Talk:People-first language

Incorrect examples?

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)

Curious use of "the blind" in an article on people-first language. The bias of the article is very apparent.

There is another article entitled "Person-first terminology" addressing similar concepts. Perhaps this ought to be merged? 67.82.236.239 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did the examples in the chart come from anyway? I agree, this article needs some things removed or changed. 98.200.253.150 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"People first language" is primarily used in the USA. It is contested by UK disability activists, who prefer the term 'disabled person'. This is because (as per the World Health Organisation definitions) the person has an impairment but is disabled by society, so "person with disability" is inaccurate. Random randomer randomest (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is still VERY biased. We really need to work on retooling it entirely. Waitalie Nat (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"typical" not People First?

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)

References need fixing

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 One reference is to an outdated page.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)

refimprove

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)

here is the table of examples, cut from the article:

proposed usage	conventional usage
people with disabilities	disabled people/the handicapped
people living with HIV	HIV/AIDS patients or victims
Paul has a cognitive disability (diagnosis).	Paul is cognitively disabled.
Kate has (a diagnosis of) autism.	Kate is autistic.
Ryan has (a diagnosis of) Down/Down's syndrome.	Ryan is retarded/mentally retarded.
Sara has a learning disability (diagnosis).	Sara is learning disabled.
Mary is of short stature/has dwarfism.	Mary is a little person/dwarf.
Bob has a physical disability (diagnosis).	Bob is a quadriplegic.
Tom has a mental health condition.	Tom is emotionally disturbed/mentally ill.
Nora uses a wheelchair/is a wheelchair user.	Nora is wheelchair-dependent/bound.
Steve receives special education services.	Steve is a special education student.
Tonya has a developmental delay.	Tonya is developmentally delayed.
children without disabilities	normal/healthy/typical children
…communicates with her eyes/device/etc.	…is non-verbal.
Amy is without residence.	Amy is homeless.

these examples should at least be referenced to some online guideline, otherwise we must assume they were just made up by Wikipedians on the go to illustrate the concept. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak references

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)

Most of the citations that state that there is criticism of the people-first language movement are pre-1999 and represent the views of one or two individuals who are not recognized authorities in their field. In addition, the statement that Deaf people have rejected people-first language is incorrect. They reject "hearing-impaired" and make the distinction that "Deaf person" denotes a person is culturally Deaf while a "person who is deaf" denotes someone with a pathological diagnosis of deafness, but no cultural identity. I think this entire article needs some serious re-writes and the citations need to be better referenced as well as updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowpea79 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People-first language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My recent edit...

...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:

"An Introductory Guide to Disability Language and Empowerment". Syracuse University. Retrieved December 27, 2015.

FriendlyFred (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People-first language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Social model allegedly being against people first language

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. 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)

References

Terminology for alternatives?

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)

@DLMacLeod: The alternative is called "identity-first language". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: 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)

@DLMacLeod: 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)

"Gay person," "disabled person," etc. are also identity first language. Plenty of people are perfectly fine with it: https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-identity-first-language-should-you-use-it-74901 Waitalie Nat (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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)