user1590: I have seen a number of questions in my time as a biology SE member which could cause offence because they use language which some people could take offence to. Generally if this is pointed out the OP is happy to change it/ happy for someone to edit it to change it to something more appropriate (which is something I have done before). Other times they are rapidly closed. But sometimes the OP takes it as a personal attack and refuses to change terminology, what should be done about posts in that case? Obviously we could edit them ourselves but that leaves us likely to bear the effects of revenge down-voting and harmful editing of our own previous posts which would erode the usefulness of this site.
Potential hot topics include gender, sexuality, race, disabilities, and drugs. These are likely to occur in questions on biology SE because often people have biological questions about them, but sometimes they use inappropriate, naive, or outdated terminology in their posts.
Recently I got in to a discussion about the use of the term "race" and the distinctions the OP made. I believe their use of the term and classifications they made were purely a naive innocent mistake but they seem to have taken offence to several users politely pointing this out to them. I pointed the OP to this article about the use of the term race and races they defined, which states that:

"Use of the terms race and ethnicity in the scientific literature,
including the ARCHIVES, can at times be troublesome because of the
impreciseness of the definitions, the historical implications of the
words, and the lack of any scientific basis for their meaning. The
terms denoting the races were arbitrary definitions with origins in
19th-century biological determinism. For example, the word Caucasian
to denote a population was an invention of Blumenbach in 1795. He
believed that the people of the Caucasus mountains in the current
Republic of Georgia were the most beautiful on earth and gave the name
of this region to the population that he felt was closest to the
original ideal."
"Ceasing to analyze data blindly by race or ethnicity
is not an attempt to be politically correct, but rather doing so
brings us closer to the underlying biological science on which
medicine, and our care for patients, is firmly rooted."

Since doing so they have had further communication from other users and ignored the given reference by continuing with their stance. So how do we deal with posts in this category?

user-1: Even though I was trying to keep out of this discussion, something compelled me to weigh in on the discussion.
I'll disclaimer this from the outset and say, I am vastly politically incorrect all the time - so my points are not remotely related to any notions thereof.
Just a few ideas/points:
Derfder:  why not just replace the word 'race' with 'phenotype'?  This is an international site (I am from Australia for example), and while, granted, in some places, the term 'race' is still used - in some other areas of the world, the term phenotype is largely used.  
Also, yes, it cannot be denied that a lot of people consider the term 'race' as a repugnant term in reference to people. But, that is not my argument, nor it seems, the moderators/members here's argument either.
If I can be blunt(ish) - is your persistence on using the term 'race' a matter of stubborn pride? (and I am not saying that this is a negative thing, I have this quality too).  Why not just use the accepted term 'phenotype'?

user3624: This is too long for a comment, but is in response to Derfder's post.

First, nice to see some actual discussion of the issue, instead of deflection. Second, nobody is arguing that there is no genetic or morphological differences of any kind between people coming different parts of the world. Your underlying question has validity, the problem in how it is phrased.
An essential part of science is a precise language, otherwise the discussion is meaningless and there is a large chance for pointless misunderstandings. 'Race' is anything but a precise concept and multiple definitions exist (just reading the wikipedia page Race (human classification) that you are referring to should provide ample evidence why the concept is problematic). To add to this are the highly charged historical roots of the term. In the original discussion you were asked to specify what defintion you are referring to, and why it is essential to use race in this case, when other more suitable labels exist, but you didn't respond. The stubborness to reconsider the term 'race', and not even justify it, only comes of as ignorant and, to me, is similar to people that refuse to stop using the word nigger just because they dont mean anything bad by it. 
As for the case of forensic anthropology, I would flip the question and ask why they as a field feel the need to keep an antiquated syntax when the rest of science has moved on. I'm not arguing that they cannot often assign a geographical ancestry to a corpse, but this is irrespective of the concept of race. A number of other terms would do just as fine, and 'human population' or 'geographic ancestry' are two terms that comes to mind. The specific issue here is that 'race' implies many things that are simply false when it comes to human populations (e.g. a taxonomy, hierarchy, and a shared common ancestry of 'races'), and it is therefore a misleading concept to use.
Also, your wolf example is irrelevant since we are not arguing about the concept of 'race' in biology in general (which also has multiple definitions and is therefore vague), only in relation to human populations.
I have looked at @Derfder SE-profile, and with his background of numerous downvoted questions on controversial issues in multiple SE-sites I'm (personally) considering that this could be a case of a SE-troll. 

user1590: N.B. I have posted this as an answer to my own question because I think it is helpful for future similar situations, if it gets a few upvotes I will accept it so it appears as the first post under the question.
Suggestions for title of the original question would also be helpful so people looking for this sort of guide in the future can find it easily, could you comment with suggestions with suitable key words

