you might have read the quote which goes like "be strong not arrogant, soft but not weak, humble but not meek, assertive but not aggressive, and so on". Now read the ""Political correctness does not mean "politeness" or "inoffensive"." in that context and I could be speaking at feminist rally as the champion of their rights, speaking all the politically correct things for the audience there, but the tone could be aggressive and profanity laden, kind of a rabble rouser and crowds are adoring me and Im PC in that context but for an outsider I might be an asshole. Same way a person could be deeply religious, very humble soft, goes to his mosque or church, but never raises his voice, tell his wife in a very calm patient soft voice she is not allowed to work and her job is to just stay home and produce kids. In superficial reading the statements may sound contrasting but they are not. I do acknowledge this may not the everyone's scenario but the original statement about PC PI is comprehensive enough to cover wider ranges of scenario than what typical definitions tend to cover. . 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have been at it for 20 hours, need to sleep now. Good night all. See you whenever. Stay safe, happy and healthy. Take your time to respond,k dont stress, dont rush. hugs to all.

3 out of 4 Americans leaves 1

The text "A 2018 study found that 80% of a random sample of Americans agreed with the statement, 'Political correctness is a problem in our country."- which has previously been added and removed, has recently been re-added to a new section. It is based on a 2018 study, but I have doubts as to its value. A) What does it mean? Since the study does not say what 'PC" is to the survey respondents - it might mean not enough PC, too much PC or simply do you associate the term 'PC' positively or negatively. The sentence might mean anything. B) The planet is not the US, there is inevitably a US-focus to what was/is mainly a US term, but is a survey of Americans informative about the concept 'PC'? C) We have largely hitherto had a convention that we don't rely on examples of usage, but primarily use academic sources discussing use of the term. Does this study satisfy that condition? I suspect that most people reading the statement would understand it to mean something like "we all have to be too careful about how we say things these days" - but even so, is that very ambiguous response worth recording? Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the same issue as discussed at the above thread, and my arguments still stand. The study is vague, the analysis offered by anyone discussing the study questions it's methods. Any use of the study should be done so with direct attribution and the comments of those presenting the study. Koncorde (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed it was added by the same person. Koncorde (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

In any case shouldn't be used without a critique, eg Do Americans really hate "political correctness"? Another misguided attempt at balance falls flat Doug Weller talk 11:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Which pretty much sums up what Pincrete and I were talking about last time. Koncorde (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Links to Maoist doctrine?

Shouldn't reference be made to the use in the non-ironic sense in Maoist literature, e,g. Mao Zedong's The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" essay from 1957? The term may not have been used but clearly to follow Mao's advice would have been politically correct in that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.189.80 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To follow any ethos in that case is political correctness. Also we would need reliable sources to make that link. The few that somewhat cover it do so in very brief terms and rarely actually state what is "politically correct". Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Geoffrey Hughes -Political Correctness_ A History of Semantics and Culture says that the term was widely used in pre-WWII Chinese communist circles in a very literal, doctrinal fashion, is was taken up by Comintern and communicated to doctrinaire Marxists in the West, but he says it was almost immediately on its arrival in the West that it acquired its ironic use (to mock doctrinalism), which is where we take up the story of it being used by 'lefty' sympathisers to mock 'party-liners' in the 40's US. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has multiple RFCs

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has multiple RFCs for possible consensus. Discussions are taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussions, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Category:Criticism of political correctness

There is a request for comment at Category:Criticism of political correctness. Please see the discussion if you are interested. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Psychology today blog

Lembit Staan the test you restored - in the lead, is a blog written by a Professor of marketing. There is a long-term consensus that we rely on academic or similar sources ABOUT ACTUAL USE of the term. What this source is is a private list of what he imagines examples of PC language are - which he then proceeds to criticise. Jesus, there are better 'joke' examples written every day all over the world, I have created better examples myself.

"Differently weighted" for example produces precisely zero results in any PC context - that is talking about fatness or obesity on my search engine. Many of the other examples are his own invention or have nothing to do with PC (George Washington was a freedom fighter to his own people, but would have been a terrorist to the British authorities - that's allegiance not PC - a birth defect is a layman's term for what a doctor might call a congenital disorder - like 'stroke and Cardio Vascular Accident - doctors use terms that laymen don't just as mechanics use terms that laymen don't and that again has nothing to do with PC - job titles change for all kinds of reasons but he presumes the ones he has listed are all for PC reasons). Your source is tilting at windmills and lacks the expertise to do any actual valid research, so he invents a few terms that he alone imagines are PC and then decides to disagree with them.

