Talk:Political correctness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: (October 29, 2005). "[ Offensive or just too sensitive?]". New Zealand Herald.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

Please Note: This article is not about language evolution in general, nor mere euphemism.

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] Former Featured Article Nominee

some of the(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

[edit] Political Dadaism?

This article doesn't explain political correctness or why it exists at all, instead it seems to be a diatribe of dadaist inspired points of view on why political correctness is itself politically incorrect in some way, backed up by irrelevant historical happenings regaring 'controversy' behind politically correct behaviour. Get over yourselves and talk about the subjectmatter a little.

[edit] Fresh View

I'm an old guy who has thought quite a bit about things such as this. I remember when colored was a polite term, and I knew a man who was born in 1902 who spoke of "darkies" with the same innocence. This article, as a collaberative work of many hands and minds is a phenomonon. It is balanced, yet it provides a good overview. It will never express some of the cogent fine points that are on this talk section. This is, and can only be, PC 101. It does show the lack of a single mind that is pulling together all of the threads with a single point of view. That is, I believe, just one of the inherent characteristics of this Wiki process.

The advanced courses, and advanced permutations on this subject rightly belong in individual essays (blogs) Everyone who had a hand in this project should be immensly proud. Individually and as group, something has been produced that is intelligent, fair and reasonably comprehesive.

Is it acceptable for an idividual to use this section to refer to their own essays, or blogs, on this subject 67.22.135.217 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Here is my signin handleArodb 03:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion of editing the article. It's not supposed to be further information on the subject, nor is it to be a link collection. No one is going to be upset if you reference an outside source in the discussion, but you shouldn't post essays or links to essays that aren't on topic, and the topic is not political correctness, it's Wikipedia's article on political correctness.--Prosfilaes 23:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "People of faith"

The article states:

People with religious beliefs are often referred to euphemistically as "people of faith", by analogy to "people of color".

Is there any citable basis for the claim that this expression comes from this analogy? Or that it is anything like a neologism? I doubt this on both counts. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


The current version of the page has removed any reference to people of faith/colour.--SMK 07:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a perfect example of PC? Let's remove any reference that will offend somebody/anybody.

[edit] Terrorist

Recently added to the list: "Terrorist became militant." Given that political correctness is generally alleged to be a change in speech since about 1970, this seems to me to be wrong. The word "terrorist" has gained not lost currency since that time. If anything, there has been a tendency to use the word terrorist in a context where, in the 1960s, one would have used militant, guerrilla or insurgent. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is PC. It is motivated by politics rather then anything else. As such I removed it. (I could point you to an essay once I finish writing it, just leave a note on my talk page.)--harrismw 07:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't something that's PC be motivated by politics? Or have I missed something? In any case, I would dispute that there's been a move back to the use of the word terrorist. Perhaps in everyday speech it's said more, but American news at least continues to refer to Iraqi terrorists as "insurgents." mountainfire 01:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the horrors of 9/11, Americans are afraid of the "T word" and some P.C. activists feel the term is racist against persons of Middle-Eastern descent (P.C. speak for Arab people). When airport security checkpoints frisk every 80-year old white Irish women for big shoes, that's a form of political correctness. If the FBI, CIA and US Marshal are told not to "racial profile" Arab-Americans, east Indian Americans and Iranian Americans, that is anyone of certain appearance, again to be P.C. And to wiretap every U.S. citizens' phone calls or E-mails or library records, there you go this is P.C. Are we safer than 5 years ago? I doubt it, we're still in the war against terror and we're scared of taking away some peoples' rights (what a bunch of crap) when in fact the government is more intrusive on everyone than ever before. + 207.200.116.6 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC vs Euphemism

This is getting out of hand.. people are adding any old euphemism to the lists even if they're not PC in nature... heart attack -> cardiovascular event as a consequence of political correctness? Give me a break... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, George Carlin has a rant on political correctness that I think a lot of these may have come from... someone with a large collection of his stand up routines may want to have a look-see. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I know the terms "poor", "low income" and "ghetto" are considered not P.C. as these mean persons without much money or trapped in an economically bad posiiton. I hear of terms like "financially challenged", "economically disadvantaged" and "socioeconomically deprived". People are afraid to insult, offend or embarass those with little money, including a rich developed land like the U.S. seems to ignored them for so long. Money is a touchy subject to many people, like politics and religion, because there is power and privilege to anyone with full access to money, especially to someone who's rich.

Besides, "ghetto" means an urban district where most residents are Black or minorities, and also to mean an impoverished community or a section of town. However, the term originally came from an European Jewish enclave in the 1800s created by legal and social restrictions on where Jews can live. Since the 1950s the U.S. media gave the term for black areas, Hispanic "barrios", trailer parks, Indian reservations and ethnic neighborhoods, anywhere people are isolated or lived apart in poverty and disadvantage. Today, they use other terms like "inner city" or "racially diverse" instead of what the P.C. rules find "ghetto" is insulting, offensive and disparaging.+ 207.200.116.6 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I have included a note in the opening definition that PC is often confused for euphamisms, and am trying to rebuild the page to eliminate that common confusion. --SMK 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious--statement on Target Corp needs verified

Can somebody verify and cite the statement in the article on Target Corporation banning the word Christmas, and the attempted boycotts as well as sales? It is worded as if the author doesn't understand much about Target Corporation (Target Inc.?) and might be a hoax. I work for Target Stores and my managers used the phrase "Merry Christmas" in 2005, so I have reason to believe that part of the statement is not true. I am marking this statement as {{dubious}}. 68.226.61.4 08:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly untrue. Looks like someone already removed the statement, anyway. - YorkBW 14:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberals and PC

I agree with the warning at the top of the article that: "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view." The word "liberal" in this article seems to be used purely in the American context ("liberal" meaning generally left or centre-left politically). In the British and European context I think that this is confusing to say the least, as "liberal" has less of a political meaning in Britian and Europe, being more philosophical: a liberal as a believer in freedom. As a liberal myself, I personally am not a supporter of political correctness in general. While in America a "conservative" might bemoan the busybody government and commentariat that seek to change language to support their politics, a "liberal" in Britain (and in other European countries) might well have the same reaction. I think the article needs recasting to prevent it from labelling PC as a "liberal" phenomenon. Tamino 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that "politically correct" speech is either unique to the left or right is kind of a myth. It's just utilized by one to attack the other. It has to do with speech and perception that comes with ways of expressing things in words. Just because slimy politicians try to manipulate people with words doesn't make it unique to them, or to either party. But that's just my opinion. It's a wider issue having to do with a fundamantal use of communication and perceptions resulting therefrom. It can be used for any ends. The idea has arisen over the last thirty years with the media becoming such a force. --ArcticFrog 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Tamino 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a myth at all. The term "political correctness" is used 95% of the time in the U.S. to describe left-wing/egalitarian demands that language be re-written to be less offensive to certain groups and for the purpose of social engineering. This is what people in the U.S. think of when you use the term and what it should be in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm ... but you do know that the Wikipedia is not just a USA thingy, right? And you sure do have sources for that claim, right? And of course you just forgot to sign your entry, right? Yeah, right. -- 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a general term, not a technical one. Are you denying that political correctness is used most of the time to describe efforts by egalitarians and leftists to control speech? And no I didn't forget, I don't have to sign anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 11:18, April 12, 2006 (UTC)
In the United States, political correctness is very much a leftish value. This is highly debatable only when the definition of political correctness is significantly broadened. Everyone uses rhetoric, but that is not the same thing as PC. The actual trouble here is that "Liberal" here is used to mean the left, in the American sense. This is not a problem with a worldwide view, but with internationally unequivocal langauge--which is necessary, considering that it is written in English. I'm afraid, however, that political correctness is such a characteristic of the American left, that it is nearly correct to use this country-specific language. (I cite as a small piece of evidence the embarrassing example of the reaction to Larry Summers' comments regarding women and science, and ask whether that would have happened at Cambridge. I also cite OED, that the modern term originated in the States in the 1970s, and that it generally describes liberal opinion.) Changing the langauge altogether would be clearer, but leaving it, and instead somehow clarifying the use of the term liberal (I've added a word of clarification in parentheses in the second paragraph), would retain the American flavor of the article, which I find appropriate to the topic.
As a side note, I would take contention with the view that the use of political rhetoric to shape perceptions is a phenomenon unique to the last thirty years, and with the suggestion that the media have become a signficant force only in the last three decades.
-Padde 00:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The widespread educational programs "teaching tolerance" and "diversity training" uses history of the "dangers" of false science based on prejudice and stereotypes. Like the Nazi regime in the 1930s Germany spoke of Jews are "biologically" prone to commit treasonous acts against the "Aryan" race, or the notion of black people "are capable of running fast" is a falsehood based on racist images of athletic supremacy of black Americans, and women may have anatomical, hormonal and physiological differences than men, it's still inappropriate or unacceptable to says genders "aren't the same" or women are "the weaker sex". Sure, we use history to prevent atrocities and discrimination from happening again. Why do they obsess over it? I mean we know people in the inside are the same and we should treat each other better today and the future. In Cal. state history courses freely cover wartime Internment of Japanese-Americans over their "disloyality", the "Zoot suiter" riots against Mexicans deemed as criminals, the Armenian community came here fleeing genocide by the Turks, and how gay people and mentally disabled people were thrown into state hospitals. It does shock and sadden people, but stuff like this could be hidden away from students' studies, and would bring shame not to like America, the land that opened its doors to immigrants despite many of us don't want them, and emancipated but segregated black people for another century. California was not a slave state, but it's where racial tension occurs on a regular basis, and our so-called "acceptance" of gay/lesbian/transgender/queer (oops...did I say that?) lifestyle is limited to liberal urban centers. And if I know my history, Cal. was where millions of the "okies" settled down and today many affluent whites think "okies" are rednecks, klansmen, bible thumpers or white trash in trailers or log cabins. This is prejudicial and offensive to still stereotype other people's whose families aren't rich, but lived on farms and a rural Middle American culture, came to a state where jobs are plentiful and the state's people welcomed them. State history don't cover much on the detail, unless there are Native Americans or African Americans involved in the "dust bowl" migration. + 207.200.116.6 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what do you mean to say about liberals' association with PC? Padde 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Political correctness is a philosophy of racial hatred directed against the white man and all things English. This is the only definition anyone needs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.21 (talk • contribs) .

  • Yeah, deep. AndyJones 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. I agree that political correctness is cancer but it has nothing to do with anti-white-male-ism. It has more to do with seeing offense where there is/should be none and using speech as a proxy of "thoughtcrime." Political-correctness may be applied to upper class white men too. Think about it. "European American middle class person." It applies to people of different political persuasion as well. A conservative is "moderate" while a radical is "liberal."

  • Don't you mean, "financially well abled European-American person who identifies as being of male gender"? Saying "rich white man" is crass and so un-pc. Monkey

[edit] British use of the term "Asian"

The article discusses how for most Americans, the term "Asian" is used to refer to "East Asian" peoples (which is correct). It then adds:

"In British usage, the term "Asian" refers to people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."

Does this mean that, in British English, "Asian" only refers to those from the Indian subcontinent, or also includes those from the Indian subcontient (putting the British usage more in-line with the objecct geographical definition)? This line should be updated to be clearer; e.g. one of:

  • "In British usage, the term "Asian" refers exclusively to people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."
  • "In British usage, the term "Asian" also includes people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origins."


