Talk:Political correctness

I’ve added a short subsection summarizing a well-sourced example of institutional language-guidance policies that have been discussed in wider UK press in the specific context of political correctness.

The 2017 Cardiff Metropolitan University case was covered by BBC News, The Independent, and The Telegraph, all in neutral reporting that explicitly framed the guidance within debates about political correctness in higher education.

The goal is not to highlight the episode as uniquely important, but to illustrate - briefly and proportionally - how institutional language guidelines are cited in public discussions of political correctness. I intentionally kept this very concise and placed it to maintain continuity with other descriptive (not evaluative) elements of the article. Slyfamlystone (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Because of its relative obscurity, which you acknowledge, and the fact that their actually was little debate (was reported by BBC News, The Independent, and The Telegraph as part of broader debates about political correctness in UK higher education.), I wonder whether it warrants inclusion.

Pure WP:OR, but I note that the Indy and BBC both report 'bans', whereas their actual articles and the policies themselves make clear that nothing was actually banned, rather suggested (“Blind people do use terms like ‘see you later’ and being too careful can make conversation difficult for both parties.” it says)

I'm not sure what I find sillier, that a University would feel the need to put itself in the firing line and make itself look ridiculous by producing such a specific code, (rather than a generalised statement about 'respectful language'), that the University should feel that students in 2017 should need these specific suggestions (how many 2017 students would even know what a 'charlady' was? How many have not encountered/addressed women in leading roles or male cleaners), or that the papers should still be reporting this and framing it in terms of 'bans'. Pincrete (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The “debate” wording can certainly be changed.I have no issue with changing “debates” to “discussions” or something similar. If there are suggestions you have for improving the section, by all means let’s discuss them. Additionally I realize this is a UK centric example, and can see how it might be considered obscure for readers in the USA. On the other hand, both the BBC and the Telegraph are highly regarded and well-known even in the states. Perhaps we can add an additional US-centric example, provided it is well-sourced and due. I am still reading additional texts on the subject, and should be able to craft an example that is both well-sourced and discussed in the specific context of political correctness in the USA if you think that will add clarity. Slyfamlystone (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I am surprised at a number of things, firstly the foolishness of the institution in getting so specific. Secondly their seeming disconnect from the ordinary 2025 speech of 18-year olds, most of whom will have grown up with relatively gender-neutral speech (who uses 'forefathers' except in poetic/historic contexts? who hasn't come across 'chair' to refer to the generic person running a meeting, 'head' or 'headteacher' for the generic person running a school). Lastly news sources still running the tired old 'language bans' story. Very foolish though the the university was to devise such a specific and out-of-date code, it wasn't banning anything.

I myself don't object to the addition, since it is typical of the kind of debate that went on 30-ish years ago when the whole PC debate unfolded. Someone else might though and they would probably be right. Pincrete (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Minor point of contention: the university did indeed prohibit the language per it’s speech code via imposing sanctions/disciplinary procedures on students who failed to adhere to the code, as referenced by The Independent. Additionally, the code itself states clearly: "This Code of Practice applies across all areas of Cardiff Metropolitan University activity including academic delivery, assessment opportunities, goods and services and staff/student interaction. Should individuals consider that in the course of interaction with students or staff that this Code has not been adhered to and that further action is required, there are two courses of action.  For students please refer to the Bullying and Harassment Policy.  For staff members the Disciplinary procedure applies, as it does in the event of students talking inappropriately to staff” (emphasis mine) Slyfamlystone (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but the fact that they have a disciplinary code which requires respectful language between/about university members, doesn't mean that using the specific words on this list is itself punishable (I think we'd all agree that their are racist and sexist terms which should never be used to refer to others in a university. Should calling your lecturer a 'cunt' or a fellow student a 'Paki' not be censurable?)

But I"m still surprised at their foolishness in tying that code to the specificity of the list, which invites ridicule. I suspect that the likelihood of any student or academic being censured for referring to a 'policeman' (especially if it referred to an individual male), rather than 'police officer' was about zero. Ditto most of the other terms on that list which offer clumsy, simplistic, and out of date advice, I don't remember starting a letter 'Dear Sir or Madam' for donkey's years and I'm a good deal less modern than most of the targets of this advice!Pincrete (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m afraid we are talking past each other once again. Allow me to respectfully clarify. I think part of the disconnect here is that two distinct policies are being conflated. Cardiff Met, like any university, already had a general disciplinary framework covering harassment, bullying, and the use of slurs toward staff or students. That framework exists independently of the 2017 document.

