Talk:Person of color

Hispanics are not POC or white

Unless a POC is a "non-Hispanic" white, Hispanics aren't counted as POC.

Racism

The term "People of Color" has it's roots in white supremacy, by way of the groups and individuals who supported a notion of racial "superiority". This was evidenced in religion, science and the governments (not just the U.S.) who sanctioned these ideas. While the U.S. has long since abandoned such notions, the term is now used as a means of coalition building among non-white peoples. It's employed politically in places where there is a majority of Caucasian peoples, usually when opposing that majority. It is a social construct that perpetuates a political separation between "whites" and everybody else. In reality there is no such scientific distinction - all peoples, from dark to light have varying degrees of melanin, and can be considered "colored". And whatever the terminology used, no "race" can actually be excluded or separated from the rest of the Human spectrum. However popular the term in news media and journalism, it is a fundamentally racist construct, as is any attempt to isolate or separate one racial group from others. My hope is that editors explore this idea in more detail. This meaning is not referenced in the article. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Offensive term?

"Person of color" can be viewed by some people as offensive, because it defines people by their color, instead of just as people. It's also anti-white, as it sets everyone who is nonwhite against those that are white. This is still racism.

What's better is to dispense with reference to color. "African-American" refers to a geographic location; the color of the person does not matter.Ryoung122 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes as they are unsourced and appear to be WP:OR. The article is about the use of the term. All occasions of offense at the term can only be included from reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A talk page isn't a forum for discussing the topic generally. Please see WP:Talk page guidelines:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

-- Irn (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Where else to discuss it? Citing rules to undermine discussions is no way of handling sensible aspects of general debates. The term "colored" and "colored people" has already been outlawed in several European countries, because of similar aspects as provieded above by Ryoung. Perhaps the positive tone of this article of this term should be somewhat relative to these facts and -- 92.231.36.6 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it's very much an American PC term, which serves a very real socio-political function in the US, for obvious historic racial reasons, but is considered ludicrous or offensive in the rest of the world. There should be a section carefully describing criticism of the term, or opposition to it, along with international perspectives, with reliable sources, of course. Gymnophoria (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that of NPOV. Usually, major alternative interpretations of a socio-political term are acceptable and even encouraged. To NOT have that here is not only POV, but ironically, also "PC".Ryoung122 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see something about attitudes towards the term outside of the USA. I think in the UK it's considered at best trite and overly PC and at worst a racial slur similar to simply saying 'coloured' (although I don't have a source, only personal experience). Which can lead to some interesting (but time wasting) debates with Americans during any cross-cultural discussion of race issues. Especially when they have a similar reaction to UK PC terms like Black British. It would be nice to have an established authority to turn to when this comes up and since (for me at least) it mainly happens online Wikipedia would be the perfect place.

Aside from all that theres also the fact that if it was/is used anywhere outside the USA it'd be good to cover it. Especially if it was brought in a potential PC term and then rejected like 'Differently abled'. Danikat (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scientifically incorrect"?

The line about white being all colours of light combined is only correct for light. When it comes to pigments, which is what skin colour is describing, the mixed result gets darker as you add colours. It is in actuality scientifically more correct. Rather than make either argument, I'll just remove the line. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Still, we see colours of a object beacuse the object reflects light into our eyes. If there is less light reflected or emitted from the object, we would see less colour on it, and thus it becomes darker. Black holes are extremely good examples. White is a blend of all colours, while pure black is technically not a colour. The term "person of colour" is still scientifically INCORRECT. Stop covering up for this nonsense term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.124.191 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Colour" means any hue other than black or white. Yet the term "person of colour" is used to mean non-white. This is simply incorrect scientifically and logically.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Person of Color Can Be A Racist Term

As a Hispanic, whose ancestors came from Spain and Ireland hundreds of years ago, I find the term 'Person of Color' to be racist because it negates my race and my DNA. Regardless of whether my skin is lighter or darker, I am still caucasian. Skin pigmentation is meaningless in determining if your race is white or not. The article on 'Person of Color' has many offensive and erroneous conclusions. That term is not preferred by anyone I know, including Asians, in spite of what the author says. The few people I have heard use the term to describe themselves have all been African-Americans. Such an offensive article has no place in Wikipedia, especially when edits are removed. The fact that articles are quoted to justify such nonsense doesn't make it right. I can assure anyone that thinks it's ok to call me a 'person of color' that I will tell them exactly what I believe, and that is that the term is racist and offensive because except for true albinos every human being is a person of color. Of course, we all know that the author is not referring to every human being, just to the ones who don't fit his criteria of white. That in my opinion is the true mark of a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmeniris1 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add references to the article in which reliable sources say that some people find "person of color" to be offensive. --Alynna (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems a very US-centric article. Calling someone "colored", or a "person of color" is considered racist in the UK, much of Europe and Austrlia. US Asians tend to find it offensive being thrown into a racial coalition with everyone else who's not white. As a white European myself I find it personally offensive - are white people therefore colourless? Colourless has a lot of negative connotations. This article needs bulking out with some international perspective and criticism. Gymnophoria (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this in the first sentence: is a term used, primarily in the United States,. Seems clear on the scope. Again, feel free to add reliable sources on its offensiveness to some.--Carwil (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source - I find the term offensive. -- 92.231.36.6 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The definition of reliable source used on Wikipedia does not include personal testimony.