I would say it generally goes with the exclusive category. We tend to refer to East Asians as "Oriential" or "Chinese" (irregardless of where they are from....because we're (as a whole) ignorant like that.) Asian can be used, but I don't think it is used a lot with regards to East Asians. Slizor 14:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, nowadays many British Hindus don't like being lumped together indiscriminately with British Muslims... AnonMoos 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sikhs don't either I would imagine, SqueakBox 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Indian people were technically Caucasian. This, according to several sources including my Indian roommate. Chris Griswold 15:15, 12 April 2006

The point is that in Britain, when someone says Asian, they think of someone from the Indian sub-continent or with ancestry from that part of the world. "British Asian" is generally considered the correct or "politically correct" way of describing British citizens of Indina, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, who collectively make up the biggest minority group in the UK.

Asian obviously still means "from Asia" in Britain, but is rarely used to describe Chinese/ Korean/ Japanese etc. people.

Personally, I just screw the whole thing and call anyone from that general part of the world Eurasian. Alx xlA 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] examples are ridicules

Some of the examples are either jokes or no politically correct at all.

So I am going to go and delete some, I will then list them here with reasoning. --harrismw 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I added waiter to server as it is used all the time in Australia.
  • removed "It is worth noting that, in the context of this quote, "one" suffers from the inconsistency of seeming not to include all intelligent aliens." as it is shit. How does it not include "all intelligent aliens"? And how is it relevent anyway?
  • ""Actor" is now used by many to describe both male acters and actresses as there is not a gender-neutral alternative." There does not need to be a discussion of Academy Awards here. "chaos would ensue" and "using two words for an expression when previously one word was perfect - highlights the drawbacks of employing such a term", seems someone is abit sexist.
  • Christmas. If you want to have a whole serious of points about how Christmas has been replaced by evil athiests, go ahead. Just not here. We don't need 11 examples of how it has been changed.
  • Terrorist, definitions are so problematic. There is no PC, only politics when talking about terrorism.
  • fat. Crap. Honestly apart from "large" (or large boned) I haven't seen any alternative proposed by anyone. I guess I won't complain if someone adds back large and fat, and maybe a note on obese.
  • "... challenged" is more an ironic statement or a joke then a serious PC term. As such, I remove the three.

--harrismw 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: [...] where no one has gone before: Since you're asking: it seems not to include all intelligent aliens in that they mostly only go where other intelligent aliens have gone before. The line seems to be intended to mean, where no human has gone before. (I agree that it's only quasi-relevant, though.) Ruakh 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I get it, but I still do not think it is need in the article. harrismw 03:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you said that you didn't get it ("How does it not include 'all intelligent aliens'?"), so I thought I'd explain. I wasn't saying it was needed in the article. Ruakh 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, some aliens may exist in a plurality, like either a beehive or a man o war, wherein either the individual is an indistinguishable part of a larger collective, or it is made up of one. Hypothetical politacal correctness. Chris Griswold 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth put in 'crownperson' instead of 'queen'? It's supposed to be a serious article. If you must find a gender-neutral term to label 'politically correct', how about using 'monarch' rather than making one up off the top of your head. Ericatom 23:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell section

I removed a large chunk of the Orwell section as I do not consider it relevant. Orwell was trying to fight totalitarianism, and as was not against non-discrimination. I recognise that some people consider political correctness to be about thought control, but Orwell would disagree.

(See any biography on Orwell, he was a Socialist, and against capitalism and totalitarianism.) --harrismw 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What does the fact that he was a socialist have to do with this? Newspeak was clearly about thought control; do you have any evidence that he would consider political correctness as substantially different?--Prosfilaes 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Political correctness is about "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups", so I am sure that he would be for it. Simply because right-wingers have co-opted (or tried to co-opt) the term to mean thought control has nothing to do with it. In fact I think that you need to support having such a large section devoted to Orwell in this article (that is if you actually do.) --harrismw 07:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're sure he would be for it? I think the definition fails to cover much of the undertones of the idea; part of the concept of political correctness is that if you change the words people use, you'll change the way people think; that if you refer to a chairperson instead of a chairman, people won't automatically think of them as male.--Prosfilaes 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and seeing as right-wingers love dictionaries so much, http://www.answers.com/political+correctness&r=67 why don't they use them when it comes to this term. (Please note that this isn't an attack on you Prosfilaes (unless you are a right-winger who likes dictionarys :)).)
Yes I do think that Orwell would oppose racist, sexist and homophobic terms. I feel that as he was a socialist he would be for the elimination of such terms for language. Yes this is a sort of "thought control", however as it is different from what Orwell was warning against, and I don't see that the two are related, I don't see why Orwell even needs to be mentioned. harrismw 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Orwell was pretty homophobic, even for his time. - Jmabel | Talk 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether Orwell would have approved of PC is first unknowable, and second irrelevant. Newspeak is political obfuscation, and certainly politically-driven language, but it is not political correctness, by any sense of the term. One who finds PC to be a form of obfusication and mind-control could use Newspeak quite nicely as a sort of analogy for political correctness; however the point of the section is not to present the author's opinion, but to discuss actual criticism of political correctness. (This is a fuzzy point actually: The section was conveniently titled "Criticisms of Political Language Choice." Of course Newspeak fits under the Category of Political Language choice, but I think the author himself was taking advantage of some obfuscation from his choice of title.) Therefore I recommend that the rest of the Orwell section be removed, and also suggest rethinking the title of the section, as I believe it was designed for the purpose of including this section. (Not that I don't like the analogy!) -Padde 00:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm doing this wiki thing right....

What Orwell wrote as a warning, is taken by the post-modern Left as dogma. Political Correctness ensues.

So Orwell literally wrote the book on PC. His contributions to this subject are important and relevant.

You've done the Wiki thing correctly, but your reasoning escapes me. Can you please explain more clearly? Padde 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commerce-related

I do not think that any of these are terms that are politcally correct or that the alternative were politically incorrect. Rather these are all attempts by companies to make a job or an action sound better then what it might actually be. That is they are euphemisms.

None of these terms are used to reduce prejeduce against people in the community. As such I am removing them all. harrismw 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane, it would help if you discussed things on the talk page instead of making edit comments like "rv Prosfilaes, yes the examples do showcase PCness" which are person and add absolutely nothing to the discussion. These terms, Shop Assistants or Shelf Stackers, aren't about minority groups, nor are they offensive. Their replacements, Sales Associates and Sandwich Artists, are merely attempts to tell minimum wage workers that they are associates or artists so they feel better about the job. That's not PC; that's simple eupherism.--Prosfilaes 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
See my edit summary on my reversion, not all PC-related terms need to be about a "minority" or be an "offensive word". CrazyInSane 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But Christmas being replaced with holiday is about minorities, the non-Christian minorities that feel that pressing Christmas on them is offensive and want recognization for their holidays. Why are these words politically correct?--Prosfilaes 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand your assuming that the term "holiday" is enforced by non-Christian minorities, but this is wrong. There is actually an organization dubbed "Jews for Christmas", which is pro-Christmas and against the euphemisms. It is commercial retailers that are so damn greedy that they want EVERYONES money at Christmas, that use these euphemisms and have now got everyone using them. It's still political correctness. And as for "Sales associates", this is PC because it takes meaning from what the original term meant, the original term was more specific to what job the person had. "Christmas" to "holiday" does the same, its like calling a "spoon" an "object", it has no point. "Sandwich artists" is also simply an unneccesary euphemism and attempt at not degrading the employees of Subway (i.e. Political correctness). CrazyInSane 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
So what if there's an organization called "Jews for Christmas"? There's also an organization called "Jews for Jesus"; neither of them can speak for the Jewish people as a whole, nor in any way the world of non-Christian people. I see no evidence that it is done by commericial retailers for more money, whereas I do see evidence, such as various court cases, that the drive for the holiday season was done to stop exclusively supporting Christianity. Not every example of euphemism or changing of words should be listed in this article. It had nothing to do with degrading the employess of Subway; it has to do with selling them on being artists instead of cheap labor.--Prosfilaes 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages that all known information about a certain subject be added to its appropriate article, in contrary to your statement about the unneccesity of adding these euphemisms. Also, someone who makes a sandwich is simply a "sandwich maker", as is Santa Claus a "toy maker", he's not a "Artiste of the objects that children find amusing to interact with". Broadening terms for simple effect is completely ridiculous, thus a euphemism is an example of political correctness at its best. CrazyInSane 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that all known information should be added. That makes Wikipedia articles lists of worthless triva that obscures important information (which is sadly common). There is nothing political about calling someone a sandwich artist, which makes using the word PC very questionable. Euphemism is not always or even frequently political correctness; they're two distinct concepts.--Prosfilaes 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that not all euphemisms constitute true political correctness (or true attempts at political correctness), but I think the article should note that "P.C." is sometimes used as a catch-all phrase that includes all euphemisms, nicer-sounding job titles, etc., with an example of each type. (While we're at it, we should mention — assuming we can find a good source — that this catch-all use is particularly common in straw-man attacks on attempts at inoffensive terminology.) A comprehensive list would, of course, be completely ridiculous; but then, I don't even think a comprehensive list of genuine examples is really appropriate here, either. Ruakh 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the phrase political correctness has suffered from semantic drift and have slightly differing meanings to different people, it may be time to consider spliting the page into political correctness (social) and political correctness (linguisitics). This would solve attempts to ursurp the words by activists and allow wikipedia to better explain political correctness. The art of removing negativity in communications need not be motivated by social causes. aCute 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Point of View Issue

Although I am very anti-PC, I would like to see some pro-PC arguments on this entry. Almost the entire article bashes political correctness, and little is done to say why and how this happened. If anyone who supports political correctness or knows more about political correctness could add to this article, that would be great. (^'-')^ Covington 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be tricky, because there aren't very many pro-PC people out there. The term, as noted in the article, is primarily used as a slur; for instance, rules that a university describes as anti-harassment measures might be called political correctness by critics. There are exceptions, but in general its use is analogous to Dominionism in that respect; the term was primarily popularized as a way of grouping together and attacking what was perceived as political correctness, rather than as something people used to describe themselves. Therefore, the response of most people you would call "Pro-PC" to your question would be to say that the term 'politically correct' is either without merit, or does not apply to them. --Aquillion 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I should add: If you are looking for an alternative view on political correctness, you might try glancing at the discussions immediately above here. The general gist of the opposition view there seems to be that political correctness stems more from a general, across-the-spectrum desire for votes and profits than anything else. Their argument is this: As the global marketplace widened and 24-hour news cycles developed, many commentators, advertisers, publishers, and politicians shifted towards becoming as bland and inoffensive as possible to avoid the slightest chance of driving away potential customers, and that the backlash against this shift was merely exploited by American conservatives, rather than representing a true political divide. --Aquillion 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Great point, Aquillion. Let's put all this in the article as background of how PC came to be. (^'-')^ Covington 04:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is "sexual harassment?"