The issue at hand is the separate 2017 text titled “Code of Practice on using Inclusive Language.”This Code is not the same thing as the university’s ordinary disciplinary rules about abusive language. The Code explicitly states that:

"This Code of Practice applies across all areas of Cardiff Metropolitan University activity…Should individuals consider that this Code has not been adhered to… For students please refer to the Bullying and Harassment Policy. For staff members the Disciplinary procedure applies…”

I’ve included a copy of the text of the code, including the appendix, on my user page. The key point is that the university itself ties non-adherence to this specific Code to formal disciplinary procedures. That makes the Code a binding behavioural policy rather than a set of optional guidelines. The existence of a broader disciplinary code for slurs doesn’t negate this; it simply means Cardiff Met had two mechanisms - a general one (for harassment) and this more specific one (for inclusive language).

This is also why national outlets such as the BBC, The Independent, and The Telegraph reported it in the context of language “bans” or restrictions. Not because every item on the appendix would necessarily trigger a sanction, but because the university formally presented the document as a Code of Practice with consequences for non-adherence, rather than as a voluntary leaflet of suggestions.

The intent of including the example in the article isn’t to overemphasize its importance, but to show how institutional language-guidance policies have featured in wider public discussions of political correctness.

Slyfamlystone (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If true, which it seems to be, the University is a king-sized ass. Legally and in ordinary public perception, the ass would almost certainly get itself into a lot of hot water (including legally and with its own staff and students) if it tried to censure anyone for using any of the 'proscribed' terms (eg failing to refer to 'same-sex' relationships, rather than 'homosexual' ones (what's wrong gay/lesbian ones?)). But we are both well off-topic here. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Turns outit isn't true. You don't make the distinction between the (censurable if sufficiently serious) business of breaking the university 'respect' code and using words on a list of suggestions for greater inclusivity (we can presumably agree that certain words that are abusive, including sexist terms,(slag, tart bint etc), racist terms (Paki, Nigger Chinkie, Yid etc) or which offensively describe a disabled person (Spaz etc) are lefitimately outlawed in pretty much any civilised place, including academia). Not only is it never stated as being censurable for not using the 'approved terms', but it explicitly states "In recognising that terminology can change frequently a list of suggestions is available as an appendix to this policy. This list will be reviewed and kept updated as far as possible. There is no way that 'making a suggestion' can be construed as 'implementing a ban'.

I still think the list is foolish in its specificity, patronising to most 2025 students, out of date and simplistic (how else does someone say "I prefer to see a woman doctor if possible" except by referring to the doctor's sex?). But the specific terms on the list were never banned!Pincrete (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think the difference here is not about the text itself but the inference we each draw from how it is structured. Cardiff Met, like any university, already had a general disciplinary framework covering abusive, racist and sexist terms toward staff or students. That framework exists independently of the 2017 document.

I agree that the appendix terms (“housewife,” “manpower,” etc.) are presented as suggestions, and I am not claiming that Cardiff Met was literally banning each word. The policy itself calls them a list of suggestions, and I have never argued otherwise.

The issue concerns the status of the Code as a whole. The document explicitly places adherence to the Code within the university’s conduct framework:

“This Code of Practice applies across all areas of Cardiff Metropolitan University activity… Should individuals consider that this Code has not been adhered to… For staff the Disciplinary procedure applies; for students please refer to the Bullying and Harassment Policy.”

Because the expectations about inclusive language form part of the Code itself, non-adherence to the principles laid out (such as avoiding outdated terminology or gendered assumptions) is formally linked to the university’s disciplinary mechanisms. That is the basis on which national outlets (BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph) covered this as a binding institutional standard rather than a purely optional leaflet. Their reporting framed it as part of a broader discussion about perceived linguistic restrictions in universities, not because every specific term would trigger a sanction, but because the Code was formally presented as a behavioural standard backed by disciplinary pathways.

In the article, the example isn’t being used to make any claim stronger than what the sources themselves reported: that Cardiff Met’s 2017 language guidance attracted national press coverage and entered public debate as an illustration of institutional efforts to regulate inclusive language.

If you think any nuance needs refining so that we reflect the sources with maximum accuracy, I’m happy to adjust. The sourcing itself, though, appears solid. As always, your thoughtful engagement is appreciated. These discussions are helpful for me in better understanding WP policy. Slyfamlystone (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, but we've been conducting a conversation about the nature of this single university's 'list', and to an extent media coverage of it, I should have taken the discussion off the article talk page.