So I think there has been considerable lengthy discussion now but a general consensus seems to be building. As a result I propose that the "answer" to this question would be to describe the steps to take in response to such situations. 
I suggest we guide users to do the following when they encounter a post entry they do not agree with: 
Step 1. Downvote the post (if felt necessary), leave a comment on the post pointing out why they think an edit is necessary, whilst also attempting to offer a solution and supporting evidence for their claims. 
Step 2. The OP then has the opportunity to either present a counter argument or edit the original post. 
Step 3. The community can then judge the response and should take one of the next three actions; 
1) accept the OP's counter arguments or edits and upvote the question/remove the downvote 
2) edit the original post to a state that pleases them 
3) vote to close the post to encourage the OP to edit the post
Step 4. If the aforementioned steps do not solve the problem, or cause new ones which can't be solved with editing, then flag the post for moderation and pass an explanation to the moderators. 
Avoid lengthy, and potentially fraught, discussions in the comments on the main biologySE site or on chat - keeping it in an open forum using the meta section & commenting there will help to give the moderators & community the best chance of coming to a rational, well informed decision.
Caveats: If any users become aggressive, abusive, or start damaging the site maliciously, users should report them immediately to moderators and avoid getting further involved. This includes attacks on peoples ability & education, impression of their political motivations (sexism, racism, agism etc.), or plain spiteful verbal abuse. Moderators may decide to suspend the user's account.

From the help pages:

"What kind of behavior is expected of users?
We’re excited to have you here, but we do ask that you follow a few
  guidelines when participating on our network.
Be honest.
Above all, be honest. If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add
  comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong. Provide better
  answers of your own. Last but not least, edit and improve the existing
  questions and answers! By doing these things, you are helping keep
  Stack Exchange a great place to share knowledge of our craft.
While you’re doing all of those things, we also require that you...
Be nice.
Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated.
  Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you
  because we’re all here to learn, together. Be tolerant of others who
  may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.
Please note that expletives are not allowed. If you use expletives on
  this site, you may be issued a warning or a suspension."


user3624: Well, I'm part of the discussion you are referring to, so I sympathise with your question. In this and other cases, what I find most annoying is the lack of interest to discuss the basis and assumptions behind the posed question. To me, this suggests a lack of interest for a scientifically based answer/discussion. One of the core aims of bio-SE (and SE in general) is to produce well-formed, scientifically based and scientifically interesting questions, and if the basis of the question is not up for discussion this is a failure to me. Bio-SE does not (should not) exist simply to entertain the personal views of contributors, and everybody must expect to defend their premises with relevant arguments and references. To be clear; I don't have any problem with disagreement and opposing views, but these must follow from a coherent argument and backed up by something. Otherwise they are off-topic. In many cases relevant counterarguments or suggestions are just deflected or igored. In the case you are referring to not one of the suggestions or objections to the original question is met with a relevant and substantial answer.
Edit: And to clarify; I don't think this is a PC-specific issue, but the problem will often arise in questions and answers that can be interpreted as PC/non-PC. In my mind, the general problem is a lack of honest and scientifically meaningful discussion. I've encountered the same thing in questions on aspects of evolution, where it is obvious that the poster is not looking for an scientifically based answer, but simply a platform to state that evoluton is false.

user6: I'm going to close the question, editing it into shape is not an option as the author disagrees with the fundamental premise that the question needs to be framed differently. I also can't really let the community close it in this case as the bounty prevents any close votes anyway. But my impression here is that a majority considers the question problematic. The question also received a lot of flags.
Now, I actually see two different issues with the question. The first issues has been discussed here, race is widely considered as not a useful criterium in genetics and the way it is used in this question is considered offensive by some. 
The issue here is not political correctness, but correct biology and professionalism. In this case the terminology can reflect negatively on our site as a whole. 
Another issue I have with the question is that it contains no motivation for asking the question at all. Just asking "Is there a difference in X between Y groups" without any indication why you suspect there is one is not a good question in my opinion. I don't see how this question can further any understanding of biology or how it could be useful.
This decision is not necessarily final, as we don't have any well-developed policies on this matter. But I also don't want to leave this question open and bounties, immune from closure by the community.

