Talk:Political correctness

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? 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: 30 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech High‑importance Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Linguistics High‑importance Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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, use 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.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	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.

Hoover

@Valereee: Regarding this, the Hoover Institution is an independent conservative think tank. It has loose, contentious ties to Stanford, but isn't part of any of its schools/centers. Reports it self-publishes aren't the same as a manuscript being edited and peer reviewed by Stanford University Press. They're just like any report published by e.g. the Cato Institute or, less charitably, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't seem like we're relying on it for anything, and it doesn't seem helpful as an extra ref IMO. The claim that it's an "academic source" just got my attention. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if we don't need it! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found anywhere that the source is available. Likely this means that the citation is not of much practical use to many readers. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we have consensus to remove the citation to Duignan @ Hoover? I don't want to boldly delete it if there is still more to discuss. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero objection to removing the source if there's a question about whether it's reliable based on the fact it's an independent conservative think tank [that] has loose, contentious ties to Stanford University Press. That is different from removing it because it's not on Amazon/Marketplace or isn't currently in print. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the citation to Duignan. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idea to mention Dirtbag left

Should the dirtbag left be brought up? It's a very leftist movement associated with figures like Vaush and the early era of Red Scare (podcast) that shows how being anti-politically correct isn't just a conservative thing. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources we use are academic, a cursory look at the linked article doesn't really have anything substantive to say about 'PC' and merely to record that it is opposed to being 'P.C.', might well be WP:OR and definitely a bit pointless. Nobody is actually in favour of 'P.C.', almost by definition, most commonly, it implies 'excess'. As the article says "the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted". Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normative vs Prescriptive

I can see this article has an extensive TALK history and has at times been contentious, so before diving in I wanted to get some feedback on ideas I had. The lede mentions PC being “generally used as a pejorative”. However I don’t see much discussion of PC as defined (normative language: “we ought to avoid offence”). In other words, where is the discussion of PC *not* being used a pejorative? Mostly the article describes how critics define/use the term or how it is simply a reaction. When someone says “That’s PC gone too far”, they’re criticizing a set of norms. When someone else says “we need PC language”, they're promoting it. I don’t see the article highlighting this distinction clearly.

If anyone agrees, I am willing to do the work necessary. On the other hand, if there is disagreement, I don’t want to waste anyone’s time and am willing to move on to greener pastures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.50.100.12 (talk)

Thing is, it's a pejorative. Sometimes, with a smile, pejoratives are not meant as an insult. But they are still pejoratives. In any cae, we follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the quick feedback, but my contention isn’t necessarily whether or not the term is pejorative. If the term is indeed a pejorative (even when used with a simile in a non-insulting manner), then the lede should make that clear. As it currently stands, the lede says *generally* used as a pejorative. It would seem to follow that the body should describe both pejorative and non-pejorative uses. As far as sourcing is concerned, I have quite a few that are reliable and relevant, but of course consensus decides whether they are DUE. That’s why I wanted to get some feedback before doing any heavy lifting. And let me make something clear, if consensus is happy with the state of the article, I am not looking to upset any applecarts. As I said before, I am willing to edit different articles. I hope the above makes sense. I am aware of the contentious history of the article.

If there are no objections, I can begin work with a section entitled “non-pejorative use”. Alternatively, we could rework the lede so it is more definitive in labeling PC strictly as a pejorative, perhaps notating that the word is not *exclusively* used as an insult, as in the simile example. I’ll hold off until I get a little more feedback. To reiterate: the lede currently states PC being “generally” used as a pejorative. If that’s the case, then the body should corroborate the lede and reference both pejorative and non-pejorative uses. If that’s not the case, no problem, but then the lede needs to be reworked. My only intention is to follow the sources, and to make sure what’s stated in the lede is supported by the body of the article. Slyfamlystone (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When someone else says “we need PC language”, they're promoting it, all the evidence is that no one has ever said that! Not at least since the late 1930's when the term was obscure, confined to communists and their pals and had a clear meaning of 'official party line'. Almost by definition, 'PC' is used to describe situations where the speaker thinks things have gone too far, become absurd or 'tokenistic'. People who wish to use 'gentler' or less offensive/more inclusive terms don't call it 'PC'. If someone prefers to refer to died by suicide, rather than committed suicide, they may use many justifications, but only their critics are likely to refer to their motivation as being 'PC'.

The article is presently based on academic studies, many book length, many tend to be older, because the term has had its hayday, but I think you are going to be hard-pressed to discover academic sources describing positive use. Anecdotally, editors in the past have come up with examples of + use, but we can't use them. Pincrete (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]