In most colleges and workplaces, they forbid any flirting, certain 'sexual' language and even gone as far to ban inter-office romance. It's because the fear of men prowl on innocent women brought on anti-harassment policies and made what used to be flirting is avoided in most public situations. Strange isn't it for heterosexual men to become scared of asking women out, as long they don't use threatening or intimidating language, but homosexual men are basically liberated to ask each other out...and of course, heterosexual women can flirt with no real limitations. Sexual harassment wasn't a national issue until the early 1990's, esp. after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case was on national TV brought further attention to what is sexual harassment. The thing is we don't touch each other without permission, don't make public displays of sexual/romantic affection, and certainly don't force each other into sex without permission (some forms of "sexual harassment" are illegal in state and federal law, other acts can fall into categories of "rape" and "sexual assault"). Obviously it's wrong to force women to be subservent under male superiors (or the other way around, but it's rare compared to how some men mistreat female coworkers, even today with anti-discrimination laws.) Why is it to be P-C is to treat women "equally" when in fact by nature and most likely in the office, a man is more likely to fall in love with someone he knows or likes or gets along with. You're too busy to be fooling around and you're a gentleman not to harm her in any way, then again someone will say this is "sexual harassment" or a "sex crime" when in fact it's really not. + 207.200.116.6 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The list

This has been brought up before, but I think it's time to finally do something about it. I feel the list of examples has overwhelmed the article. It makes up half of the article text, and seems to have no criteria for inclusion. On top of this, the determination of whether or not a particular term represents politicial correctness is often a matter of personal POV, as witnessed by the constant debates over list entries on this talk page. A few key examples of political correctness worked into the article's text could be helpful to describing what it is; attempting to list every example of political correctness everywhere isn't. Therefore, I suggest that it be spun off onto its own page, e.g. List of examples of political correctness, which could be linked to from here for those who are interested. --Aquillion 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   This sounds like a very good idea to me. It would help focus debate, to the extent that it exists, on the entry's
   account of the history of PC, its connections to Sapir-Whorf, etc. -- JY. 4/17/06

Since it's been about a week and nobody's objected, I guess I'll go ahead and do it. --Aquillion 09:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I just moved the list to List of examples of political correctness, adding a brief explanatory header and {{Dynamic_list}}. It probably needs a bit more cleanup and someone might want a more detailed header, but anyway, it's a start. --Aquillion 09:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texan Preacher

Long ago, I was in Texas when a Preacher mentioned that, "Political Correctness is a tool of The Devil!" Martial Law 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Why the N word is so bad

Ok...don't get shocked if I use the term in an examplatory manner not directed at anyone: Nigger. There, I typed a word that I never bother to use and I never disliked black people or other races. I blame the O.J. Simposn trial in 1994-95, when the media frenzy over Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman was asked if he ever used the "N word" in his career? I believe this is when most Americans (esp. white people) started to emotionally oppose the "N word" as the worst thing in American english, but it wasn't like that before 1994. I thought this had to do with the Civil rights movement when black Americans objected to the very disparaging term (I agree here) and when a list of black comedians stopped using the slur in comedy routines. As long we aren't sure if "people of color", "black people" and "African Americans" are proper or prefered by the group, I don't see why the "N word" continues to be said by members of that group (i.e. rap songs, hip-hop and self-humor) while any white person never utters the word (whether around a black person or not, other white people will get disturbed, esp. if they are liberal). It made me think when terms like "Negro" (sometimes without the capital 'N') and "Colored" became racial hateful words, before it was frequently used and was socially acceptable. But those terms have to do with historic racism and the "jim crow" segregation laws in the Southern U.S., and after all the notorious "N word" originates from the Latin/spanish term for "black". that was butchered up in English. If society isn't shocked to hear other vulgar, obscene or profane terms, like "bitch", "damn", "shit" and the "F word"... how come you can't say any ethnic, religious, classist, sexist or racial slur in the same way? Our morality has changed, in fact it got screwed up along the way by the P.C. social codes. If we want to fight racism and hatred, doing away with the "N word" is way off the target to the problem. + 207.200.116.6 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"wasn't like that before 1994". When I was in primary school in the mid-70s (in England), a group of boys (self included) were doing "eenie-meenie-minie-mo", which featured the word "nigger" (there, I said it too). We were told not to say that word, and to say "squirrel" instead. Strangely, this was in a school with no black pupils, no black staff, and in a 100% white town. 30 years later, I still say squirrel.Totnesmartin 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offended by Politcal Correctness

Growing up the first generation that is so exposed to this fascist sensitivity, I would have to agree with this article. Although it may not be neccesarily neutral, I have yet to find anyone that actually SUPPORTS these obnixious name changes.

Racial slurs and epithets based on a variety of factors have been around since languages have been invented. These things are not neccesarily good, but it is illogical and unreasonable to think that changing the name of a group will make people like them anymore than they already do. It is also unreasonable to force people to remember all of these names for the sake of being politcially correct. I call black people black and asian people asain. Its never meant with disrespect, humans can be equally good or bad regardless of color or race or any other factor. But as a matter of principal I REFUSE to abide by the rules of political correctness. Im proud of my right to say an old person is old and not "chronologically gifted". I agree with this article 100%, not just for is accuracy but its statement as well.

Oh, for crying out loud. Nobody is trying to abridge your right to say an old person is old and not "chronologically gifted". The term is meaningless and you've either made it up on the spot, read it in the Daily Mail or heard it from some lazy stand-up comedian. You are clearly a 21st century thinker though - you concede that racist language is 'not necessarily good'. This means it is sometimes good or is capable of being good. Please provide examples. And why do you call Asian (capital 'a' or no) people 'asain'? Maybe if you took the time to check your spelling, grammar and punctuation, you'd have a bit of a rethink of your opinions too. You are, after all, writing for a worldwide audience and there are some rules by which you can't REFUSE (hey, we all like putting random words in capitals) to abide. Ericatom 12:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh geez...it amazes me, Ericatom, that folks like you can take some issues SO seriously, and that you can manage to get through life without having a fatal stroke by the time you're 27. I don't know if people are bored, and they're just looking to raise some "issues" in the world, or what the problem is. It reminds me of small children who get bored, and they start quibbling with each other. Perhaps we've all had it too easy for too long, and we've lost sight of what matters. I think its sad when we place so much importance on such silly topics. It goes to show that people will always find something to argue about! -Jamie
I'm only 26, so you never know. Maybe if I carry on using this debating forum for its intended purpose - while at the same time expressing my frustration at people who don't bother to follow the rules of the language they're using - I'll have a fatal stroke before the year's out. You're right to say that spelling and the like aren't the most important things in the world. But whose contribution, mine or the one above it, did you find easier to read? Ericatom 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politically Correct Speech is Polite

It's not fair to say that no one supports these name changes. Many people prefer politically correct speech because it is more polite. You just don't walk around trying to offend people with your speech; that's rude!

What's funny to me is that the people who are being protected from being offended were never offended at all until someone, probably from the left, told them they should be offended by the word or phrase in question. Example: Most people agree that the "N" word is offensive so after a few iterations the word "black" began to be used. I know several black people today and none of them are offended by the term "black." One good black friend said to me " we know we're black!" But somewhere along the line, the term "African American" came to be used and black people were told that they should be offended by their skin color. Why should they? They call me white and it certainly doesn't offend me. And I doubt that most black people are offended by the color of their skin either. "African American" is strictly PC IMHO. Who was the sportscaster that referred to a famous black tennis player from France as an African American? Anybody remember that? --Swalker2000 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the tennis player example is ridiculous because the commentator got it wrong. 'African-American', used correctly, is a more precise term than 'black' and is as such better suited to sociological research, demographic studies and other contexts. It could include people with pale skin. Sadly, racists (or 'anti-PC people' as they'd probably - and quite ironically - insist on being called) have tainted the simple descriptive term 'black' and commentators, newsreaders etc. are rightfully cautious of offending even one hyper-sensitive viewer or listener. Incidentally, why was the tennis player's race relevant to what was, I presume, a discussion of their tennis skills? Ericatom 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If its true that the term 'African American' "is as such better suited to sociological research, demographic studies and other contexts", then why don't people say refer to me as being a "Polish American"? I'm white. And how about the "German Americans" out there? Or, for that matter, the "Dutch Americans"? My great great grandparents came over here from Poland with the rest of the immigrants, so I demand to be called a "Polish American" now. (Of course, I am being sarcastic, but trying to make a point. Who's looking out for the respect of the "Polish Americans!!" Help Help! I'm being oppressed!!) I would suspect anyone who is reticent to reference the native countries of caucasions and who would refer to blacks as "African Americans" of being prejudiced against white people. At the same time, I would consider calling a black man an "African American" more of a racial slur, because I would think we should be treating everyone equally. To do otherwise is segregation, and I feel it is not honorable to the black community. - Jamie
"If its true that the term 'African American' "is as such better suited to sociological research, demographic studies and other contexts", then why don't people say refer to me as being a "Polish American"?"
You are confusing the point. A person is black. A social group that is subject of sociological research and demographic studies would be "African-American" if cultural origins were significant in such studies. Likewise, You are a "white" person, but in an academic setting your group might be considered, say, Polish-American, given the context of the studies. Also, a person may be "black", but the culture - say, the music, art or literature - may be "African-American", because it is uniquely American, but differentiates itself from the mainstream American culture because of its African influences. The term is often misused, not so much because of political correctness, but because people think "black" and "African American" are interchangeable.
Seriously though, I can't remember the last time anyone got up in arms over being called "black" and more often than not, allegations of "PC" tends to be straw man or just misplaced indignation.
And to suppress any categorization in the name of anti-PCism would be, dare I say, a sort of hyper-PC? Or Post-PC? I don't know. I do get the sense that people still crying foul over PC are just as concerned about "correctness" in a politicized way, if you will. Ytny 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why the term was used...I have tried to find the story to refer to but haven't been able to yet. I think I may have been mistaken in saying it was a black Frenchman...in thinking about it, I believe it may have actually been a South African competitor...in any case, perhaps the broadcaster was attempting to provide identification clues to the listeners since I believe there may have only been one black competitor. Maybe he was trying to "give props" to a black player in a mostly white sport. I can only speculate as to why he felt he had to say "African American." --Swalker2000 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
My point is similar to that made elsewhere on this page - most of what is termed 'PC' is either euphemism, jargon or, as in the case of the tennis commentator, good old getting-it-wrong. Ericatom 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
PC has been consistently used to create and especially uphold totalitarian states (Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam) by using extreme prejudice with their "justice" systems against those who violate strict speech codes. PC is an encroaching threat to the 1st amendment of free speech. However, people should of course be aware that what they may say will offend certain people bound to political correctness.
Really? Do you have a source for this or did you just think it up? Sunray 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Politically correct" speech seems to be a real bugbear for some people on the political right. It is, indeed, hard to change deeply entrenched racist, sexist, or other discriminatory speech patterns. But isn't the term just an attempt to shoot the messenger? Society changes and so too, in time, does our way of refering to social facts. Sunray 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that many PC terms are promoted by the right in order to mask the fact that nothing substantial is changing in the situation of marginalized populations. For example, I think that Americans of African origin would prefer to be called "Black" while having equal access to quality education, jobs, health care, than being addressed in "politically correct" way while being discriminated against almost everywhere. --bonzi 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Equally, though, many people think that they are under pressure to adopt politically correct speech or risk condemnation for saying or writing something that is "wrong". Your implication that people who are against political correctness must be right wing and racist is a broad and unjust generalisation. Regardless, what relevance does politeness have to the article? Saying that something is polite or impolite is prescriptivist and POV. --163.1.136.97 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the place for POV. It's only the articles themselves that have to be NPOV. I hope you appreciate the irony of someone who clearly styles themselves as 'anti-PC' telling somebody off for expressing an opinion they happen to disagree with. Ericatom 19:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ericatom completely. Right wingers are always on a witchhunt for anybody they can scapegoat, but god forbid someone be "politically correct". These people perceive "political correctness" as a threat to their dominance as a demographic, that's why. After all, why would someone want to use racist words in the first place, unless of course they are in fact... Racist. Sorry for the mini rant, I'm just sick of being bombarded with this anti-PC crap all of the time - The ABC
It's not that people want to use racist words...and by the way, PC isn't limited to racism. There are fundamentally two concepts at the root of political correctness:
  • 1) Lipstick on a pig. You know the saying...if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. If you try to shine up your poop, you still only have shiny poop. Why bother trying to say something that may be true in a way that won't get the point across? Now I'm not advocating, for example, using the "N" word to refer to a black person. The "N" word actually does have a history of being used to offend and harm people. It is largely gone (except within the black community itself) and good riddance. But why say "vertically challenged" instead of "short?" The word "short" was not invented to harm people. It was never intended to offend. It was never, to my knowledge, used to offend. It is, in fact, not an offensive word. So why change it?
  • 2) The right not to be offended. There is no such thing as the right "not to be offended." Sometimes, if a person is bad, someone will call him bad. Maybe instead of being offended and trying to find some way to sue somebody, he should listen to what they say and try to use the criticism to make himself a better person.
Similarly, you don't have the right to not be sad or disappointed. What are we doing to our kids when we put them in a baseball league that gives the same size trophies to every child, no matter if the child is a horrible player or whether the team was dead last? When I played, we had to work hard and play well to get trophies. If we didn't make it this year, we worked even harder the next. And in the real world, there truly are winners and losers. --Swalker2000 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You were right that it was rather short sighted in just mentioning racism. I will remember that and take it into account.
  • 1) Good point, however there has to be some reason why it is predominantly right wing groups who attack the concept of PC; It is because it doesn't allow them to make racist comments (e.g. black people are criminals,) sexist comments (e.g. women should stay at home,) or homophobic ones (e.g. homophobia leads to the spread of HIV). The fact is they do anyway, while at the same time complaining of not being able to - of some spectre of political correctness looming over their shoulder watching their every move. My point is that the concept of PC is attacked mainly by right wing groups, who do want the right to say racist, sexist or homophobic things.
Regarding your point about the replacement of words; the phobia of political correctness that so many people have is often unjustified. Have we ever actually seen our speech/dialogue censored in such a way. I don't think I can cite any examples of people being scolded for the use of the word "short," nor have I ever heard the term "vertically challenged" in anything other than satire, or from the mouths of right wingers. This just shows that PC is a folk devil, we can't hear or see it except in myths and fairytales.
  • 2) We know the power of speech, we can see how whole groups have been persecuted because of someone slandering them, using offensive terms. Besides, if the speech is based on lies (such as the inflation of statistics) how can anyone learn. What lesson can a successful black person learn from a politician saying he or she is a criminal?
What has winning and losing got to do with anything. How has a person born into a minority group which is being scapegoated done anything wrong (lost)? I think people focus of the trivial implementations (either real or imagined) of political correctness, whereas most politically correct arguements (or those which are percieved as politically correct,) serve to defend ethnic groups, genders and religions rather than people who have minute differences in physical attributes. - The ABC

