The contents of the Bias-free communication page were merged into Inclusive language on 1 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article comes across with a very conservative bent ("most/many people...") and completely lacks citations for anything related to the claims made here about what people are pushing for when they're discussing inclusive language. It ought to be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckat ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the article should mention the possibility a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" may be a manifestation of mental illness? For example: Self-Absorption in the sense that one's own preferences or beliefs must take precedence over those of others.
Does anyone else feel that this article should include a diversity of views on the appropriateness of "Inclusive language" in certain contexts? For example, the section titled "Inclusive Language for People" in this paper "Inclusive Language in Theology & Liturgy". It seems that some of those involved in spiritual matters feel that "Inclusive language" is inappropriate in certain contexts. Should their views be given any weight, or perhaps mentioned in an unbiased article on the subject?
Does anyone else feel that the article should mention a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" could be a manifestation of narcissism?
Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from acknowledging that some are of the opinion that proponents of "Inclusive Language" have gone too far?
Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from a brief discussion of the possibility that diktats prescribing "Inclusive language" may infringe (at least in the US) on First Amendment rights to free speech. Of course the First Amendment applies only to "State Actors", but it may also apply to organizations that receive financial support from the state.
Does anyone else feel that this article should include criticisms of "Inclusive language" from those affected?; for example the criticism that "Inclusive Language" actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help.
Does anyone else feel that this article should attempt to identify actual instances/cases in which "Inclusive language" has provided any benefits at all to any person? If none can be found, should this be mentioned in the article?
Does anyone else feel that instead of a table delineating Examples or Recommendations for Inclusive language, the article should simply state that there are no coherent standards for what constitutes "Inclusive language", and the strictures vary considerably?
Does anybody else feel that the article should mention "Inclusive language" may be viewed by Westerners as politeness with authoritarian overtones? For example, studies have shown that the Chinese have an authoritarian orientation which is distinctly different than many Americans (or Europeans) do. Seen in this light, it seems only natural that some Westerners would prefer the personal freedom and responsibility for exercising their concept of good manners, and resent the autocratic methods favored by some proponents of "Inclusive language".
Does anyone else feel that this article should include a reference to the Wikipedia article on the " Busybody"?
Seamusdemora ( talk) 03:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman: Greetings! Regarding the removal of this article from Category:Political correctness...I added it because as the article itself says, 'often the term "political correctness" is used to refer to this practice'. It seems weird not to have this article in a category that's used as a synonym for the topic. "Political correctness" is not always used with a negative connotation, and certainly this categorization isn't intended to convey any opinion one way or the other. -- Beland ( talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I know people are going to come into this article with low expectations. I've been pleasantly surprised by a lot of articles on WP, but generally I know what to expect. But I'm leaving this comment here mostly so that people can use my timestamp to look up this date in the article's history to see some of the worst use of in-line citations in contemporary WP.
The Think podcast citation cracks me up particularly because it's used seven times in completely different contexts without a timestamp, quote, or attribution. That's a 50-minute-long listen required for verification, by the way. And the citation itself only lists the host as the "author", when it's a round-table with three others. So every reference to this citation could be one of the four talking, it could be all four agreeing, it could be the host talking and all the expert(?) guests vehemently objecting -- if that page rots we would have zero idea.
The article could be rewritten from an academic angle: linguists and psychologists have done actual research for decades into language policing, language sensitivity, language inclusivity, etc.. The article could be rewritten from a political angle: politicians have grand-standed and governments have passed laws, again for decades, regarding the use and misuse of language in culture. Basically the article could be anything that is completely different from what it is now and be better. SamuelRiv ( talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KoolKat1031 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jd34087n, Alexisellise.
— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Reading over the article I found a few issues with the list of supposedly non-inclusive language and the supposedly more inclusive synonyms proposed as replacements.
Basically, we need a disclaimer that says that not every advocate of “inclusive language” agrees with every thing on the lists of possibly non-inclusive words. We also need to make it clear that some words are only non-inclusive in certain contexts (For example: Calling a person from India an Indian is different then calling a Native American an Indian. Same with Citizen, say when discussing who can legally vote, or refuge when talking about war refugees seeking refugee status under international law). The term Patient isn’t viewed a not inclusive in all contexts such as a doctor talking about their own patients/clients so far as I know. There is also the issue as to whether an individual or group of oppressed people can agree to allow a term others in that group argue to non-inclusive. Can a group of married women allow others to call them Mrs or a mixed sex group be Ok with “you guys” over “you all”? Can a female homemaker self-refer themselves as housewife? Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Articles seem to have identical scope. Daask ( talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the Bias-free communication page were merged into Inclusive language on 1 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article comes across with a very conservative bent ("most/many people...") and completely lacks citations for anything related to the claims made here about what people are pushing for when they're discussing inclusive language. It ought to be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckat ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the article should mention the possibility a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" may be a manifestation of mental illness? For example: Self-Absorption in the sense that one's own preferences or beliefs must take precedence over those of others.
