This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFreedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is part ofWikiProject Gender studies. ThisWikiProject 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 theproject page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
The subject of this article iscontroversial 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 aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
Political correctness is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed.
@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. —Rhododendritestalk \\18:00, 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 anindependent 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]
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 beWP: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]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by76.50.100.12 (talk)
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 todied by suicide, rather thancommitted 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 withexamples of + use, but we can't use them.Pincrete (talk)04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with youuser:Pincrete. The term itself is often, maybe exclusively, used as a pejorative. Perhaps the lede should be updated to state this, particularly if there is nothing in the body (ie no reliable sources) supporting non-pejorative use. I was also thinking perhaps the article could benefit from a small section on the tension between the term, and the underlying phenomena. I am currently reading a book on this very topic, one I would highly recommend, as it is relatively recent (2010): Geoffrey Hughes – Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. When I finish reading it, I’ll add a section on this tension in my sandbox, you can take a look at let me know what you think.Slyfamlystone (talk)23:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One book is not likely to be useful here. As for tension on the use of the term; my own reading of reliable sources indicates the term is usually used to express frustration by people who believe they have a right to freely express racism, religious/sexuality, bigotry, and/or misogyny without any negative feedback. But then I haven't read everything.O3000, Ret. (talk)00:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term itself is often, maybe exclusively, used as a pejorative. Perhaps the lede should be updated to state this, particularly if there is nothing in the body (ie no reliable sources) supporting non-pejorative use. It was quite some years ago now, but a fairly long, hard fought RfC established"generally pejorative". Even though the article doesn't explore non-pejorative use(larely because it isn't much written about), the majority of RfC-ers felt that such use shouldn't be absolutely excluded. Also humourous and ironic use is not-quite-pejorative!Pincrete (talk)05:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps something like "the term’s use is almost exclusively pejorative, humourous, or ironic in nature” - provided this is supported by sourcing. Obviously someone can improve on my wording, but you get the idea. We shouldn’t have an unsourced assertion in the lede, and as it stands the lede says the term is *generally* (meaning not exclusively) pejorative. If there are currently sources in the article exploring non-pejorative use, then let’s expand that aspect of the article. If not, fine, but then we should update the lede. Not my intention to be pedantic, just trying to follow process.Slyfamlystone (talk)05:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section narrows and moralizes the definition of political correctness
> The current lead defines political correctness as“language, policies, or measures intended to avoid offence or disadvantage to members of particular groups.”
This formulation presents two issues of scope and neutrality that I believe should be addressed under Wikipedia’s NPOV and Verifiability policies.
---
1. Historical breadth not reflected
Political correctness originated in Marxist–Leninist discourse of the early 20th century as a demand for adherence to the Communist Party line, where deviation from the “correct” political ideology warranted correction.– See: Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims (1981); Tony Judt, Past Imperfect (1992); Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “politically correct.”
The phrase was used semi-humorously among Western Marxists by the 1930s–1970s to critique their own ideological rigidity, and only later—through U.S. campus debates of the late 1980s—did it acquire its modern association with language about minority or marginalized groups.– See: Geoffrey Hughes, Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture (2010); Deborah Cameron, Verbal Hygiene (1995).
The lead currently omits this continuity, leaving readers with the impression that political correctness originated as a late-20th-century social-justice concept. This is historically incomplete.
---
2. Conceptual narrowing
In practice, “political correctness” has been applied well beyond identity politics—to describe any setting where institutions enforce linguistic or behavioral conformity for political, diplomatic, corporate, or ideological reasons.Examples include:– State rhetoric in totalitarian regimes (Hollander 1981);– Bureaucratic or corporate “approved language” policies (Cameron 1995; Allan & Burridge, Forbidden Words, 2006);– Diplomatic or public-relations speech codes designed to avoid controversy (Hughes 2010).
Thus, the phenomenon concerns enforced conformity to sanctioned norms—not solely protection of vulnerable groups.
---
3. Neutral-point-of-view concern
By centering the moral goal of “avoiding offence or disadvantage,” the lead implicitly attributes ownership of the term to a specific moral ideology (modern progressivism). This framing introduces evaluative language (“avoid offence,” “disadvantage”) that reads as justification rather than description and understates the broader institutional and political dimensions documented in reliable sources.
---
4. Suggested neutral lead definition
> Political correctness refers to language, behavior, or policy constrained by institutional or social norms designed to preserve legitimacy, harmony, or authority within a political or cultural context. The term historically described ideological conformity within political movements and later came to denote efforts—especially in academia and media—to avoid expressions perceived as offensive or exclusionary.
This version (a) retains modern inclusivity contexts, (b) restores historical origins, and (c) removes implicit moral endorsement, aligning the article with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
---
Proposed action:– Revise the first paragraph of the lead accordingly.– Add or restore references from Hollander 1981, Judt 1992, Cameron 1995, Hughes 2010, and Allan & Burridge 2006 to support the broader, historically continuous meaning.95.198.44.198 (talk)07:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term had a number of uses prior to the 1980s, Hughes says originating in Maoist use, others Politburo use denoting "the Party line". All agree that it acquired ironic use in the Anglosphere, commenting on that doctrinaire way of thinking and continued to be used ironically into the 1960s and 1970s, by then, mostly among 'new left' again gently mocking excessively doctrinaire positions.
All this is recorded, but the article is mainly about the 'modern'(post late-1980s) use. This is when the term entered the mainstream of English use. The prior uses are obscure, confined to political minorities, little written about and would not warrant a WP article. Your proposals bear little relationship to the actual history of use of the term, nor to sourced definitionsPincrete (talk)12:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