I certainly have no objection to what a US conservative perspective might be, but this is not it and is unresearched, poorly written trivia by someone who has zero expertise. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, 80% of your text has no relation to my addition. As I see, you don't object to the term I added, only to the source. OK then, it makes sense. I will search for better sources. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. I understand your frustration, probably plenty of edit war here, but I am just a "drive-by editor", take it easy on me. I saw the term quite often, and when I saw in the disambig page Language police (I run innto when I was creating the article Language ombudsman.) So I decided it makes sense to add it here. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, agreed about the 80% - but a truly lousy source is a truly lousy source, and you are right about PoV insertions. I think the "thought police" claim should be easy to cite, but the place where the claim is, is now almost wholly a repeat of 'History". BTW, your 'paring down' of the lead is an improvement IMO, it takes fresh eyes sometimes. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Diane Ravitch wrote a book called "The Language Police", not sure what full content is - but it may have some actual insight. Koncorde (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

from the backcover blurb: "Textbook publishers and state education agencies have sought to root out racist, sexist, and elitist language in classroom and library materials. But according to Diane Ravitch, a leading historian of education, what began with the best of intentions has veered toward bizarre extremes. At a time when we celebrate and encourage diversity, young readers are fed bowdlerized texts, devoid of the references that give these works their meaning and vitality." Lembit Staan (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Foucault quote.

Not sure why this Foucault quote was removed, but it seems pertinent that he was the first to publically use the term back in '68: >In March 1968, the French philosopher Michel Foucault is quoted as saying: "a political thought can be politically correct ('politiquement correcte') only if it is scientifically painstaking", referring to leftist intellectuals attempting to make Marxism scientifically rigorous rather than relying on orthodoxy. The source is here: http://1libertaire.free.fr/MFoucault419.html and it seems to hint at an original usage not yet included in the article. Maybe it should be. 61.68.111.187 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure when or why Foucault was removed either, but conjecture that there are several problems - firstly it is very well documented that the Chinese Communist Party was using the term as long ago as the 1930s. Their meaning was literal, 'the party line', the 'correct' doctrine for a Communist to follow. Shortly therafter the term was being used in a mocking, ironic sense among left-wing sympathisers in the Anglosphere to describe excessively doctrinaire party fmembers. There are several recorded uses even earlier than that, but the meaning appears to be literal ie the right thing to do politically, so this has nothing to do with the late C20th usage. The other related problem would be that we would need to know in what sense Foucault was using 'politiquement correcte' - I realise what the literal translation is, but that does not mean the term has any of the same resonances/meanings in French. In fact the actual use in your quote suggests the opposite - his usage seems to suggest something literal.

In WP terms, we would need a reliable academic source detailing the significance to even consider including it in the article, and as far as I know none exists. Pincrete (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking in similar way: I vaguely remember that the term "politically correct" was in literal use by communists starting at least with Lenin. However I don't think there are secondary sources that dwell upon the term in its literal meaning, therefore I didnt mention this earlier. In fact, I am inclined to think that the modern usage cropped up as a mockery of hardliner communists, not just leftists. I will try to search in my spare time. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hughes, - Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. Says that the term came into the Anglosphere from Chinese communism and the Comintern in the late 1930's and almost immediately acquired an ironic usage by left-wingers mocking their more doctrinaire comrades - it is there that we pick up the story in our article. I have long meant to include this 'importation' in the article, but unfortunately my .pdf of the book is on a non-functioning computer at present. The ironic/perjorative use has remained standard in various incarnations. Ironically (?) what Safire claims is the first typical modern use in US, is wholly literal - meaning the right thing to do politically! Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that can be confirmed here [4] (alternate link here [5]). Gets a mention a few times, here's one such example:

The History of political correctness is more complex, first emerging in Communist terminology as a policy concept denoting the orthodox party line of Chinese Communism as enunciated by Mao Tse-Tung in the 1930s. This we may call the hard political or literal sense. It was then borrowed by the American New Left in the 1960s, but with a more rhetorical than strictly programmatic sense, before becoming adopted and current in Britain. It is essentially a modern coinage by a minority, deriving from politically correct dating from about 1970. The semantic history is treated in detail in chapter 2 in the section "Origins of the Phrase"

