Talk:Political correctness

---

Untitled

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

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

Former Featured Article Nominee

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

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness/archive2
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

Other countries?

this edit is inapt in so many ways. Firstly, why 'other countries' when nothing previous is labelled 'America', and indeed refers to France and UK as well.

Secondly most of the content is not describing 'other countries', rather saying than PC is US not us. In the case of Hughes (which I know well and intended to include stuff from), the quote wholly misrepresents his overall thrust. In that early part he is saying that there were no 'big books' or furious arguments about higher education in the UK, a few pages after that quote he says :

In Britain the debate was less of an exclusively academic affair, for there was some powerful journalistic input. Much of the initial commentary was ironic, focusing on the curious verbal innovations rather than the ideologies behind them. It also developed later, the main collection of essays, The War of the Words, appearing in 1994. It was a comparatively slim volume of 188 pages containing 11 essays, two of which focused on America and a third on France. In the Introduction Sarah Dunant commented on “the great liberal divide” namely “passionate disagreement as to whether PC is a political and liberal aberration, betraying all that liberalism stands for (Melanie Phillips), or a long overdue force for change which has exposed a hypocrisy at the heart of liberalism (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown)” (1994, p. xiii). (Hughes p.69 my version)

He also emphasises later that PC in the UK was largely a 'tabloid' usage, and the targets were largely local authorities and public organisations, rather than Universities. Dunant in the book referred to talks about how PC in the UK is an insult, not a description. I am all in favour of including more info on 'PC in the UK', but the quote used is absurdly unrepresentative of what Hughes actually says.

Hughes also says that the term originated among early 20thC Chinese communists, was taken up by Comintern and thence imported to US and UK where it immediately acquired an ironic use among liberals, (ie too correct) and like most of our sources, he says it later became a largely pejorative term to criticise liberals/left-wingers. He certainly says that this final critical use was imported from the US and that the use of the term never had the fury that use in the US had, but to suggest the term did not have widespread UK use, misrepresents him. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You should add material on UK, not delete sourced info on multiple counties. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, it says 'globalise', not shove all the non-US stuff, to one corner, while Americanising 9/10 of the article. You are making fundamental changes to structure without discussion, that is not acceptable. I will try to re-add some of your material, without the widespread removals and bizarre, de-linking. In respect of UK the content appears to cherry-pick a few out of context quotes, without even attempting any overall picture.

The early sections are about the history/use of the term, not specific US usage, sources and examples used are from various countries. I have no objection to adding examples specific to non-US countries either within the main history narrative or in their own sections, but fundamentally altering structure to fit 'PC is a US phenomenon' agenda is not a narrative which is supported by sources, inc. Hughes, who is the most UK-centric of the academic studies. Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New Material

There are some articles which could be used for right-wing political correctness:

Modern usage could possible also have a section for Donald Trump alone, of articles like this which starts by first talking about the term:

a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating.

But that’s not what Trump is doing. He’s not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. He’s not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. He’s not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say.

All Trump’s defying is common decency.

I'm busy with work so I have harder time figuring it out. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References

At first sight, these seem to be mainly about Trump, not about PC as a concept. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be notable that the term resurfaced in the 2016 election, but IMO, much of this material is criticism of Trump, rather than about the use of the term, but others wade in please. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The headlines were full of him and the term and the two became associated during the election cycle, so it seemed like it needed to be mentioned or people would wonder why the article for something so constantly featured in headlines right next to him doesn't mention him. I mean do you not think the average Wiki-browser wouldn't feel like something is amiss? I had a hard time finding any material not criticizing Trump, seriously. The edit of course happened before he became president-elect. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is that I tried to find coverage detailing his own words but a hard time finding something like that. I truly tried to fill out the opening sentence where it says "common target in his rhetoric", but I mostly found just different variations of that same line. There was plenty of coverage featuring these variations however. After that line there could be another sentence detailing Trump's own words if you can find something to literally quote him. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All I meant is that it may be notable that the term re-surfaced, it may be pertinent HOW it was being used, but whether Trump is a creep/hypocrite/toad or 'champion of the common-man' doesn't belong here and why women 'late-reported' may not either. We haven't historically provided 'examples' of use, largely because the article would simply become a long list of quotes, so "his own words" would probably not be a good idea.