To be P-C or simply not prejudiced to other people is not only polite, but not mean spirited and tolerant of minor differences. People are people, no matter how they look or appear, or whether they are black, Hispanic, Asian, woman, gay, disabled, elderly, poor, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or whatever. In the U.S. and other democratic countries, the government forbids official segregation and respect other cultures, along with the freedom of religion and the right for equal treatment. America isn't Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or a third world police state chasing other people of creeds not like the majority. I don't see why America in the last 40-50 years remains stuck with a racial problem and unable to provide equality for all citizens.

In California, you can't say "oriental" anymore you must say "Asian American" or not say "chinese" when in fact he/she is Japanese, Korean, Filipino or Vietnamese. In Oklahoma, to say "Indian" and "cherokee" can put down some Native Americans, since not every "Indian" is the same tribe. And in Miami, Florida, there are more Hispanics who aren't Cubans but Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Central and South Americans. I doubt if an African immigrant can be labeled "black" or "African American", except he/she is from Africa. Then to compare that, let's become really P-C to say "Irish American", "Italian American" or "Polish American" to indicate ones' roots from another country. Back in the 1960s & 70s, the term "ethnic" was widely used to indicate one isn't a "WASP" or White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, before it went out of style. So far, if you're white or European, you won't be maltreated or discriminated as much, it went to non-white minorities because they "stood out" in public.

If we want to stop racism and discrimination, you can start by changing our language by getting rid of very offensive terms or words. But on the other hand, people are getting into trouble by saying words that aren't truly wrong but controversial and pose legal consequences. It's impolite, immoral and insulting to call someone, a human being an "animal" for his race, color, ethnicity, nationality or the like ... and someone a "freak" by the fact they are disabled, deformed, homosexual, transgendered and so on. How come the terms "disabled" and "colored" are bad words in today's standards, then to say someone with a "disability" or "challenged" is not? Or if "non-white" and "minority" can be potentially offensive, yet the terms aren't replaced. There are feminists advocated the words "womYn", the title "ms." not Mrs. or miss, and the term "re" instead of he/she, but it seems never went anywhere.

Whoever is in charge of P-C social cues, morality and other rules isn't doing a good job and misdirected this country down the drain since the late 1980s. Now I may be seen as not politically correct, I want to comment the liberal political cause is so unpopular, such as their P-C attitude hasn't really brought equality like they said, may not get reelected in midterm elections. Anyway, the conservative right hasn't been well liked and lost popularity in the past 5 years, whom aren't representing minorities, gays, women and the poor. Why does the conservatives ignore civil rights and important issues? Sure the war on Iraq, fighting terrorism and the military are top priorities, then to use religious, business and moralist ideology is against what the U.S. is all about. Would you elect the liberal left instead? No...most voters don't know who's right or telling the truth. This is what we should worry about, not a few words may be unP.C. but how the government sucks + 207.200.116.6 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The one above actually!

[edit] Please explain

Somebody please try to find something. At various Wikipedia articles, they are saying some people think too much political correctness is not good for language. Anyone able to explain why such people exist?? Georgia guy 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Guy. Some people feel that the more sensitive words are not as convenient, elegant or powerful as the older, less acceptable words. In addition, some well-meaning people extend the concept too far (beyond that required, or comfortable, for the people they are 'protecting') leading to ill-feeling and a sense that the whole thing is ridiculous among some, such as Swalker. An example would be the school which decided not to use the story of The Three Little Pigs in case it offended Muslims, despite the Muslim community telling them that it really wasn't an issue and the whole idea of them being offended by a story about pigs was ridiculous. On top of this, certain 'newspapers' delight in telling poorly sourced, unresearch stories of supposed 'political-correctness gone mad', knowing that their readers will want to read such things and be shocked. And example of this was the school who supposedly banned Baa Baa Black Sheep for being racist. That the school in fact adapted the song to include action verbs and other words (Baa baa happy sheep, baa baa jumping sheep, baa baa black sheep, baa baa fluffy sheep), to encourage the children to learn new words, and was happy to tell this to anyone who asked, did not stop the story spreading to other newspapers and email lists. Add to this certain phenomena which are not political correctness, but get lumped under it (such as schools and councils being afraid of being sued, and so avoiding conkers and play equipment) and you have a few people who love a good grumble, but have no idea how much pain is being avoided by actual 'political correctness'. Skittle 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your question. PC talk does destroy powerful words and replace them with wimpy, meaningless strings of words that often don't say anything at all or are misnomers. For example, "physically challenged." I am often physically challenged at work or sometimes in the games I play with my young son, but to refer to me as "physically challenged" would be incorrect or at least ambiguous...you would have to explain that you weren't using the term to mean "disabled" or "handicapped" but only referring to the fact that my body had difficulty in accomplishing the task(s) at hand. So in order to be clear in this case, you would still have to use one of the words that the PC term "pyhsically challenged" intends to replace.
So what exactly does your post mean? Are you being sarcastic and implying that there is no reason to oppose PC? Or are we totally missing your point? --Swalker2000 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite right. We should be allowed to use strong words like 'nigger', 'faggot', 'kike', and 'imbecile', not these wimpy, meaningless, ambiguous 'blacks', 'homosexuals', 'jews', 'african americans' and 'learning impaired'. Why should anyone care if I call them what they are? After all, you wouldn't be offended by being called an 'insensitive, selfish pig', would you? Much less ambigious than 'someone who has trouble understanding the emotional needs of others', much stronger. And why should you object if it describes you just as well? [/sarcasm] (You can never be too careful in these discussions) Skittle 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

in that case, you're a insensitive pig skittle...i have nothing for pc but i dont believe that you can almost spit at someone's ace 'just because it gets the message through'

Perhaps I am. I have everything for PC, and added '[/sarcasm]' to the end of my message to ensure that nobody confused what I was saying with its straight meaning. As should be clear, I was expressing the view that "PC talk does destroy powerful words and replace them with wimpy, meaningless strings of words that often don't say anything at all or are misnomers." is a horrendous justification for using words to describe people that they consider offensive. If someone insists on knowingly using terms to describe others that these people consider offensive (especially if it is because they want to use 'powerful words') then that person is an insensitive, selfish pig. They must have trouble understanding the emotional needs of others, or they are sadistic. People who consider PC as something to be 'opposed' will rarely advocate using the racial slurs I listed, and yet those racial slurs are avoided because of PC.
Those who complain of 'political correctness gone mad' often claim that it is ridiculous for people to get upset over a few words or the name they are called. We have both clearly demonstrated that people do. Skittle 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


By Tamiko:

There are instances in which PC is a good thing: example, the word handicapped. This refers to the wounded vets who had to turn to panhandling to make a living (either after Nam or WWII, I think), thus they kept their caps handy to collect change. So, using disabled instead of handicapped I can accept.

"Differently abled" is taking things too far. To paraphrase George Carlin, we are all differently abled. I can do things you can't do, and you can do things I can't do. If someone does not have the use of an ability that the rest of us do, such as the ability to see or walk, then they have a disablity. There's no derrogatory term in that. It's stating a simple fact.

"Handi-capable" is just annoying.

So, there are places where I can understand and accept the PC language trends. Other things, such as how zits became pimples became 'blemishes,' I do not. That is an example of pointless euphemisms used to soften the language, and thus, people's anxiety, fear, concern, etc, over the issue. The same can be said about the digression of 'shell shock' to 'post-tramatic stress disorder.' Shell shock sounds like something very bad. Post-tramatic stress disorder does not sound all that scary.