1590: <p>I have seen a number of questions in my time as a biology SE member which could cause offence because they use language which some people could take offence to. Generally if this is pointed out the OP is happy to change it/ happy for someone to edit it to change it to something more appropriate (which is something I have done before). Other times they are rapidly closed. <strong>But sometimes the OP takes it as a personal attack and refuses to change terminology, what should be done about posts in that case?</strong> Obviously we could edit them ourselves but that leaves us likely to bear the effects of revenge down-voting and harmful editing of our own previous posts which would erode the usefulness of this site.</p>
<p>Potential hot topics include gender, sexuality, race, disabilities, and drugs. These are likely to occur in questions on biology SE because often people have biological questions about them, but sometimes they use inappropriate, naive, or outdated terminology in their posts.</p>
<p>Recently <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/8885/do-all-human-races-mature-at-the-same-rate">I got in to a discussion</a> about the use of the term &quot;race&quot; and the distinctions the OP made. <strong>I believe their use of the term and classifications they made were purely a naive innocent mistake but they seem to have taken offence to several users politely pointing this out to them.</strong> I pointed the OP to <a href="http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190283" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> about the use of the term race and races they defined, which states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Use of the terms race and ethnicity in the scientific literature,
including the ARCHIVES, can at times be troublesome because of the
impreciseness of the definitions, the historical implications of the
words, and the lack of any scientific basis for their meaning. The
terms denoting the races were arbitrary definitions with origins in
19th-century biological determinism. For example, the word Caucasian
to denote a population was an invention of Blumenbach in 1795. He
believed that the people of the Caucasus mountains in the current
Republic of Georgia were the most beautiful on earth and gave the name
of this region to the population that he felt was closest to the
original ideal.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Ceasing to analyze data blindly by race or ethnicity
is not an attempt to be politically correct, but rather doing so
brings us closer to the underlying biological science on which
medicine, and our care for patients, is firmly rooted.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since doing so they have had further communication from other users and ignored the given reference by continuing with their stance. So how do we deal with posts in this category?</p>
 -1: <p>Even though I was trying to keep out of this discussion, something compelled me to weigh in on the discussion.</p>

<p>I'll disclaimer this from the outset and say, I am vastly politically incorrect all the time - so my points are not remotely related to any notions thereof.</p>

<p>Just a few ideas/points:</p>

<p>Derfder:  why not just replace the word 'race' with 'phenotype'?  This is an international site (I am from Australia for example), and while, granted, in some places, the term 'race' is still used - in some other areas of the world, the term phenotype is largely used.  </p>

<p>Also, yes, it cannot be denied that a lot of people consider the term 'race' as a repugnant term in reference to people. But, that is <strong>not</strong> my argument, nor it seems, the moderators/members here's argument either.</p>

<p>If I can be blunt(ish) - is your persistence on using the term 'race' a matter of stubborn pride? (and I am not saying that this is a negative thing, I have this quality too).  Why not just use the accepted term 'phenotype'?</p>
 3624: <p>This is too long for a comment, but is in response to Derfder's post.</p>

<hr>

<p>First, nice to see some actual discussion of the issue, instead of deflection. Second, nobody is arguing that there is no genetic or morphological differences of any kind between people coming different parts of the world. Your underlying question has validity, the problem in how it is phrased.</p>

<p>An essential part of science is a precise language, otherwise the discussion is meaningless and there is a large chance for pointless misunderstandings. 'Race' is anything but a precise concept and multiple definitions exist (just reading the wikipedia page <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29" rel="nofollow">Race (human classification)</a> that you are referring to should provide ample evidence why the concept is problematic). To add to this are the highly charged historical roots of the term. In the original discussion you were asked to specify what defintion you are referring to, and why it is essential to use race in this case, when other more suitable labels exist, but you didn't respond. The stubborness to reconsider the term 'race', and not even justify it, only comes of as ignorant and, to me, is similar to people that refuse to stop using the word <em>nigger</em> just because <em>they</em> dont mean anything bad by it. </p>

<p>As for the case of forensic anthropology, I would flip the question and ask <em>why</em> they as a field feel the need to keep an antiquated syntax when the rest of science has moved on. I'm not arguing that they cannot often assign a geographical ancestry to a corpse, but this is irrespective of the concept of race. A number of other terms would do just as fine, and 'human population' or 'geographic ancestry' are two terms that comes to mind. The specific issue here is that 'race' implies many things that are simply false when it comes to human populations (e.g. a taxonomy, hierarchy, and a shared common ancestry of 'races'), and it is therefore a misleading concept to use.</p>

<p>Also, your wolf example is irrelevant since we are not arguing about the concept of 'race' in biology in general (which also has multiple definitions and is therefore vague), only in relation to human populations.</p>

<p>I have looked at @Derfder SE-profile, and with his background of numerous downvoted questions on controversial issues in multiple SE-sites I'm (personally) considering that this could be a case of a SE-troll. </p>
 1590: <p><em>N.B. I have posted this as an answer to my own question because I think it is helpful for future similar situations, if it gets a few upvotes I will accept it so it appears as the first post under the question.</em></p>

<p><em>Suggestions for title of the original question would also be helpful so people looking for this sort of guide in the future can find it easily, could you comment with suggestions with suitable key words</em></p>