Unfortunately no page number is given, but it could still used as a reference without one. In Chapter two various 1970s essays are listed as having used the term, and they seem to be using it in the same way as Foucault, albeit a few years later. I personally had no idea it originated in China. Very interesting. 61.68.111.187 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"I personally had no idea it originated in China" - it didn't really, there are recorded uses in US, Australia and UK 200-ish years ago, but there is no reason to think that these uses carry any meaning other than the simplest literal one (ie the right thing to do from a political point of view). Then came the orthodoxy meaning used by communist party loyalists, there is then a tracable connection to the later gently ironic or (even later) caustic use to criticise such orthodoxy. There is another quote I dimly remember which charts the fact that almost as soon as the expression was imported from dogmatic communist groups, its principal use became ironic, to mock orthodoxy. Also I don't remember the book as jumping straight from 1930s to 1960s but covering a 'niche' use by left-wingers in the 1940s and 1950s. One of the many ironies of this story is that some left-wingers claim that the first right-wingers to use the term disparagingly, were actually ex-left-wingers, who only knew the expression because of their time 'inside the Party' in the 40s and 50s. I've no idea whether that is true. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy between introduction and history section

The introduction paints a very US-centric modern picture of the term political correctness as being used "since the late 1980s" and generally restricted to particular choices in vocabulary. Yet the history section establishes political correctness as a much more broad term in reference to a particular set of general mannerisms and attitude, and certainly one seeing more use than a mere "pejorative". For more details see the Foucault quote section above. Themadprogramer (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Themadprogramer, it doesn't paint a picture of being in use "since the late 1980s" - it paints a picture of a PARTICULAR widespread, mainly pejoratice use having arisen in the US in the late '80s/early 90's. A disparaging US use that shortly thereafter spread to the rest of the English-speaking world and remains the primary use in the media to this day. Niche uses prior to that time are recorded, most are ironic or critical of orthodoxy. The alleged 'Chinese import' is not yet recorded since I cannot get to the Hughes .pdf that claims this. What exactly is the neutrality issue to your mind? That we don't give equal coverage to that tiny number of 1930/40s US Maoists as to the huge number of US and UK etc people using the term since 1989? Apart from any other consideration, references to the term before around 1989 are very rare and fairly niche. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

very rare and fairly niche - In English language, you mean. Because they were very commonplace in communist parlances in the respective countries and this one does not strike as unususal in the context, because all this commiespeak is highly idiosyncratic (akin to any techspeak, by the way. Do you know, for example, what "pig tail" or "bird's beak" or "teardrop" mean in electronics? Same is, e.g., with the term "people's democracy":). Lembit Staan (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This is English WP, so of course the article is about the principal usage of PC in English. Are you meaning that we should be writing about political orthodoxy/repression in communist countries - even though it would probably almost never be referred to as PC in modern English usage? I really don't understand. All specialities have their own jargons, so what? Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth

@Generalrelative: & @Stonkaments:, best you both work out your differences on this article, 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me that there is a difference of opinion here to be discussed. But in any case neither of us needed this reminder. Generalrelative (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually @Generalrelative and @Stonkaments I was just coming in here to say the same thing. Please discuss here on talk instead of reverting each other back and forth. —valereee (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Except that's not what has happened, as is clear if one takes more than a superficial glance at the article's edit history. In fact I accept Stonkaments' removal of the Times of India source which I hadn't realized was unreliable. And unless I hear otherwise I have to assume that they accept that my original revert made sense given the existence of other RS which discuss the quotation in question. Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought we resolved this amicably. Though I can see why a quick glance at the edit history may have looked like it was devolving into an edit war. Stonkaments (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

neglects tp mention history of Mao Zedon's use, which shaped the modern movement

political correctness" was introduced to the west via Mao Tse-Tungs's 1964 Little Red Book, and states, "...political correctness started as a policy concept denoting the orthodox party line of Chinese Communism as enunciated by Mao Tse-Tung in the 1930s." [4] Hughes emphasizes that adhering to the party line entailed both speaking and thinking "correctly" (62). He claims the term was adopted by the "American New Left in the 1960s, but with a more rhetorical than strictly programmatic sense." ...