-Tamiko

What can we call this group of people, in the news media over the illegal immigration issue, who aren't the only ones entering the U.S. in large numbers?: A. Hispanics, B. Latinos, C. Mexicans, D. Spanish speaking Americans, E. Brown People, or F. Illegal aliens? I don't know any of these terms are P-C or insult our friends south of the border. I understand they are now the largest minority in the U.S. yet not entirely accepted or wanted by everybody, esp. when it comes to heavy immigration. The words "Illegal" and "alien" are considered racist, nativist and derogatory, then if you came to this country without proper documents, you're here illegally and then you get called that word. It's considered P.C. for them not to Americanize and remain a separate culture...but does this remind us of racial segregation? And what about assimilation of different groups of people in America over the course of American history? But you have to force people to give up their nationality, language, traditions, customs, way of thinking, and in some cases religion...in order to blend in to the larger culture they wanna be in (they never wanna go back, because there's no work/jobs or it's under a dictatorship). If we can't control the borders or prevent them from splitting apart to an enclave, I don't see why we can't give them an identifable name without offending somebody. It's all about being P-C, but our government loves immigrants and diversity, it's cheap labor and quick votes anyway. + 207.200.116.6 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equal power

With the power to penalize contributors by blocking access for a single reversion wiki’s are more often than not representative of system administrators’ beliefs and opinions than those of contributors who lack equal power. -- PCE 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is rather OT - there are ways of dealing with this if you feel that your voice is not being heard, like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal.

Wikinterpreter

[edit] Glassner's Culture of Fear, Bush's 1991 commencement speech

I added Barry Glassner's "Culture of Fear" to the subsection, "Skeptical of claims about political correctness". You can find the relevant here, about halfway down the page beginning with "The Power of calling someone 'P.C.'" and almost to the end of the page, ending with the paragraph, "Conservative politicians had whipped up popular support for such cuts in the first place by—you guessed it—portraying the public agencies as hotbeds of political correctness."

Although Glassner discusses political correctness as a movement rather than specifically a matter of language, but I think George H. W. Bush's commencement speech about those who "declare certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits" belongs in the article somewhere, since it marks a significant moment where the President took a stand on political correctness, indicating the influences behind the anti-PC movement and how "PC" became part of popular debate.

Also, in the section I pointed to, Glassner takes a very skeptical view of both the alleged harmfulness and pervasiveness of political correctness, and it's worthy of inclusion in he article. But I'm not sure whether to start a new section/subsection on the criticism of the criticism, and I thought I'd leave it up to the users who have worked on this article already. Ytny 07:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Correctness of the Right?!

Has anyone dared pulled up the Republicans for their political correctness? Like then Attorney-General John Ashcroft hiding the breast of the lady liberty during press interviews?

That's another fine example of things that are called 'political correctness' but aren't. Sounds like Victorian-style prudery to me - similar to the (probably apocryphal) tales of people making little skirts to cover the legs of their pianos. Ericatom 12:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That specific example is probably more prudery than pc. But that doesn't mean right-wing political correctness doesn't exist. Examples might include the anti-Dixie Chicks backlash after Natalie Maines insulted George Bush, or the center-right enthusiasm for banning flag burning. These things do seem to be tied to a "right not to be offended."Bjones 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as left-wing examples of "PC" are usually just well-intentioned over-caution, right-wing examples such as those two are what I'd call censorship and the suppression of dissent. I don't think I've ever used four hyphens in a sentence before. Ericatom 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
First time for everything, I guess.Bjones 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The banning of the teaching of evoultion in some American schools is another example of right wing political correctness. I oppose all forms of PC, left and right. I don't think we should say the N word or call people spics or chinks but PC has gone way too far these days. You can't even say "Merry Christmas" anymore.

[edit] Irony

This isn't a serious post, just want to say I find the {{NPOV}} of Political Correctness sort of amusing...ok, I'm done. Yanksox 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. The neutrality of the article on political correctness is disputed. The ultimate irony. 86.140.131.198 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politicly vs Politically; Politic vs Political

Should the article discuss the distinction?

'Politic' (adj.) means characterised by policy, prudence and judiciousness (among other things). The meaning of 'political' (adj.) is limited to affairs of governement, politics and politicians. So, the respective adverbs 'politicly' and 'politically' actually have distinct meanings.

So, if I refer to a mentally ill person as crazy, wouldn't that be politicly incorrect rather than politically incorrect? What's the connection with government, politics or politicians in this example?

There could be a connection with Identity Politics (which has a political element), but that connection isn't always there. And, I don't think that's actually the connection many people have in mind when they're referring to an expression as being politically incorrect. Many people have in mind the polite connotation rather than the political connotation.

And what about 'politic correctness' vs 'political correctness'?.... Canberran 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


That distinction only really exists in the USA. Even then, I haven't seen it used in any media to come out of the States lately. --SMK 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tag removal

Please do not remove the tags at the header of the article until we can come up with consensus on whether or not it is neutral and/or represents a world wide view. Thank you. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC is BS

I live in California, where it's the epicenter of the Politically correct movement (some say it goes to the Northeast U.S.) and because of the left-wing political fringe, many people in Cal. are sick and tired of the whole P.C. thing. It gone out of style a decade ago, despite how much the P.C. cause changed words, phrases, gestures, attitudes and our minds. So what a little word or image, not meant to dehumanize or degrade a group of people: be it race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, occupation, region and ethnicity, is not PC? It's like the P-C crowd in California want us to "stop racism" against blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. and soon they say oops...we should say "people of color, people from the other side of the fence or the other side of the ocean". What a bunch of silly language to me. It's like we can't say "muslim" or "Jew", but "person of another religion", or don't say "disabled" or "handicapped", or we should be "extra tolerant" to "people who desire the same sex" as in homosexual (don't say homo!). What's wrong with this country? No wonder the religious patriotic "turn back the clock" right gained such a foothold in our American culture, politics and morality, despite I oppose their political side of things. And if it's offensive to them, so be it. I got the right to criticize people not as groups, but as individuals or for what they do. Can we judge people by their character? Yeah. Then you will hurt somebody's feelings. Whatever. We may know racism, prejudice, discrimination, bigotry and intolerance of people because of who they are or belong to or they appear...is wrong. But it don't make sense to me to "politically correct" everything or everybody, when most of us been tired of it after 15,20 or 30 years. Civil rights, democracy and justice is one thing, but this thing on "words hurt people" is pure B.S.+ 207.200.116.6 07:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuals don't "desire the opposite sex" as you say. They desire their own sex. That's why they're called 'homosexuals', from 'homo' meaning 'same'. A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex as them. This really is basic stuff. Ericatom 21:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Homo doesn't mean same. Homo is latin for man, Homeo is greek for the same. Homosexual is no a hetroradacloid; It means attracted to men, not homeosexual, attracted to the same [sex]. Englishnerd 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone changed it, so I want to report it to wikipedia. It's wrong to change or delete other people's posts. I think they do that as a joke to make me look stupid. Whoever is caught shall be blocked until its' the last day on earth. Oh wait..."stupid" is not P.C. and some people get upset over the term. I think you refer them as "intellectually challenged". + 207.200.116.6 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you've changed it back so my post looks like nonsense! Now that's two of us talking nonsense under this heading. Ericatom 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding terms that offend and upset people is good manners. If you feel the need to choose words that offend people, when there are alternatives you are aware of that they are happy with, then you are a rude, boorish, insensitive pig, as I noted earlier. Why would you call someone 'a homo' if you knew they didn't like the term? I hope you wouldn't call someone a 'blackie', or any of a number of terms. The only reason you'd use them, surely, is to offend. Skittle 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to know what's got Mr 207.200.116.6's back up so badly. (I assume it's a 'Mr' - see his above 'contribution' to the debate on sexual harrassment.) His ill-informed and prejudiced rants are dotted around this talk page, ignoring the instruction to start all new topics at the end, and bear no relation to anything else anyone's been talking about. And for someone who writes at such painful length - presumably in his first language, correct me if I'm wrong - for a potential audience of millions around the world, his grammar and style are atrocious. If anybody should be "blocked until its' [sic] the last day on earth," it's him. Ericatom 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above: I've just checked the history of the 'opposite sex' quote discussed above... and nobody changed it. 207.200.116.6 wrote it, I pointed out it didn't make sense, 207.200.116.6 changed it and then 207.200.116.6 pretended someone had messed with his post! If people who change other people's posts should be blocked, what should be done to people who lie about it happening to them, 207.200.116.6? Change it back, please. Your retrospective amendment makes me look a fool. Ericatom 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to NPOV version

This page had again drifted toward a version that accepted at face value the claims of those that oppose what they call "political correctness." This is a hotly contested issue. Please do not bury the debate at the end of the page. Once again, I challenge editors to find the leaders of a self-proclaimed "political correctness" movement. No such movement ever existed. --Cberlet 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it exists. But nobody ever has or ever will stand up and claim to be a "leader" of the movement. It's a true grassroots movement and if you understand what that means (as opposed to so-called grass roots movements that have "leaders" or lobbyists organizing people to simulate a grass roots movement) you will understand the PC movement better.
If you want to investigate the actual roots of the PC movement, you have to go way back. Try to remember your history and a guy named Karl Marx. Now I'm not suggesting he's the "father of political correctness," but rather that political correctness is a societal mirror image of Marxism. Some call it cultural marxism. Here is a good article on the origins of political correctness. --Swalker2000 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for a summary of the far right view of PC. We have debated the Lind essay at length here before. It is a form of conspiracy theory. If you want to investigate the actual roots of the Lind tehory, go back and read the late 1700s books claiming a vast Freemason/Illuminati conspiracy; and then read about the claims in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Same claims as made for PC. Odd, isn't it?
You're welcome.
My main point is that the PC movement exists whether there are any specific, named leaders or not. The more impressionable among us have been convinced by other people, some politicians and activists, and much of the media that such words as "terrorist" imply evil, and since in their opinion there is no such thing as "evil," a different term such as "insurgent" should be used. Once people begin to believe things like this, they become part of the "grass roots" movement and begin to propagate it themselves. --Swalker2000 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And my point is that the term and the reality are hotly contested, and this is an encyclopedia where this debate is appropriately discussed in detail. Most of the recently inserted material comes from Michael Lind and Pat Buchanan, and represents a far right view of reality. See Cultural Marxism for a critique of Lind and Buchanan's arguments.--Cberlet 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for - political correctness frankfurt school - gives 661000 hits. Can we get real and acknowledge that PC is not a recent joke, but a phenomenon with serious roots in Marxism and 30's Germany. If not, can we please have some citations demonstrating that this is not really the case, that it is just a joke, and recent. I think the page as it stood was ridiculously unbalanced. --Lindosland 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A Google search is a ridiculous way to do serious research. The idea of Cultural Marxism as a plot by the Franfurt School that spawned Political Correctness is the view that originates with a tiny handful of far right ideologues, many with a history of semi-fascist and anti-Semitic pronouncements. What I am asking for are serious scholarly cites, not right-wing dogma. It is not appropriate to hijack a page and twist it into billboard for far-right ideology. The lead should be balanced. The dispute then can be aired in detail.--Cberlet 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
'Semi-fascist and anti-Semitic pronouncements'. Yes, that's true, and I'm laughing because in my non-PC world that's just fact, and carries no other implication. It certainly doesn't make them invalid, as you seem to wish it to!
I have found Google searches to be taken seriously throughout Wikipedia, and quoted as evidence in many talk pages. 'Scholarly' writings on many subjects are hard to find, largely because of 'political correctness'. I think it sufficient that a study of the Frankfurt School, as well described in Wikipedia, gives names and places and quotes that are beyond dispute. The Frankfurt School did exist, and many of its members did state their avowed aim of bringing down Western society, did they not? They described a method that fits exactly with PC, did they not? And I suggest that it is not difficult to find individuals living today in positions of influence who subscribe to the aims of the Frankfurt School. I do not think we need prove anything - the material out there is overwhelming and can be read by all. I've pointed to some of it, as I think is our duty here. You may call this 'right wing' (a PC implied slurr in itself) if you like, but I do not find any significant number of (left wing?) writings in favour of PC as an innocent phenomenon. --Lindosland 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't you step back and see that what you have done is rewrite the lead to represent only the views of a tiny marginal group of far right ideologues--elmininating even the views of several well-known conservatives? Can't you see that you are letting your bias make the article POV and thus violating Wiki policies? The material may seem overwhelmingly confiormed in a Google search, but it is not considered a reputable mainstream viewpoint. What you are doing is not encyclopedic. It is a POV polemic.--Cberlet 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not happy with that. Words like ideologues, and even conservative, are irrelevant and do not detract from the value of the view we are disputing (you demonstrate political correctness at its most insidious superbly!). YOU need to step back and consider that when majority opinion seems to be against something, then we must wonder whether there can be such a thing as 'mainstream and scholarly' view, and we must certainly make reference to majority opinion. I will not persist for now, but I insist that the claims regarding the Frankfurt school etc are so strongly supported and widespread as to deserve mention in the first paragraph. You should have balanced my contribution, and given your own citations, not wiped out my work. --86.135.218.72 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to silence someone you disagree with by calling them PC. Take another step back. Ericatom 23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please revert the lead of this article to the NPOV version - the current edit not only foregrounds a marginal POV, it completely ignores the important issues surrounding the term and its history. Articles need to start with overviews, not specious claims. --Jajasoon 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You kids, go read Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance." Intangible 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Patronizing comments are not constructive.--Cberlet 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources such as this and this are personal websites/opinion pieces that clearly do not meet the requirements of reliable sources. In addition, any introduction which dogmatically asserts that "Political correctness, P.C. or PC) is a mode of language useage aimed at enforcing a particular ideology which has its roots in Marxism" is clearly in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we perhaps concentrate on improving the section ' Critics of alleged "Political Correctness" ' by making it sharper and finding better cites for Lind, Buchanan, and others? I'll start by doing some searching.--Cberlet 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked, and Accuracy in Academia runs this website, so it qualifies as a source. --Cberlet 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Since my "patronizing" comment was not well accepted, I let Herbert Marcuse talk himself: "They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives." Intangible 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Add it to the page with a cite.--Cberlet 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Man

