Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 23 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political correctness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Conservatism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Political correctness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept March 8, 2004 Featured article review Demoted May 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 14, 2004 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Offensive or just too sensitive?". New Zealand Herald. October 29, 2005.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Former Featured Article Nominee

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

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Political_correctness
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

POV?

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

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

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

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

I disagree. I am a U.S. Independent voter with conservative leanings - I think it is balanced. If any adjustments are necessary, they are minor.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness vs Freedom of Speech.

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

To 124: With respect to behaviors, we're talking about instances of behaviors as characterized by a term which is asserting are excessive in those instances. This has made the article's job a bit complex in that area. At first glance (since the subject "noun" is ostensibly the behavior itself) one might think (as I believe that you do) that this is an article about the behaviors themselves, but it really isn't. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Before 1970

Surely the concept pre-dates the New Left by a considerable margin. Do its origin not lie in the Communist concept of "ideological correctness", which goes back to the Stalin era if not to Lenin? Marshall46 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO that's a different term and a different thing. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive bias section

I noticed that this has been going in and out. IMHO "out" would be better. Sort of an unusual, abstract and barely-related theory. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlton stuff

I've looked into this a bit more (I restored it at one time) and agree it shouldn't be in the article. Charlton was editor at the time and was fired shortly afterwards. See our article Medical Hypotheses. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right and left wing

I removed these section headings for a couple of reasons. First, there are big problems with classification (eg Kristeva as rightwing, Paglia as leftwing), but also because they are asymmetric. The critics (mostly, but not exclusively on the right( take it for granted that a movement for PC exists and is a big problem. Respondents (mostly, but not exclusively on the left) generally say that the whole thing is a spurious beat-up. There's (almost) no-one out therefore defending PC, except in the argumentative form of "If supporting (good thing X) makes me a (pejorative Y), then call me a (pejorative Y)".JQ (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in describing the issues from "left" and "right" perspectives. If labeling individuals according to an ideology is problematic, then delete them. The left/right sections should remain in the article. – Lionel 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the topic at hand, but to repeat one structural note, PC is is essentially an pejorative, promulgated term which posits that, in the discussed cases, the discussed otherwise-acceptable behaviors are, in this case, bad because they taken to an excessive degree. If we want to improve the article further, I think that we need to recognize this, and many of it's biggest mis-steps have come from not recognizing this. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics