Talk:People-first language

People of color

Is this also "people-first language"? The article only discusses disabilities. Equinox (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, people-first language does not refer to the term "people of color", since the term is used to avoid using the term "colored," which has negative historical connotations. The terms "people of color" or "person of color" is also used as a way to be more general about the race of the person in question; for example, rather than saying "black people and Asian people," you might choose to say "people of color" to refer to both. There are also controversies about this term, which is why the page People of color exists. Disaposi (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't entirely agree with you, either. "People of color" is by definition "people-first language" - whether or not it was ever specifically chosen to be used for that reason (I think likely not), the term itself is what it is. I am not sure about the reason it is used is to avoid using "colored", though. "Colored" had long (several decades) fallen out of fashion before the modern elevation of "people of color" to vogue. "People of color" is actually the older term, though: "colored" was abbreviated from "people of color". Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Article is confusing about what the position is of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network towards person-first language. Final para links it to other organisations that 'support people-first language', yet supporting quotation appears to present exactly the opposite view. I'm not in a position to judge what is the correct answer, but perhaps someone else is? TimR-J (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just clarified the wording per the citation from the ASAN website, which is more nuanced than a simple oppose but is still clear on the position. (And of course, the name "Autistic Self Advocacy Network" is identity-first language). Arzg (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article is currently a good example of why Criticism sections are often a bad idea. Rather than neutrally describing the reception of this writing approach by various health writers, organisations, advocacy groups, etc, it fails WP:NPOV by collecting just negative opinions. The criticism also fails to be clear that groups may reject this terminology about themselves, but don't necessarily have an opinion on other groups. I think it needs some more research to give an accurately weighted view of the reception among various groups. -- Colin°^Talk 13:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well said, there is nothing I can add to that (but sources could). The 'see also' section is worth removing, if it is not on its way to becoming cited content. ~ cygnis insignis 18:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing the criticism section could be a good idea, but then the criticism needs to be incorporated in the rest of the article. As it stands there is no mention of the fact that PFL is very controversial in certain communities such as the ASD community anywhere else in the article. Some2Guy (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The CRITS is now § Identity-first language and describes ifl not only criticism of pfl. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Image/illustration

would someone draw/upload a better such as these

• IArchive:https://images.app.goo.gl/PkdqZJ36Ahw9LLe47
• google:https://images.app.goo.gl/khrk7SBhzGHy32x29

Skemous (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for ease of reference, the images are at: and — HTGS (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)