I hope no one minds if I interrupt for a public service announcement: If you're here to suggest a way this article could be improved, welcome! Your input is appreciated. If you're here to rant about how much you hate not being allowed to say "blind" instead of "optically challenged" that really doesn't help anyone make a better Wikipedia. There are tons of forums out there you can go on to rant to your heart's content, but this page is already full over with the same argument. I’m purely speaking as someone who just had to read it all. --Zagsa 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that too much of wikipedia is taken up with people sounding off about their personal grievances. No place for it in a talk page, if it doesn't bring anything good to bear in the debate, let alone the article. Wikinterpreter 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

In the current history section there are two apparently contradictory statements:

The term political correctness is first known to be used in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line following the Russian Revolution of 1917.[1]

This is problematic in itself as it does not cite examples but merely a book that readers like myself are unable to check. From my readings in Soviet history I have never come across this term. Then:

The term was transformed and used jokingly within the Left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier. [citation needed]

This has no citation, but the assertion that it was used ironically by the Left implies that it was at one point used seriously - and there appears no support for this.

The apparent contradiction lies in the unexplained gap between 1917 and 1980. What happened?

In addition, the citation of numerous examples of the phrase seems pointless if they don't relate to the current meaning. Could this be pruned down?

I have read a 'first use' attributed to J Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit but can give no citation for this.--Jack Upland 11:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On consideration I have changed the original sentence to say that it is 'said' that 'PC' derives from Leninism. If no one comes up with any support we should consider deleting this.

[edit] This article is not about the subject

An entry at the top of this page objected that the article does not describe political correctness or why it exists at all. I agree. References to ironic use etc should be secondary, given that perfectly good explanations of political correctness, its origins and purpose have been given in published books and by significant commentators.

A template at the top of the page says that it may not reflect worldwide views and asks for help in improving this. I have tried to do this and been blocked. Until such time as the opening paragraph actually mentions the explanations given by serious commentators, with the links to cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt school, 'sensitivity training', and the Tavistock Clinic etc etc, I will consider it to be innacurate and a single minority POV. Where I live, political correctness is no joke, it's deadly serious and hated, and I think that is the majority view.

The paragraph heading 'Objections to political correctness' is a mis-nomer. Using this paragraph to contain the non-PC view of political correctness is not satisfactory. Patrick Buchanan, and Lind do not object to political correctness, they expose it for what it really is, providing a perfectly credible trail of people and events in support of their reasoning. This serious explanation should come first in the intro paragraph. I have been happy to modify my entries to say things like, 'according to Buchanan', thus keeping them strictly factual and non-POV as well as easily traceable, but still they are moved down into the 'objections' section. --86.135.222.0 11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously a LaRouchite. The argument that Buchanan etc do not 'object' to PC but merely expose it is palpably absurd. Of course they object to it, as do you, who describe it as 'hated'.--Jack Upland 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You can no more 'object to' political correctness than you can object to grammer, or science, or rhetoric. As stated in the article it is a linguistic concept and as such it exists. I object to the way it is being used, and the consequences of such use, but it will always exist as a technique that can revived. Hence commentators like Buchanan set out to expose its origins and purpose and reason why it is dangerous to Western Society. Actually Buchanan does concede that perhaps it is a phenomenon whos 'time has come' rather as Spengler might. My approach, like Buchanan's is to say, "first lets all agree that this is not a joke, it is the latest manifestation of something clearly traceable back to Marxist philosophy, which, under the name of 'Critical theory' was freely acknowledged as being created by a think-tank of named people, who happened to be Jewish, with the intention of doing no less than bringing down the Western world." Then I would say, "having got that out of the way, removing all attempts to obscure the true nature of the phonomenon, lets talk about why they wanted to do this, and what were the arguments." There is a case for saying that Western Civilisation suppresses freedom, and this has a long history through not just the marxist philosophers but also people like Freud, Reich, Fromm, etc etc through to modern day David Smail. However, using underhand means to put in place your pet alternative is not acceptable (and anyway, Marxists have had their go at half the world with not very nice consequences). The self confessed intention of 'critical theory' - to hammer home criticism of all Western values until demoralisation sets in - is downright disgusting. That, according to a great deal of evidence, is what political correctness is about. And what the hell is a LaRouchite? Don't call me names, I think for myself. --86.135.222.0 12:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that PC is the "latest manifestation of something clearly traceable back to Marxist philosophy" then you have adopted a particular right-wing frame and narrative that is hotly contested by a number of liberal/left academics. You are clearly not thinking for yourself--you are repeating what you have read, without looking around for contending views. That is why this page covers the controversy.--Cberlet 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have no grounds for saying that I have adopted a particular right-wing frame. I quote Buchanan only so that I can attribute a point of view to a 'respected author who has published' in accordance with Wikipedia recommendation. I have a deep interest in the psychoanalytic movement, far removed from current US politics and draw my own inferences from a great deal of in-depth reading. Until you mentioned the name I had never read anything by about LaRouche. I think you overestimate the importance of these American Politicians - outside America they might as well not exist.

I don't always agree with Jack Upland, but I certainly agree that the edits by 86.135.222.0 violate NPOV, and do seem to reflect the conspriacy theories of the LaRouche network, especially the stuff about Tavistock.--Cberlet 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you will agree that they do not violate NPOV in the simple sense of being my POV - attributing them ensures that. Being British, I have little interest in LaRouche, and have read nothing of his. Nowhere do I mention him, so this is your POV and nothing to do with me. I know something about the Tavistock and its role as a centre for Psychoanalysis, and I do not find any dispute over the fact that John Rawlins Rees developed 'The Tavistock method of Mass Psychological control'. Take a look at Tavistock Clinic (I didn't write it!) where you will find these details, and the link with Kurt Lewin, with no reference to LaRouche. I believe you are fooling yourselves into thinking this is just the theory of LaRouche or a few others. The facts themselves can be traced in many places. LaRouche is just one man who happens to have achieved a high profile (and who I suspect I would have no more time for than our own George Galaway who has done likewise). Searching on Google I find many references to the connections between Kurt Lewin, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslo, the Tavistock Clinic, and 'Psychological warfare'. I find that Carl Rogers developed sensitivity training and that the Tavistock was officially engaged in developing psychological warefare techniques. I find no reason to suppose that political correctness is not sensitivity training under a new name which came into use in the 80's or whenever, and it would surely be wrong not to refer to all of this background just because the thing seems to have got a new name. I mention Patrick Buchanan, not Larouche. It seems to me that he qualifies as a key well known and respected figure for the purpose of Wikipedia. A man who stood for president of the USA is hardly a minority figure. I will be happy to research further and try to establish firm links, but unless you will allow me to make substantial changes to this page I see no point. --86.135.222.0 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Jack Upland, but I certainly agree that the edits by 86.135.222.0 violate NPOV, and do seem to reflect the conspriacy theories of the LaRouche network, especially the stuff about Tavistock.--Cberlet 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'Broken record technique' is part of sensitivity training and is annoying and unhelpful on Wikipedia.
I am well aware of the three-revert rule, but in this instance there has been a singular failure to enter into proper discussion. All objections to what I have written amount only to 'name calling' and fail to address the factual argument I have put. --86.135.222.0 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, the criticism of your editing is part of a Tavistock Institute mind-control operation?--Cberlet 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear LaRouche is unknown in Britain, though I wish I could say the same for my native Australia. But Agent 86's claim that he does not 'object' to political correctness is just absurd, given the following tirade.--Jack Upland 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC in NZ

Political correctness is currently a somewhat hot topic in NZ among the right. The main right party (National) who are in opposition even have a political correctness eradictor spokesperson or perhaps I should say spokesman. Although to me anyway, it appears they do use the term rather losely to apply to anything that they find a bit silly and/or that they can try an use against the government. For example, when a man was told to move (and someone in the air crew sillily confessed it was because he was sitting next to an unaccompanied child) this somehow became an issue of political correctness gone mad even though it seems to me to more be an issue of discrimination and generally silly behaviour. Indeed political correctness would seem to be the opposite. My point being that some of the examples they pick out may indeed be silly behaviour such as this incident but how exactly they are issues of political correctness is beyond me. In any case, I think this article needs to mention this but obviously given my perception, it's probably best I myself stay clear from adding it. Nil Einne 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess the article can mention that 'PC' is used - particularly on the right - to include issues that are really instances of bureaucracy and euphemism.--Jack Upland 22:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia (in)famous for lists, so ...