<hr>

<p>So I think there has been considerable lengthy discussion now but a general consensus seems to be building. As a result I propose that the "answer" to this question would be to describe the steps to take in response to such situations. </p>

<p><strong>I suggest we guide users to do the following when they encounter a post entry they do not agree with:</strong> </p>

<p><strong>Step 1.</strong> Downvote the post (if felt necessary), leave a comment on the post pointing out why they think an edit is necessary, whilst also attempting to offer a solution and supporting evidence for their claims. </p>

<p><strong>Step 2.</strong> The OP then has the opportunity to either present a counter argument or edit the original post. </p>

<p><strong>Step 3.</strong> The community can then judge the response and should take one of the next three actions; </p>

<p>1) accept the OP's counter arguments or edits and upvote the question/remove the downvote </p>

<p>2) edit the original post to a state that pleases them </p>

<p>3) vote to close the post to encourage the OP to edit the post</p>

<p><strong>Step 4.</strong> If the aforementioned steps do not solve the problem, or cause new ones which can't be solved with editing, then flag the post for moderation and pass an explanation to the moderators. </p>

<p>Avoid lengthy, and potentially fraught, discussions in the comments on the main biologySE site or on chat - keeping it in an open forum using the meta section &amp; commenting there will help to give the moderators &amp; community the best chance of coming to a rational, well informed decision.</p>

<p><em>Caveats: If any users become aggressive, abusive, or start damaging the site maliciously, users should report them immediately to moderators and avoid getting further involved. This includes attacks on peoples ability &amp; education, impression of their political motivations (sexism, racism, agism etc.), or plain spiteful verbal abuse. Moderators may decide to suspend the user's account.</em></p>

<hr>

<p>From the help pages:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"What kind of behavior is expected of users?</p>
  
  <p>We’re excited to have you here, but we do ask that you follow a few
  guidelines when participating on our network.</p>
  
  <p>Be honest.</p>
  
  <p>Above all, be honest. If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add
  comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong. Provide better
  answers of your own. Last but not least, edit and improve the existing
  questions and answers! By doing these things, you are helping keep
  Stack Exchange a great place to share knowledge of our craft.</p>
  
  <p>While you’re doing all of those things, we also require that you...</p>
  
  <p>Be nice.</p>
  
  <p>Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated.
  Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you
  because we’re all here to learn, together. Be tolerant of others who
  may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.</p>
  
  <p>Please note that expletives are not allowed. If you use expletives on
  this site, you may be issued a warning or a suspension."</p>
</blockquote>
 3624: <p>Well, I'm part of the discussion you are referring to, so I sympathise with your question. In this and other cases, what I find most annoying is the lack of interest to discuss the basis and assumptions behind the posed question. To me, this suggests a lack of interest for a scientifically based answer/discussion. One of the core aims of bio-SE (and SE in general) is to produce well-formed, scientifically based and scientifically interesting questions, and if the basis of the question is not up for discussion this is a failure to me. Bio-SE does not (should not) exist simply to entertain the personal views of contributors, and everybody must expect to defend their premises with relevant arguments and references. To be clear; I don't have any problem with disagreement and opposing views, but these must follow from a coherent argument and backed up by something. Otherwise they are off-topic. In many cases relevant counterarguments or suggestions are just deflected or igored. In the case you are referring to <strong>not one</strong> of the suggestions or objections to the original question is met with a relevant and substantial answer.</p>

<p>Edit: And to clarify; I don't think this is a PC-specific issue, but the problem will often arise in questions and answers that can be interpreted as PC/non-PC. In my mind, the general problem is a lack of honest and scientifically meaningful discussion. I've encountered the same thing in questions on aspects of evolution, where it is obvious that the poster is not looking for an scientifically based answer, but simply a platform to state that evoluton is false.</p>
 6: <p>I'm going to close the question, editing it into shape is not an option as the author disagrees with the fundamental premise that the question needs to be framed differently. I also can't really let the community close it in this case as the bounty prevents any close votes anyway. But my impression here is that a majority considers the question problematic. The question also received a lot of flags.</p>

<p>Now, I actually see two different issues with the question. The first issues has been discussed here, race is widely considered as not a useful criterium in genetics and the way it is used in this question is considered offensive by some. </p>

<p>The issue here is not political correctness, but correct biology and professionalism. In this case the terminology can reflect negatively on our site as a whole. </p>

<p>Another issue I have with the question is that it contains no motivation for asking the question at all. Just asking "Is there a difference in X between Y groups" without any indication why you suspect there is one is not a good question in my opinion. I don't see how this question can further any understanding of biology or how it could be useful.</p>

<p>This decision is not necessarily final, as we don't have any well-developed policies on this matter. But I also don't want to leave this question open and bounties, immune from closure by the community.</p>