The purpose of the term "people of colour" is to refer to people who experience prejudice, discrimination and oppression on the basis of systemic racism, at least in Europe and North America; the term is thus somewhat Eurocentric, but still relevant on a global scale, as people of colour are disadvantaged on a global scale, even if the institutions in their respective countries of residence may happen not to systemically discriminate against all people of colour, and possibly even happen to discriminate against white people. (I am speaking in the context of the sociological theory on which this term is based.) The term is not itself racist, in the sense that using it is or makes you racist, it merely reflects a pre-existing racist construct. It is not a scientific, biological concept, but a sociological category! It does not endorse any particular racial classification. In fact, people who use the term are typically opposed to racial classifications and consider them pseudoscientific. If Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, West Asians and North Africans (i. e., non-Europeans), unless they happen to "pass" as white, are factually treated as non-white and experience racist prejudice, discrimination and oppression (and there is plenty of evidence that they do), at least in countries where the ruling class is (or identifies as) mostly or entirely white, or the institutions are dominated by whites, Pakistanis, Afghans etc. count as people of colour, even if in racial classifications they are usually considered white/Caucasian – theoretically, that is. (The same is true for Hispanics/Latins – some can "pass" as white, but most, especially those with dark skin or hair, are not factually treated as white, and in effect treated as people of colour, regardless of how they might be classified racially in theory. Even some Sami may not "pass" as white, despite technically being European.) This is because they are in practice denied "white privilege", i. e., the advantages and rights accorded to white people virtually as a matter of course but denied all others. (The subjectivity and arbitrary nature of the term "white" is best exemplified by the observation that in the US, in the early 20th century even Sicilians or Irish seem not always to have been treated as fully white, and not least by the fate of the Jews. Personally, I like the term "visible minority", despite the problematic implications of the term "minority", as people are treated as white or people of colour – "foreigners" – basically on their appearance – not allegedly objective racial classifications! –, which can also include clothing choice, behaviour or even audible characteristics such as a foreign or stigmatised accent, so much that even a typically Caucasian-looking person can "pass" as a person of colour – also thanks to the legacy of the "one-drop rule" –, purely and simply by dressing up, see Rachel Dolezal. Clothes make people, and appearances are deceiving.) Social-justice jargon is based on sociological lingo, so if you object to the notions expounded here, you have to take the issue up with sociologists, not random activists on the Internet. Most criticisms here are concerned with subjectively defined categories or get bogged down into pedantic sophistry, word-games and "maybe you are the real racist here!"-style table-turning tactics and thus miss the entire point. In more popular language: You can be "technically" 100% white/Caucasian – if society treats you as "brown" and self-identified white people shun you and confront you all sorts of insulting labels and stereotypes, you can't buy anything for your "technical whiteness". And finally, Wikipedia describes how terms are used in the real world, not what random, pseudonymous Internet surfers think about these terms. Nobody cares. Also, the article is necessarily US-centric because the term was invented in North America, is used only in English, and the USA are an extremely racist society. Exhibit A: Donald Trump and the appallingly numerous positive reactions he gets. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: The term is inherently a US-centric term because it is pretty much only used in the USA. It can only applied to Western countries in the first place, where "white" is the default. As explained here, a person of colour is a person of partly or fully non-European ancestry in a white-majority country (and who is therefore subject to racism, the experience of racism being the bond that unites all people of colour and thus makes the term relevant and useful), as opposed to a white person, who is exclusively or almost exclusively of European descent; a Chinese person in China (or Singapore, presumably) is not a person of colour, not being subject to racist discrimination, while a Chinese person in the US, Germany or Australia is. And while a white person can definitely not be a person of colour, a white-passing person of not exclusively (or almost exclusively) European ancestry can choose to identify as a person of colour. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Source Material

Dear Wikipedia contributor and editor, I have a quick question. I am creating a "People of Color" article (from a very different perspective), and I have used your page as a source. I have read that Wikipedia prefers "secondary sources." I am requesting a source (refrence source) for the following quote:

"Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used, primarily in the United States, to describe all people who are not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism."