This 'list' incident was so trivial and the coverage so thin (a single comment from a known opponent of such language codes - an academic herself and educational correspondent for 'Spiked' was all that was in the 'Indy'), (I didn't read Telegraph-££) - that the text about prompting "a broader conversation about political correctness in UK higher education" or "discussion among commentators and academics about whether such measures represented reasonable linguistic modernization or unnecessary overcorrection" is hyper-inflating what actually happened, and I said that another editor would probably remove it on DUE WEIGHT grounds and possibly SYNTH-ing an interpretation of what happened. I also said that they would probably be right to remove.

In fact I failed to notice an even more basic flaw, that neither the BBC nor Indy mention 'PC' at all, so the incident isn't typical of anything and doesn't belong here.

I realise that you never saw this incident as particularly significant, more exemplary of the kind of discussion that took place around PC language/language codes, but adding what an editor thinks is a good example, isn't how WP works. Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

In keeping with the previous TALK section, I’d like to add a short, neutrally phrased subsection in the "Public perceptions and self-censorship” section summarizing the findings of a 2018 Hidden Tribes report regarding public attitudes toward political correctness. This study is widely cited in major U.S. media outlets (including The Atlantic, NPR, Salon, National Review, Business Insider) and includes both quantitative survey data and qualitative interviews. The proposed text summarizes only the directly supported empirical findings, without interpretation or added analysis.

Draft text for review:

Several nationally reported studies conducted in the late 2010s examined public attitudes toward political correctness in the United States. One of the most widely cited was the 2018 Hidden Tribes report, a large-scale survey of more than 8,000 Americans published by the research group More in Common. The study found that a substantial majority of respondents - across age, racial, and political groups - agreed with the statement that “political correctness is a problem in our country.”{{cite report | title = Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape | url = https://hiddentribes.us/media/qfpekz4g/hidden_tribes_report.pdf | publisher = More in Common | date = 2018 | access-date = 24 November 2025}}

In follow-up interviews and focus groups, participants offered varied interpretations of the term. Many associated political correctness with social pressure to use precise or updated terminology, and with a perceived risk that an inadvertent or unfamiliar word choice could lead to social criticism or sanction. The report emphasized that the survey itself did not define the term for respondents, and therefore the findings primarily reflect public perceptions of the concept, rather than a single, agreed-upon definition.{{cite report | title = Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape | url = https://hiddentribes.us/media/qfpekz4g/hidden_tribes_report.pdf | publisher = More in Common | date = 2018 | access-date = 24 November 2025}}

Media coverage of the survey - across outlets including The Atlantic, NPR, National Review, Salon, and Business Insider - focused on the distinction between academic definitions of political correctness and the ways ordinary language users understand the phenomenon, often emphasizing widespread concerns about excessive or restrictive norms around acceptable speech.{{cite news | last=Friedman | first=Zach | title=America’s Hidden Tribes | newspaper=The Atlantic | date=2018 | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/ | access-date=24 November 2025}}

I’m happy to revise wording or placement as needed. Slyfamlystone (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Asking fellow editors to please comment on the above edit before I make changes to the article. Slyfamlystone (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone’s willingness to work with my contributions so far. I feel there is a much more logical flow to the article now, I hope others agree. My next proposed change is a minor one:

Proposed change:

Replace the clunky opening phrasing “is a term used to describe” with “refers to”, so that the first sentence reads:

Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated “P.C.”) refers to language, policies, or measures intended to avoid perceived offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

Rationale:

This is a small wording improvement that aligns the opening with several relevant style guidelines:

WP:REFERS - discourages “is a term used to…” constructions in ledes, favoring direct explanations of the concept.

WP:NOTDICTIONARY - ledes should summarize the topic rather than define a term in a dictionary-style manner.

WP:LEDE - recommends concise, straightforward statements of what the topic is, rather than meta-descriptions of how the term is used.

Consistency with comparative articles: Other sociopolitical concept pages (e.g., identity politics, populism, affirmative action) use “refers to…” formulations.

The proposed wording does not alter meaning or emphasis. It merely replaces a meta-definition with a more direct, encyclopedic phrasing while preserving all existing citations and structure.