I'm afraid that the article at Political correctness doesn't address the phenomenom of people getting dressed down for words they didn't know were going to be found to be racially offensive. For instance, PC doesn't mention the 'niggardly' episode. And the "water buffalo" 'investigation' blows my mind. So... where is the article that describes the mine field that is English, and points to all the words you shouldn't use? Shenme 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope to God that we never create such a list like this on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we just call these "weasel words" and move on?

As a long-retired participant in the wiki-embarrassment that is this article, it occurred to me as I was skimming this site that there's significant overlap in what we're lately calling Weasel words and that which some people call "politically correct." The difference is that the first term is generally mocking anyone speaking indirectly, while the other is largely manufactured for use against liberal politics.

My proposal is that this article become a (much shorter) history of term "politically correct," how it is used, what it means to whom, where it came from, where it's going (out of fashion?). Take out all so-called examples, or at least the ones laking any evidence (still waiting on that "differently abled" smoking gun). And up top there's a big fat link to 'Weasel words', which does not take political sides and must continue to do so. Nathan 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting approach. I would support such an edit.--Cberlet 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then again, there's an endless supply of people who devote their lives [to] spreading these "examples." (Timely comment below.) They're passionate about it, and not likely to go away. Maybe a stalemate, with a warning sign, is the best to be hoped for. But I would link to Weasel words, just as related concept to ponder, were I crazy enough to log an edit to this page. Nathan 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Realistically, far more people are going to look up 'political correctness' than 'weasel words'. And as the article indicates, the anti-PC discourse is far more important as an intellectual current than what it purports to be attacking.--Jack Upland 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Examples?

The article seems to be lacking, and would benefit from some contemporary examples of political correctness, including both "good" and "bad" examples. Currently there are really only two or three generic examples while I think that a (small) list of current PC language would be fitting. One example that specifically comes to mind is the issue from a few years ago when Los Angeles officials declared the long-standing use of "master" and "slave" in computer terminology "offensive". It's this which personifies the dispute about PC in my opinion, because the contested terms describe the relationship between computer hardware perfectly; however, because some people choose to associate them with specific historical events (to which they are not tied in any way), the terms suddenly become unacceptable. (Note: this is all my opinion, and should it cause you mental duress in any fashion, well golly, I'll get in my time machine, go back in time, and stop myself from typing it so that you'll have never been offended. You can come with, but safety is not guarenteed as I've only done it once before. YMMV.) --Nick, 65.100.221.52 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many examples of 'PC' stupidity - more than actual cases, in my opinion! - and an article like this cannot provide an exhaustive list. I agree there should be illustrative examples, but not every instance that every individual has a gripe about.--Jack Upland 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodern bias

The warning label at the top of the page reflects a postmodern bias and thus should be removed because it presumes that truth is subject. That's a debateable subject. I say the warning label should be dropped as NPOV violation. --68.45.161.241 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Which label??? If you mean the 'worldwide' label, as a non-American, I think you should reconsider your position.--Jack Upland 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. As I see it, Europe has become hopelessly P.C. The Left objects to the right's critique of political correctness, in my opinion, because it exposes its totalitarian nature. Both labels. The NPOV rule is meaningless, especially because articles that are sympathetic to Leftist positions never are flagged for their biases. I get it, Leftism with all of its emotionalism is objective.

The Left's arrogance never ceases to amaze me. --68.45.161.241 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that 'PC' is not an issue outside of America but that the examples and people cited in the article are predominantly American. And I'd have to say you're contradictory on NPOV - first you talk about 'NPOV violations' and now you say that the rule is meaningless. Finally, I can't see how you think the article ignores the right-wing point of view.--Jack Upland 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New definition

Columnist Randy Cassingham ("This is True") recently defined political correctness as follows:

Political Correctness: a system of thinking where it's OK to offend someone right in front of you by enforcing a made-up rule to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.

The particular case Cassingham was referring to was that of Heather Edwards, a 5-year-old English girl whose passport application was rejected ... because the photo of her that her mother submitted showed her in a sleeveless dress, which might be deemed offensive if she visited a Muslim country. --FOo 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a page for endless complaints about 'PC'!--Jack Upland 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW! first left, libs whatever you want to be called that will not offend you. You have argued pages and pages about an idea you vehemently deny even exists. (That alone is funny because the wiki standard for NPOV it seems IS political correctness) Second Wikipedia has become nothing more than the modern political debate. No one will concede defeat. It seems the only way to win is to kill the other! Wikipedia no longer has any credibility.

[edit] "refers to the English language?"

"The concept typically refers to the English language, but is not exclusive to it." I would say that the pre-comma part of the sentence is untrue, and that the concept of political correctness is now one that is spoken of so often in so many languages (for example, in French they use politiquement correct to talk about the exact same thing, and they use the phrase just as much as English-speakers) that we can't really say that PC is primarily about English. So I would remove the sentence, unless anyone can propose a workable modification. Andrew Levine 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of PC

The article currently gives the definition:

"Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language that is calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. The concept is not exclusive to the English language. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct."


I'm not sure this is the best definition, as I often see the term PC being used to describe attitudes and policies, not just language and texts.


I think a better definition would be something like:

"Political Correctness is a somewhat imprecise term, with different meanings or shades of meaning to different people. In general though, it is refers to an attempt to force people (either by legislation or social pressure) to adopt (or abandon) certain attitudes, modes of thought, or use of language, typically by insisting on the use (or prohibition) of certain words or phrases, especially those that are (allegedly) offensive to certain groups of people.

The term "Political Correctness" is usually used pejoratively, and almost always to refer to real or imagined left-wing or liberal policies. However, given the above definition, the term could theoretically be used to describe any such attempt to enforce a particular mode of thought, regardless of the political position of the enforcer."


I'll wait a while before altering the article, so that anyone who wishes to comment on my new definition can do so.

Please do not alter the article. The article has to be based on published material, not your opinion. Thanks.--Cberlet 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not your place, or anyone's, to ask people not to edit Wikipedia articles. A more useful thing to say would be to invite contributions, provided that they are cited from verifiable sources. This leaves it up to the editor to locate such sources and provide them. --FOo 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet, the article certainly DOES need to be altered to conform to the more accurate definition outlined above. It is a logical, indeed necessary, edit.Carthago delenda est 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote *yeah* on the edit you're proposing. This article also needs some other detailed cleanup, such as a bit more balance towards neutrality, as opposed to a carciature, regarding the legitimate complaints about political correctness put forth by not just those on the political right, but those on the political *anywhere* outside of Academic Institutions and the offices of special interest groups.Carthago delenda est 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the basic idea presented. However, I would remove "to force people (either by legislation or social pressure)" because PC is not primarily about forcing or encouraging people to speak/think a certain way, but rather more commonly it's a voluntary choice made to use it. I also think that there are a couple too many parenthetical comments, and that "or liberal" should be removed because of the slipperiness of that term (since it is claimed by FDR/JFK American liberals like Schlesinger and self-proclaimed "classical liberals" i.e. libertarians; both these groups generally avoid overuse of PC). Andrew Levine 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And I have no problem with edits, despite User:Fubar Obfusco's (FOo) patronizing lecture above, what I am saying is that with a controversial entry like this one, all edits need to be based on reputable published material. See WP:RS. --Cberlet 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we are discussing changing the lead to something that represents the published sources in a more complete and accurate way. Andrew Levine 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is like pulling teeth. What cites? Name a book or journal article, or solid essay. Summarize it. Post the summary here on the discussion page. I happen to agree that the lead is too restrictive. I have expanded the lead several times, only to have it reverted back. To keep something in the lead, there has to be solid cites. There has to be a discussion here based on those cites. Otherwise this text entry turns into an edit war.--Cberlet 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smal list of "political corrected" words

I think we should have a small ;list of "political corrected" to use as an example of what they are so people can better understand it cause honestly im havin a hard time graspin onto the meaning. I would make a list myself but I dont think i know that many more like I dont know that i know political corrected words.Angelofdeath275 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of lead material cited and summarized lower in the text