People are almost always disappointed when they read this article, it's always too right/left, too topical/not up-to-date too critical/not critical enough. That goes with the territory,(insert Smiley). Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the entire edit was originally solely to the Right-wing political correctness section, the mentioned bottom bit fit well. I found it randomly while going through articles searching for a Trump quote to use, and thought that it was talking about right-wing political correctness. I had originally intended simply to expand that section alone. So I took it along. But after the section re-titling, I found it to belong more at the above section but it talks about Trump, who would then be mentioned and detailed first below. Remember this was before the election. I found it difficult to place. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's in the right section. It wouldn't be 'right-wing PC', as that is rightists allegedly displaying their own form of 'PC', rather than rightists using the term. I'm busy elsewhere at present, but think some of this could be pruned, but I haven't worked out which bits yet, only that when it's more about the man than the use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I found an article making the coverage more fair. It summarizes Trump's stance fairly neutrally. As the article pretty much disagrees and explains in detail why, I also found quite the number of sentences to quote as disagreeing opinions, but since someone added the not-all-viewpoints template, I'm not sure whether or not it would tip the scales over. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But it's about Trump, only peripherally about PC, btw I'm not sure what 'in disagreeing voice' means, nor why it needs to be said. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the new sentence, that's an old sentence. The new sentence was added above. I just moved the other sentence downwards and changed the word order. I originally added "disagreeing voice" to that other sentence because when it simply read "describes" it came off as presenting itself matter-of-fact like the sentence I just added. I had to add some clarification that it was disagreeing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's called editorialising (telling us how to read what is said), it's unnec, since it is obvious that he disapproves, btw 'disagreeing' isn't an adjective (certainly in UK). But what does someone's opinion of Trump have to do with 'PC'. The only bit that's relevant is where he says (approx) "PC is about curtailing free speech", which is his opinion of what 'PC' is. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I have seen disagreeing used in this way many times? Disagreeing. And I agree it sounds like editorializing to describe his tone, but "describes" should really be changed to another word too, perhaps a synonym without the connotation "describes" has. And since we talk about Trump and his view of political correctness, and considering how the media is full of articles lambasting him, why would we not include at least a few disagreeing opinions? That of the new article as well. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected about 'disagreeing' as an adjective, I think it must a US usage.Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

Mr. Magoo, this partially relates to the 'Trump' material, but also to 'individuals' and 'political discourse'.

Individuals The reason I removed 'individuals' is because saying 'individuals and groups' is a bit like saying 'people'. The distinguishing feature about PC measures, rules, laws, language etc. is that the individuals are members of groups (racial groups, women, gays, etc). A measure designed to protect all people from murder or theft or insult would not be decribed as PC, one designed to protect/advantage ONLY members of one of these groups might. The dictionaries say:

disapproving, avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive (Cambridge US definition) … Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided. (Cambridge UK definition) … The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against:(Oxford definition)

I know NOTDICT, but I think all the sources would support that membership of particular groups is a defining feature. Incidentally, nowhere in the article does it currently say that most PC measures relate to gender, race, sexuality and disability (this is covered in Hughes, apart from the Oxford def), nor do we say that the groups are ordinarily minorities (women being the exception). Nor that these groups are ordinarily (perceived as?) being 'socially disadvantaged or discriminated against'.

My compromise' edit was to change to 'members of groups', rather than 'individuals and groups', I hope that covers the fact that individuals are being protected, but they are being protected as members of this or that group.

The reason I am aware of this omission is that I professionally deal with young non-native English speakers, they have no equivalent in their native tongues to 'PC', although many of the same societal changes have taken place in their home countries, (not using pejorative words for women and ethnic groups, increasing educational and professional oppurtunities etc.) They have no general equivalent term to 'PC' either as a good or bad thing. Trying to explain 'PC', either as a positive or critical term without mentioning women and race etc, is nearly impossible.

Polotical discourse The reason I added that, and I'm quite happy to amend is that everything on WP is 'in the media' (ie has been written about in books or papers). If you recall, the reason for adding 'in the media' was that readers/editors were often complaining that our definition was not their everyday use, however I've always been unhappy with it for the reason given. What our article is covering is use of the term mainly in relation to public criticism or, (occasionally), defence of political or social policies etc.

The '2016' use, the reason I removed the 'sex Trump' material was that IMO, it was discussing whether PC was a good or bad thing in relation to these scandals, rather than how the term was being used, or what it meant to these users. the reason I inserted the 'code words' is the converse, this is about who/how using the term and the writer isn't saying 'code words' as 'double meaning', rather as 'linguistic badge', much as 'comrade' might be a communist badge. What I think is well documented is the recent revival in use of the term (mainly US, but also UK) and that more traditional conservatives/centrists are often disowning the way it is being recently used.

However I'm not going to edit war about any of these changes, I took this article off my watchlist for a while, and am quite happy to do so again if we can't agree. Happy New Year. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)