Unless there are objections, I plan to make this small copyedit shortly. — Slyfamlystone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I object. See discussions above. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me, Pokerplayer513, but I don’t see the discussions you are referring to. I also admit being puzzled at your recent reversions. Would you care to discuss them here? — Slyfamlystone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Could editors please discuss any comments or objections they may have on the above edit? Slyfamlystone (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Restoring public-opinion material removed without policy-based justification

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all - I’d like to revisit the recent removal of the “Public opinion and perceptions in the United States” subsection. The editor who reverted did not provide a policy-based rationale for the removal, instead leaving the edit summary: →Public opinion and perceptions in the United States: this entire section is based on the editors interpretation of one source, Hidden Trides. WP:UNDUE In actuality, the content was fully sourced to secondary, high-quality, reliable outlets (More in Common, The Atlantic, NPR, National Review, Salon, Business Insider). Under WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, I believe material supported by reliable sources should remain unless there is a content-policy reason for excluding it. A few points for clarity: Undue weight: The material summarized widespread national polling and major media coverage. The sources are mainstream, widely cited, and directly relevant to how the term “political correctness” is used and perceived in public discourse. This aligns with existing sections of the article that discuss contemporary use of the term. Original research: All statements were directly attributed to published sources, with no synthesis beyond what those sources explicitly state. Balance: The section did not advance a viewpoint, but summarized empirical survey results and reporting across outlets with differing editorial perspectives. Relevance: Public perception of the term is a central component of the topic as currently defined in the lede, and is discussed in comparable articles about social concepts and cultural terminology. Unless there is a specific policy issue that someone can point to (e.g., a sourcing problem, an NPOV issue, or a WP:SYNTH concern), I plan to restore the section so that the article reflects the full breadth of high-quality secondary sources. If anyone believes the material violates a particular content policy, please cite the relevant policy so we can address it directly. Thanks! Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Restoring public-opinion material removed without policy-based justification

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somepinkdude I’d like to keep the discussion focused on content policies, not the broader meta-conversation about how editors should research topics. Whether people personally approve of LLMs isn’t to my understanding a content guideline on Wikipedia. What matters under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR is: Are the claims based on high-quality reliable sources? Are they presented with appropriate attribution? Are we avoiding synthesis beyond what those sources explicitly say? Is the material given appropriate weight relative to its prominence in reliable secondary sources? The material I added is fully supported by mainstream, high-quality publications (More in Common, The Atlantic, NPR, Salon, National Review, Business Insider). Nothing in the edits relied on any AI-assitance, AI-generated facts or unsourced assertions - everything is tied directly to RS citations - you can easily verify this for yourself. As an aside I am a semi-retired adjunct professor who has personally used ChatGPT on occasion, but not when editing. I actually enjoy wikipedia and find it to be an interesting hobby. If there is a specific policy-based issue with any statement (that it misrepresents a source, gives UNDUE weight, violates NPOV, etc.), please point to the exact line and the applicable policy. I’m happy to adjust accordingly. Absent a concrete policy concern, the material should remain per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, since reliably sourced content shouldn’t be removed without a policy rationale. Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Slyfamlystone Please do not use an AI language model to make edits. There are several obvious issues in your response that indicate it could only have been made by an AI, such as mentioning RS. Why would you need reliable sources for a talk page comment? Please read WP:AITALK before you post another talk page comment. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the removal above - there was a collapse box with a message saying “Text generated by a large language model has been collapsed…”. Actually this brings up an interesting topic, is using an LLM allowed?? Does wikipedia have any sort of guidance or training modules on it’s use? I was only aware that there wasnt any policy based reasons for removal, but now I am curious about using an LLM as a tool. Is there a specific guideline or preferably some kind of wikipedia based LLM training you can point me to? Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime I will refrain from reintroducing the reverted edits. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss on the TALK page. Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no LLM training on Wikipedia for a rather obvious reason: AI usage is strongly discouraged in mainspace (where thourough human fact-checking is required), and officially against the rules in talk pages, which is why your comments got collapsed. If you want to experiment with AI tools, I would suggest creating a draft article, checking over it yourself and passing it through Articles for Creation. However, I would advise against using LLMs before you have a strong track record of non-AI editing, as editors typically revert AI-looking edits by newcomers. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood. As I mentioned, I am not currently using an LLM and am surprised my edits would be flagged as such. However, I understand anyone in my position would be expected to respond the same way. I am not sure what recourse is available to “prove” I am not utilizing AI for my edits - TALK page or otherwise.

In the meantime, as I mentioned, I would like the opportunity to discuss recent reversions to the article. Do you have an objection to my opening a TALK page discussion? Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You've already done so- this is such. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OK Ill try again: Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)