It is not appropriate to delete from the lead claims cited and summarized lower in the text. Andrew Levine has provided links to the cites. I hope this stops the deletion of the sentence: "Some left-wing commentators have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." This is not a weasel word sentence. It is an accurate summary of cited material.--Cberlet 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is original research in violation of WP:NOR (for an editor on WP to draw conclusions on what the content of various sources mean.) Find a reference that states this thought and reference it; then, this would not be original research. Also, claiming "some" without any reference as to "whom" is content in violation of WP:WEASEL. Have removed the original research content. Yaf 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This interpretation of WP:NOR is absurd. A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way. To argue a lead cannot contain material cited below in the entry is just wrong--and it is wrong to delete the material in the lead when it is also properly cited to specific texts and quotes and references. WP:NOR therefore does not apply at all. Not even a little. Just plain wrong. --Cberlet 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The drawing of conclusions not quoted in verifiable sources is original research in violation of WP:NOR. A summary should not make uncited and apparently bogus claims that attempts to tell a reader what something else means; instead, the verifiable quote taken from a verifiable source should draw the conclusions instead. Have removed content (again) in violation of WP:NOR and that is also in violation of WP:WEASEL, with a claim of "Some" without identifying specifically "which". Yaf 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It does identify specifically which people. They are all named in the article (Glassner, Messer, Toynbee, Scatamburlo, Hutton, etc.) Their claims are cited. The sentence summarizes the conclusions that they all arrive at. A summary of viewpoints is what the lead of a controversial article is supposed to provide. Have you read all of the books and articles cited? What makes you think they are "bogus"? Would you feel better if the sentence had six or seven footnotes at the end of it? Andrew Levine 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This needs more than just a summarization though, without their actual arguments being presented, it is hard for readers to see if they have any merit. Intangible 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Their arguments are elaborated on later in the text. The lead of an article is always supposed to provide just an overview, and the details come later. Andrew Levine 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So some of the references (we don't know which specific ones, but they are some of the ones listed somewhere later in the article) use the specific argument that, "political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender", but there is no quote whatsoever, from any of them, that actually makes this statement, or even uses the word strawman, and there is not any identification of which of the listed authors make or support this claim. Instead a reader is supposed to "believe" that this is what the sources really meant, despite not one of them actually stating this??? This transposition of opinion for verifiable quotes or other verifiable proof constitutes original research in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. Yaf 04:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The sentence is a summary of the opinions cited. This is how we cite external sources on Wikipedia. In fact, this is how external sources are cited in books, studies, and academic papers. If you go browse recently promoted featured articles, you will see many examples of similar use. It is plain that you do not understand how WP:NOR or WP:V are applied in practice. I have worked on successfully promoting multiple featured articles (strict conformity to the WP:NOR and WP:V policies is required in them). I have a strong understanding of these policies. Would you prefer it if the references were converted to inline citations? Andrew Levine 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see to which section you are referring to, but it does not make mention of "straw man" invention. So the piece in the introduction is actually stronger than what those authors seem to claim, especially since prominent liberals have alleged its existence as well. Intangible 14:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. And, a stronger statement than what is contained in references constitutes original research in violation of WP:NOR. Yaf 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<--------I agree with Andrew Levine. This is common practice. Please, Yaf, stop making these accusation which appear to be based on your misunderstanding of WP:NOR and WP:V. Intangible, I simply disagree that the lead outdistances the cited text. The idea of a "straw man" is central to many critiques of the idea of "PC."--Cberlet 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For non-controversial summaries, we all can give examples of where a summary paints with a rather broad brush on WP. But, for a strong claim of a controversial point in a controversial article, we, as WP editors, should not do original research and make stronger claims that go well beyond what a cited reference actually claims, even if the point may support one of our own personal viewpoints. To do so is to be in violation of achieving NPOV content for WP. The original statement of, "political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender" is a POV advanced by certain liberals and Democrats in the US, and is not a NPOV statement. To make the case that this rather-biased statement is NPOV and represents a summary of positions in a summary of a WP article is original research. So, how do we resolve this original research issue. Well, if a source can be found making this claim, then a quote with a citation, or some other cited and verifiable information, identifying the source of the statement, will permit a reader to make a value judgement of the validity of the statement or claim, because it is verifiable. If the lead does not outdistance the cited text, then it should be relatively easy to find text in one or more of the references that will support the position, and that can then be used in a cited and verifiable statement, to avoid the original research issue entirely. Yaf 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are leaving out a key part of the sentence: "Some left-wing commentators claim that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender". This complete sentence is a factual statement, supported by the sources cited. The sources that claim this are identified in the section labeled "Skeptical of claims about political correctness." The summary sentence that you keep removing from the lead represents their views accurately. Andrew Levine 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be factual, but it is not verifiable. "Some left-wing commentators claim that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender". This is clearly POV material that represents original research, drawing a conclusion that apparently is not citeable, since it has not been cited. Have removed it. Yaf 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to second the "may be factual, but is not verifiable". Unless you can point to a source, then it shouldn't be in here. scot 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically what the sentence should be is "Some left-wing commentators claim, such as [insert author here], that political correctness is a "straw man" invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender" After the sentence, a reference should be supplied to an author which make this exact claim. Intangible 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You have to click on the link that says "Some left-wing commentators." It takes you down to the section that names all of them. Every one of them makes the argument that they are claimed to have made. Even if none of them used the exact two-word phrase "straw man" in their text (just as none of those cited in the previous sentence -- Lind, Buchanan, Hentoff, and Schlesinger -- used the exact phrase "allege and denounce" in their writings) the line is an accurate summary of their beliefs. As Cberlet said above, "A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way." This applies both sides of the debate. Andrew Levine 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is surreal. "A good Wiki lead summarizes the current WP:RS reliable source material, and in the case of a controversy, describes the various major viewpoints in an NPOV way." Enough already. Intangible, you are on probation for this type of aggressive interference. Back off. Yaf, how do you interpret the cited guideline? It appears to me that Andrew Levine is following the guideline appropriately.--Cberlet 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The present form, "Some left-wing commentators (Messer-Davidow, Schultz, Glasser) have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." is still bordering on being original research, but this is a great improvement over the prior form without the parenthetical insertion of just "who" it is among left-wing commentators that argues this point. Nonetheless, we still need to add appropriate references to this statement, to make it verifiable. References with page numbers (of the form pp. xx-xxx or whatever), where these claims are made, would greatly improve the verifiability of the statement. Without identifying just who it was that makes these claims, out of all the left-wingers, it was original research, with a touch of weasel-wording. Yaf 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<--------This is nonsense. Many Wikipedia articles start with summaries based on material cited below. This is a giant waste of time.--Cberlet 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability in accordance with WP:V is not a waste of time, but is WP policy. For summaries containing non-NPOV statements (which I believe this is, in this specific case) a verifiable citation is needed. Yaf 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

This dispute over citations has degraded a good lead statement to the point where it has become difficult to read. Yaf appears to be misreading WP:V and WP:NOR. The lead does no more than summarize points that are amply cited in the main body of the text. This is acceptable and normal in Wikipedia articles. Recommend removing the citation needed flag from the opening and the parenthetical mentions of specific authors. Use author names in a more natural way if the introduction mentions them at all: the current presentation reads like an inept attempt at Harvard referencing. Durova 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In WP:RS, it is stated that "However, when writing in the summary style detailed referencing may only be necessary in the subarticle and not the summary." The key words here are may only be necessary, not that they are only necessary in the subarticle. The single line at issue, that claims that "Some left-wing commentators (Messer-Davidow, Schultz, Glasser) have argued on the contrary that "political correctness" is a straw man invented to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender." seems to go into clear POV territory such that it deserves a reference citing just where this claim is actually made and by whom; otherwise, it appears to be original research with a clear non-NPOV agenda supporting left-wing, Democrat beliefs in the guise of being a statement of fact. It is a statement of opinion of a few authors, and is not NPOV. A footnote, or other reference, with an identification of just who is making the claim, and where it was made, is needed. As it stands, it may be true, but it certainly is not verifiable by reading any of the discussion contained later in the article, but is (perhaps) mentioned in some of the numerous references listed later. Summarizing points in a clearly left-wing, Democrat-biased opinion summary, rather than in a NPOV summary, is not a valid summary to allow to stand without a detailed reference of some form. With a detailed reference, a reader can at least judge for himself/herself whether it is a believable statement of fact and a believable summary. Yaf 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, I do think you're misreading the intent of these policies. Several other editors have commented to the same effect. WP:NPOV exists to ensure that articles don't take a position editorially on a controversial subject. This article's introduction respects that policy by summarizing contrasting positions neutrally, both liberal and conservative. The liberal position is adequately sourced later in the article. It receives the same treatment as the conservative position. What would violate WP:NPOV would be to demand additional citation for one political viewpoint and not the other - that would imply that one position has greater intrinsic validity. Durova 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Have added citations and removed original research content that suggested considerably more than what is actually contained in the cited references. If someone can actually find any cited evidence to suggest that "Political Correctness" is actually considered a strawman invented to discredit progressive social change, then it can be added back in with appropropriate citations. Otherwise, this statement of fact is original research, by making claims that go beyond what the references actually say or contain, and this is not in line with Wikipedia policies. Citations must by neccessity support positions contained in the summary for the summary to be valid. Yaf 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, the sentence does not make any claims that go beyond what the sources themselves write. It does not misrepresent any of their positions, nor does it expand upon them with new research. Why do you keep insisting otherwise? On the other hand, your rewording of the sentence, which I have reverted, does in fact misrepresent them; in fact, it completely reversed their meaning. Andrew Levine 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The present new wording, with "meant" instead of "invented" is now NPOV. The prior wording of implying that Political Correctness was invented specifically to discredit progressive social change was POV, if not paranoid, and contained a meaning that was not contained anywhere in the references. I am OK with the present wording, and the references are now such that the statement is verifiable. Statement of fact looks good now, is NPOV, no longer contains Original Research, and is verifiable. It is considerably improved over the original version. We are no longer misleading readers. Yaf 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If all parties agree to this, then it can be removed from the RFC page and be considered a resolution. I think it is good the way it is. Consider my idea of removing the request from the RFC page.--Connor K. 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it seems we have reached a resolution. Andrew Levine 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's Political Correctness Several editors are guilty of what could be considered political correctness. For instance Hezbollah which is a terrorist orginization can't even be described as one. Hugo Chavez who stifles dissent can't be criticized. Tannim 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)TannimTannim 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herstory

My understanding of the term "herstory" is that its use does not arise from a feeling that the term "history" is un-PC for appearing to include a gendered pronoun. Rather, it's always struck me as an attempt at a simple play on words (albeit not a very clever one). So I don't think it falls under the purview of this article. Andrew Levine 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

History: ORIGIN Greek historia ‘narrative, history’, from histor ‘learned, wise man’. Source: Oxford English Dictionary.

So both sides have some merit, ‘historia’ is a gender-neutral term. ‘Histor’ is plainly not. However we must also account for the social construction of the culture that created the Greek Language. Histor is not meant to preclude women, any more than the word Actor precludes the idea of women acting. Nor for that matter does the word Actress preclude the thought of men acting.

The use of the word Herstory is a creation of feminist historians who desire to feminise a field which (like almost all others) was once male-dominated. It is a means of making explicit the idea that this particular account tells the stories of women. However, though this term is used for a small percentage of such essays, the term history is more popular, used traditionally, and regarded as the most politically correct in the current peer-debate of historians.

The word herstory is just as misandristic as the word history is purportedly misogynistic. Worse, while the word history can be seen as a word with an unconscious bias against women, there is clear and conscious misandry in the use of the term herstory for its implicit de-valuing of the experiences of men. Instead of using two separate words to discuss the study of the past, it is far more useful to use one word. The word ‘history’ is derived from the Greek word ‘historia’ which means narrative, especially a historical narrative. Though a historia was usually recounted by a histor there is no reason to suppose that there was no comparable female role, and any historian would tell you this quite frankly.

MacShimi 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the term "herstory" used to denigrate the achievements of men, rather to "celebrate" the achievements of women. Nobody intends for it to replace the word "history." Andrew Levine 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just a bad pun based on a linguistic fallacy. For any example of so-called 'political correctness', there is a more accurate, less pejorative and more elegant term that will suffice. Ericatom 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's based on a linguistic fallacy at all, it's just a bad pun. Is there any evidence at all indicating that feminists are unaware of the true etymology of the word "history"? Andrew Levine 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Politically correct and courtesy

Is "politically correct" - in the modern sense - ever used in a positive sense - and to what extent can it be seen as a distorted form of courtesy? Jackiespeel 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It originated in the positive sense, and is still used that way, but people who take offence at the term tend to be the ones who control this article (i.e., the term "politically correct" is not politically correct enough for them). And so many editors on all sides have adjusted the article to their liking that it makes little sense as a whole; it's become convoluted. There is a war between the people who take the term to mean 'language/action intended to not offend,' and those who take it to mean 'an attempt to control language.' The result comes across as 'non-existant, non-offensive language.' Goodbye to the idea that Wikipedia articles necessarily improve with time -- this one's merely a lightning rod for people's opinions and expression of emotional needs, as opposed to an encyclopedia article. And there's no point in trying to change that, because eventually someone will revert you. Maybe try something like soy protein or Jack Eckerd instead. 24.68.180.163 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This type of comment is not only highly biased and POV, but also offers nothing constructive, while managing to be insulting to other editors.--Cberlet 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Biased against whom? Wulfilia 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I did in the flamewar

Sorry I flamed in that debate. Reading all the arguments got to me. to make up, there's a sensible suggestion below. Totnesmartin 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article split?

Meanwhile, I think there are two strands to the article: a)one about origins and usage of the expression and concept, and usage of it (including satirical usage) b) whether or not is is a good thing (including benefits and problems from it, unintended consequences, misuse, and criticism). perhaps it needs to be split. Totnesmartin 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the need for a split? Andrew Levine 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see Whether or not political correctness is a good thing being an acceptable article. In fact, the article here should not include anything on that; it should only include the facts about it. People are supposed to make up their own minds on topics after reading article of nothing but facts, or so I thought. Skittle 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a bad title for an article I agree, but the debate exists and should be discussed in the context of a general article, perhaps under a subheading "criticisms of political correctness" or some such. Many of articles have a section on debate about the subject, and in this article I think it would be remiss not to. Totnesmartin 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is already covered extensively in the article. Andrew Levine 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPolitical_correctness_9427.html"