TY - BOOK AU - Hughes, Geoffrey PY - 2009/10/30 SP - 1 EP - 320 SN - 9781405152785 T1 - Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture DO - 10.1002/9781444314960 ER - Jaygo113 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Third rail (politics) into Political correctness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"third rail" in politics refers to controversial issues that cannot be easily brought up. Political correctness includes both "unacceptable thoughts/speeches/ideas" (what should not be done) and "acceptable ideas" (what should be done). Hence, "third rail" is a part of "PC". Johnson.Xia (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This sounds both a very semantic argument and also WP:OR. Do sources support the overlap? Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - They are different concepts. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's simply too distinct of a concept. I can understand how people might see a vague connection, but it's not really present in the sources. And I don't think the sources are likely to exist - in general I would say that third rail usually refers to unpopular policies, which isn't usually what political correctness is used to discuss. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Separate concepts. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose aaronneallucas (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel12992.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources of interest

I'm mainly parking this here for my own reference, but others may find them useful.

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019685999201600103?journalCode=jcia
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/pfie.2006.4.1.1
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580
• https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203702444-8/political-correctness-gone-viral-waleed-aly-robert-mark-simpson
• https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004417588/BP000002.xml
• https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/3/15
  • Caution: mdpi.com is tagged as 'borderline reliable'.
• https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=912066
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-019-00094-4#ref-CR24
• https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/repressive-tolerance-and-the-management-of-diversity/206124
  • Caution: igi-global is tagged as a 'predatory journal' at Wikipedia:Vanity and predatory publishing
• https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=795945
• https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7591/9781501731556-004/html

Some of them may help balance the US-centrism noted earlier. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advisories, a further benefit of putting this list out there before thinking about writing any article text! Sennalen (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen template:refideas? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A British book, In Defence of Political Correctness by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown looks useful. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede needs to be reworked

The current lede is in violation of WP:ISAWORDFOR. I was wondering if anyone had suggestions as to how this might be improved. 98.149.154.119 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In this instance, the word is the subject and it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. Almost all studies are of the progress and use of the term rather than of the phenomenon.Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. However, the policy you refer to specifically mentions this article: "In such cases, an article about the word or phrase often focuses on the related topic(s), which are also covered separately in their own articles. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this. What I don't see is a separate article about PC (the phenomenon). Are you suggesting I should draft one? I am happy to do so, but would probably require some assistance...2600:1012:B027:CA0F:1114:EA83:4297:EBFB (talk) 2600:1012:B027:CA0F:1114:EA83:4297:EBFB (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you think the lede should say differently and the "related topics" are in each of their own subsections with links to the main articles. The issue with "PC (the phenomenon)" is that,

1. I doubt you could find a definition of it that doesn't already fit another article better, and hasn't already been merged elsewhere or here (or become absorbed by other cultural buzz words like Cancel culture).
2. Sourcing of whatever nation or socio-political version of PC will be fractured between US and UK sourcing.Koncorde (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess my confusion is how the current article neglects to address PC used in the following context:

"Women like him for his civil rights stand and political correctness". This example is the first sentence used in the definition when googling the word. So obviously an example that has a lot of exposure, and ostensibly would bring readers here. As it stands, our working definition would not fit in this instance.2600:1012:B027:CA0F:1114:EA83:4297:EBFB (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's an example of the word in usage, not a prescription for content. If you can find a reliable source that discusses women that value political correctness somehow let us know so we can see in what context it is? Koncorde (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence above was an example given in a dictionary definition. But to answer your question, here is a source that comes to mind...https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/11/16/america-revisits-political-correctness/ 2600:1012:B020:1619:E53C:5D51:D8CA:3CC0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

An example in a dictionary is for usage only. It is not evidence of an actual factual opinion.

The article is a mash of subjects, most of the content already represented (i.e. the parts related to criticism of PC) from the original source material or equivalent - but when it comes to his assertions about Millenials... there are no sources, it's just his opinion. What is supported is typically derived from The Rise of Victimhood Culture, Microaggression and other already linked subjects or adjacent. The actual Millenials are not using the term PC or thinking about it in that way. It is again just how their beliefs are being framed by Right Wing think tanks and critics.

Is there something specific you think is significant in the Howe piece? Koncorde (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)