Talk:Political correctness/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

"Woke" and its common use as a synonym for political correctness

I think it may be worth mentioning the term "woke" in this article, albeit briefly, and how in recent years it has come into common use as a synonym for political correctness (for instance, The New York Times published an opinion piece last year on this point, entitled "How 'Woke' Became an Insult"). Any thoughts? 49.185.74.204 (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That is fine. Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea what the woke thing was till I read this. Thank you. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added Woke as a "see also" - there is obviously an overlap with 'PC', especially when used pejoratively, but 'woke' has its own history as a term. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

TINA (and PC)

I'm not sure why the 'see also's have recently been altered to 'annotated links' and a) I can't work out how to edit them … b) I'm not sure what the advantage of them is. However, my immediate concern is the addition of TINA, firstly I'm not sure what the connection betwwn TINA and PC is, but more immediately, the claim in the annotated link that the slogan was "often used by Margaret Thatcher", is I believe wrong. The slogan was certainly strongly associated with 'Mrs T' and her attitudes and convictions, and was based on something she said in a particular conference speech - but I believe she never actually said these exact words - certainly not often. The linked article is unclear, but the claim there that she often used the slogan is uncited. Can someone fix/amend as apt? Pincrete (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I support removing it from §See also. Annotated links pull from the linked article's short description. FYI, I edited TINA's to say "associated with Margaret Thatcher". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete and Firefangledfeathers,

1. I changed the simple list of article names to use {{annotated link}}, which exposes their wp:short descriptions. These give readers a better idea of what the _target article is about – oftentimes the article name only makes sense when you already know the topic. The reasoning is explained at Pathfinder (library science). If you think that an SD is inaccurate, you need to go to the relevant article and edit it there. See WP:HOWTOSD. NB that SDs are limited to 40 characters so if you consider that the description needs to be supplemented for use in this article, just append the extra text.
2. I added TINA because it is an example of Conservative political orthodoxy. If it is to be removed (and I wouldn't go to war over it) then there are quite a few others in that list that are more deserving of removal (especially the ones about considerate speech).

Is that enough? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

More than enough, thanks. I was most concerned about the inaccuracy - I wouldn't go to war either, but TINA seems fairly parochial and mainly associated with 'dry' Tories, like Mrs T. The main common theme of PC, seems to be - mainly linguistic - political orthodoxy, often framed pejoratively or ironically. I agree that some current examples are only tenously linked to PC. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on article neutrality

Is this article's content written from a WP:NEUTRAL point-of-view?

In addition to making a small change to the lead section of this article, I have attempted to rationally and civilly discuss this in this article's talk page, without violating Wikipedia policy, and it has been repeatedly reverted. The neutrality of this article has not been properly discussed for years. Why am I unable to discuss this in this talk page? 49.185.74.204 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

49.185.74.20, what you are doing (and have done) is make generalised comments about - what you see as - the lack of neutrality. They aren't specific criticisms nor specific suggestions for inclusion. That was what was reverted, (not by me btw) you have made no meaningful discussion nor any concrete proposals. Therefore there is not a hope-in-hell of any worthwhile outcome to this RfC, which breaks umpteen RfC guidelines.

FWIW, all good (mainly book) sources agree that PC, in its modern sense, was a term adopted - mainly by right-wingers and more traditional left-of-centre people - in the late 1980 and early 1990's to disparage certain trends in academia in the US and similar trends in local govt, in the UK. In both instances half of the 'PC horror stories' were apocryphal or out of proportion. So given that scenario, how could the article be more 'neutral' in your opinion? Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, having lived through the time, I can tell you this isn't true.

The term apparently had a previous life of some kind pre-ca.1987. But around that time it came into vogue (again?) on the extreme campus left, and was used "straight"--that is, non-ironically. People to the right of the extreme left simply took up the term that the left itself was using. The *term* wasn't pejorative, but, of course, many considered the *phenomenon* bad. As is so often the case, the term itself took on pejorative connotations only have the conclusion that PC was generally itself bad became widespread. So the term 'politically correct' went basically through the same trajectory we see with 'woke.' It was used "straight," but it referred to ideas and actions considered bad/unreasonable by many people, and so the term took on pejorative connotations.

