Talk:People-first language

message: Some of the existing examples have other edits beyond people-first usage, and may be muddying the waters as a result. Replacing "retardation" with "developmental disability" is not people-first usage, and changing "confined to a wheelchair" to "uses a wheelchair" is preferable for reasons of simple logic as well: it's shorter and more accurate, as very few wheelchair users are actually "confined". As these usages are covered elsewhere, these examples should probably be edited or deleted. 
Also, the last paragraph seems a bit prejudiced. I'd like to see some positive information presented as balance for the criticism. 
Feyandstrange 08:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect examples? 

message: The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities lists "typical kids" as an example of People First Language, and I can't find a source that disagrees except our article.  Anyone against removing it from the "conventional usage" column here?  --Allen (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "typical" not People First? 

message: This page is not well sourced and the few references that exist need to be checked and ordered. One reference is to an outdated page.  When I tried to fix the references, I received a spam links message.  68.224.201.192 (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References need fixing

message: Article is badly, horibbly under-referenced, especally the "examples" section.
Don't base articles on primary sources, and much less on your personal gut feeling. 
The entire point of "people first" appears to be, avoid the copula. Use full verbs, emphasizing that the condition is circumstantial and not part of the sufferer's identity. I.e. say "X is afflicted by crippling disability", don't say "X is a cripple", or "X is using a wheelchair", not "X is a wheelchair user".
The entire point is to avoid saying "X is Y". So this edit seems to be missing the point entirely. But I don't know, do I, because somehow this article is above citing decent references. 
My suggestion is that this is reduced to the portions that are actually referenced, and then merged into Disability etiquette. --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: refimprove

message: This article contains a single reference - and not a good one - citing the pro-people-first movement. I want to know what advocacy groups pushed this usage, and Wikipedia doesn't tell me. There must be people out there who know more about this subject. 
MarkinBoston (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on People-first language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511071056/http://www.asha.org:80/publications/journals/submissions/person_first.htm to http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person_first.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...needs more than an edit summary regarding the removal of "bicyclists" as an example of a term that needs to be person-first. I am a life member of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), and we generally refer to ourselves as bicyclists with the assumption that others know it means it is something we do, not who we are. Would anyone think of  replacing "doctor" with "a person who practices medicine?" Nonsense.
Also, here is a ref I found:
FriendlyFred (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edit... 

message: Is this also "people-first language"? The article only discusses disabilities. Equinox (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  People of color 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on People-first language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130605054809/http://www.gallaudet.edu/Clerc_Center/Information_and_Resources/Info_to_Go/Educate_Children_(3_to_21)/Resources_for_Mainstream_Programs/Terminology.html to http://www.gallaudet.edu/clerc_center/information_and_resources/info_to_go/educate_children_(3_to_21)/resources_for_mainstream_programs/terminology.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A paragraph under criticism read:
"Some advocates of the social model of disability also reject person-first language, defining themselves as "disabled people" and "disability" as the discrimination they face as a result of their impairments.Egan, Lisa (November 9, 2012). "I'm Not A 'Person With a Disability': I'm a Disabled Person". XoJane. However, there are as many advocates who prescribe to the use of people first language."
The paragraph reference is not a good article to use as a source here. Neither the medical, nor the social model of disability have in themselves any notion on what language to use. Some advocates/academics in the UK prefer "disabled person/people" (eg. Colin Barnes), while many, many in the US, Sweden, Norway, Germany and other countries prefer people first language. I have therefore removed that paragraph. /16-05-02  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.121.130.108 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social model allegedly being against people first language 

message: This article mentions that person-first terminology has alternatives and that some people reject person-first language in favour of these; however, it does not give any indication of what the alternative modes of reference are. Using autism as an example, "a person with autism" is person-first language, but it is unclear what to label "an autistic person" or "an autistic" in contrast. I tend to use "adjective-first" for the former, and "person-null" for the latter, but these may not be standard, and the latter may in fact be my own coinage, so I would not add these to this article without a source.
DLMacLeod (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative is called "identity-first language". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! I did my research and found this out myself, subsequently adding a paragraph to the article explaining this (fifth paragraph, before the table of contents). I still don't know what to call adjective-only language, but as I mentioned, this is not usually preferred, being typically vernacular or perjorative. DLMacLeod (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I missed that! As for adjective-only language, it's more accepted in the plural ("the disabled", "the blind", "autistics", "gays") than in the singular, where it's often outright ungrammatical (*"a disabled", *"a blind"), often clearly pejorative, slang or borderline grammatical ("a gay"), and only sometimes apparently accepted (I see "an autistic" frequently used by autistic folks). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology for alternatives? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section