Does anyone else feel that this article should include a diversity of views on the appropriateness of "Inclusive language" in certain contexts? For example, the section titled "Inclusive Language for People" in this paper "Inclusive Language in Theology & Liturgy". It seems that some of those involved in spiritual matters feel that "Inclusive language" is inappropriate in certain contexts. Should their views be given any weight, or perhaps mentioned in an unbiased article on the subject?
Does anyone else feel that the article should mention a preoccupation with "Inclusive language" could be a manifestation of narcissism?
Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from acknowledging that some are of the opinion that proponents of "Inclusive Language" have gone too far?
Does anyone else feel that the article would benefit from a brief discussion of the possibility that diktats prescribing "Inclusive language" may infringe (at least in the US) on First Amendment rights to free speech. Of course the First Amendment applies only to "State Actors", but it may also apply to organizations that receive financial support from the state.
Does anyone else feel that this article should include criticisms of "Inclusive language" from those affected?; for example the criticism that "Inclusive Language" actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help.
Does anyone else feel that this article should attempt to identify actual instances/cases in which "Inclusive language" has provided any benefits at all to any person? If none can be found, should this be mentioned in the article?
Does anyone else feel that instead of a table delineating Examples or Recommendations for Inclusive language, the article should simply state that there are no coherent standards for what constitutes "Inclusive language", and the strictures vary considerably?
Does anybody else feel that the article should mention "Inclusive language" may be viewed by Westerners as politeness with authoritarian overtones? For example, studies have shown that the Chinese have an authoritarian orientation which is distinctly different than many Americans (or Europeans) do. Seen in this light, it seems only natural that some Westerners would prefer the personal freedom and responsibility for exercising their concept of good manners, and resent the autocratic methods favored by some proponents of "Inclusive language".
Does anyone else feel that this article should include a reference to the Wikipedia article on the " Busybody"?
Seamusdemora ( talk) 03:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman: Greetings! Regarding the removal of this article from Category:Political correctness...I added it because as the article itself says, 'often the term "political correctness" is used to refer to this practice'. It seems weird not to have this article in a category that's used as a synonym for the topic. "Political correctness" is not always used with a negative connotation, and certainly this categorization isn't intended to convey any opinion one way or the other. -- Beland ( talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I know people are going to come into this article with low expectations. I've been pleasantly surprised by a lot of articles on WP, but generally I know what to expect. But I'm leaving this comment here mostly so that people can use my timestamp to look up this date in the article's history to see some of the worst use of in-line citations in contemporary WP.
The Think podcast citation cracks me up particularly because it's used seven times in completely different contexts without a timestamp, quote, or attribution. That's a 50-minute-long listen required for verification, by the way. And the citation itself only lists the host as the "author", when it's a round-table with three others. So every reference to this citation could be one of the four talking, it could be all four agreeing, it could be the host talking and all the expert(?) guests vehemently objecting -- if that page rots we would have zero idea.
The article could be rewritten from an academic angle: linguists and psychologists have done actual research for decades into language policing, language sensitivity, language inclusivity, etc.. The article could be rewritten from a political angle: politicians have grand-standed and governments have passed laws, again for decades, regarding the use and misuse of language in culture. Basically the article could be anything that is completely different from what it is now and be better. SamuelRiv ( talk) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KoolKat1031 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jd34087n, Alexisellise.
— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Reading over the article I found a few issues with the list of supposedly non-inclusive language and the supposedly more inclusive synonyms proposed as replacements.
Basically, we need a disclaimer that says that not every advocate of “inclusive language” agrees with every thing on the lists of possibly non-inclusive words. We also need to make it clear that some words are only non-inclusive in certain contexts (For example: Calling a person from India an Indian is different then calling a Native American an Indian. Same with Citizen, say when discussing who can legally vote, or refuge when talking about war refugees seeking refugee status under international law). The term Patient isn’t viewed a not inclusive in all contexts such as a doctor talking about their own patients/clients so far as I know. There is also the issue as to whether an individual or group of oppressed people can agree to allow a term others in that group argue to non-inclusive. Can a group of married women allow others to call them Mrs or a mixed sex group be Ok with “you guys” over “you all”? Can a female homemaker self-refer themselves as housewife? Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Articles seem to have identical scope. Daask ( talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)