You'll just delete this, of course--mainly because Wikipedia doesn't even try to be objective anymore, but also because I'm merely reporting, not citing. And I'm not *going* to cite because I'm not interested enough to look up sources about something I myself lived through and observed. It's pretty creepy/amusing that PC ended up winning--at least for now. This entry itself is PC in that it is slanted so heavily to the left...as does so much of Wikipedia. The core of PC, actually, is subordination of truth/evidence to leftist dogma...which is what we see in this entry--and so many others that impinge on matters of interest to the left.

Delete away. I don't so much object to Wikipedia being so overtly leftist--and politically correct--but I do think you should admit it at the top of every page... 204.111.113.40 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing to do here. Specify a meaningful change with reliable sourcing or forever hold your peace. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the RfC tag. IP 49, if you're going to start an RfC, please ensure that your statement is neutral. Please consider suggesting specific improvements here, supported by reliable sources. If local discussion can't come to consensus on them, and RfC or other dispute resolution process might be appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Article for political incorrectness?

I think that because there is an article on political correctness there should perhaps be an article on political incorrectness? This is just a suggestion, what do you guys think? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have articles on bigotry, racism, ageism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, white-supremacism, replacement theory, anti-Romanyism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, xenophobia, etc. Do we need another article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Many people see political correctness as irrational objections to things that aren't in that list. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That topic is still about political correctness; it doesn't explain why we would need an antithetical article to this one. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is pretty tiny, so if anyone wants to write about "political incorrectness", it would make the most sense to start it as a subsection of this articles, since it is clearly a form of reactionary trend that is directly related to the core subject here. If the page size increases, it can be split. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Political incorrectness in my experience largely exists as a 'humourous' reaction to supposed, or actual examples of PC. There is already a mention if I recall of this reaction in the article. What would an incorrectness article be about? A list of supposedly witty parodies of supposed PC? Who has written books about incorrectness as a phenomenon? Nobody AFAIK. PC barely exists - except as a reaction - political incorrectness triple-y so. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty of scholarship about political incorrectness in a non-humourous context, including recently in relation to Donald Trump, so a political incorrectness article could easily be justified, but again, it may be better off nurturing the content here first. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the same subject. Political correctness, to the extent it exists as anything observable at all, only has meaning in relation to what's considered politically incorrect. What exactly would be in the new section that couldn't be covered with the existing structure? Like how unhealthy redirects to health, because one has no meaning without the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Examples?

Why does this article not have any examples? What are these excesses that the “language police” are overzealously condemning people for? This feels like a hollow complaint by people still mad about acknowledging that some women fight fires so we should say “firefighter” instead of “fireman”. Or angry that they get called out for calling people “fag” or “retard” or telling dumb blonde jokes. Why quote complainers without specific examples of what they are complaining about? Tysto (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The only examples of any kind are in the pro-PC quote, "the phrase 'political correctness' was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer.” I came here looking for examples where even I could agree PC culture went too far, but apparently no critic had the guts to specify what words he thought we should keep? Tysto (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you would want this framed, and based on what sources? Koncorde (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

How about the Big Lie? To be politically correct, Republican candidates have to repeat the fiction that the Presidential election was stolen, that the vote was fraudulent and that Trump really won it. That is dangerous nonsense and they know it. So now here is the problem: my opinion isn't worth JS, you still have to find a reliable source that says the same thing, specifically that they are being politically correct to say so and that they have gone too far. Which of course raise the question of the neutrality of the source—how far is too far, says who? So, since it was you who found a deficiency in the article, it is now up to you to repair it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Political correctness isn't some objective phenomenon that some people like and other people don't like. It only exists in the space of criticism. Nobody who says "hey, can you stop calling us [some word] please" considers what they're doing "political correctness". It's only people who want to keep using that word, don't like those sorts of changes in language, or disagree that it's offensive who classify it [derisively] as "political correctness". Much of what pundits decried as "political correctness gone too far" 30 years ago is just "offensive language we don't really use anymore outside of the fringes of society" today. There are certainly times when someone says "hey I don't like it when you say X" and they're not really speaking for any group, misunderstood an etymology, or the objection otherwise just doesn't get much traction amid the inevitable pushback. I suppose those are cases you could say three's more consensus for "going too far", but they probably won't merit inclusion here because they typically only exist as a flash in the pan "get a load of what this whiny person wants you to say" news story, then nobody ever hears about it again. The things that come up frequently enough to get sustained coverage enough for WP:WEIGHT are probably more just "the evolution of language in a society". Sorry, a little forumy, but seemed appropriate for the section... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)