Thank you. C-ritah (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since that's the lead, the source material should be in the text. From sources with hyperlinks, I think references 9 and 12 should give you what you need. -- Irn (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian Americans are Not Considered People of Color

QuintBy (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversal of my reversal is unsupported by a specific reference to a specific page in the Guide. The earlier reference merely refers to the Guide as a whole, all 32 pages of it, which really should simply be removed altogether. Without specificity a reference is meaningless and there is nothing elsewhere in the Standford Guide which deals with how Asian Americans are to be characterized. The entire article is almost evasive as to who is and who is not included under the rubric of people of color. This is a singular moment of clarity and it is provided by one of the same and only three guides previously cited. QuintBy (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited reference only states that the term "Asian American" refers to "an American of Asian descent". That's it. It doesn't mention Asians in regard to the term "people of color". By the same logic, none of the ethnicities listed on that page qualify as "people of color" - for example "Chicano" is defined as "an American of Mexican ancestry". -- Irn (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the cited page (it was there before I removed it) and came to the same conclusion as Irn. If you have another source, bring it here, but this one doesn't say what you think it does; just the opposite.--Carwil (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, including that this guide says that "Asian Americans" refers to "Americans of Asian descent" is pointless. In other words: so what? That has no bearing on whether or not Asian Americans are people of color, and I see no place for it in an article on the term "person of color". -- Irn (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'fact' that another editor regards the edits made by another to be "pointless" is not sufficient reason to undo it. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The reader is free to consult the reference provided and draw their own conclusion as to whether or not any statement made within a topic is relevant to that topic.QuintBy (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's a perfectly valid reason to eliminate something from an article. Simply because a fact is verifiable does not mean it is appropriate. If that were the case, you could insert any fact you wanted in any article as long as you had a reliable source for it. That's absolutely ludicrous. Why should this information be included in the article? -- Irn (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to Another Section Being Blocked

Someone tried very hard in the "race" article to hide their bias on the subject. I know this can be an important topic and a tough one to talk about, but we can't bring our point of view into the subject, no matter how right or wrong it is. The article has NOT been changed in over 2 years, and needs to have specifications on color and cultural depictions. The talk page of that article, has been locked, and some users have have been surpressed from speaking openly, making me believe their is bias on this community. Still, I just wanted to bring this up, as I am neutral on all of this, and wanted to let somebody know I am concerned on how the informtaion on this site can be shifted to those in power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.13 (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Of light-skin vs european heritage

An IP has been making a change here which is not based on sources as far as I can tell. For example, the Safire article [1] which says "People of color' are every hue but white and are non-European in origin.". While there are of course many differing definitions for people of color, my reading of the literature is clear that it is not just about skin color as the IP is attempting to propose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying Russians, which are largely Asians are people of color? What is the relevance of them being European or not? There are dark skinned Europeans as well that could be called people of color. Just as there are light skinned Asians that would not be called people of color. The general point of the term "people of color" is to signify that the person is not of light/fair skin. The place on Earth that they are from has little if any significance.

I'm saying, wikipedia articles are not based on your opinions of what person of color means. I suggest you read the sources, and if you find a source that says what you're trying to say, then we can talk about the change. Without sources you don't have a leg to stand on. Please stop reverting and don't make further changes until you get consensus - see WP:BRD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All human beings are of African ancestry which mutes your point. That's not an opinion, that's science. You merely have an agenda to exclude any Europeans from a phrase that describes skin tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.167.6 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no agenda whatsoever except to follow sources, and the sources tell me person of color is usually applied to those of non-European heritage. Please stop reverting, the wording should stand until a new consensus is formed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is a mixed-race person who is both white and something other than white a "person of color?"

The article defines a person of color as a person who is non-white. Does that mean that if a person has a white parent, that person is not "of color?" Redeye000 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, mixed people are POC too, although they may be able to pass as white. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, Obama is definitely a POC. Due to the heritage of the one-drop rule, POC in the US are theoretically a very large group that includes many people who nobody thinks of as POC, and who may not self-identify as POC, either. Some people of (wholly or partially) non-European heritage may pass and self-identify as white because they still have a "Caucasian" appearance, for example, Steve Jobs or Kim Kardashian. There are white Latinxs, too, for example Sofía Vergara. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-European heritage

I've replaced the YouTube anecdote with a more reliable resource on the term's genesis. "Person of color" is typically synonymous with individual of non-European heritage. Soupforone (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the source you added has anything to do with term's genesis. At least, the text you added makes no reference to it. I have no problem with what you added, but I don't see why that would replace something unrelated. -- Irn (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, got the links mixed up there. They're in order now. Soupforone (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion Piece about use of the term being uncomfortable among some journalists

I believe it is a reliable source to use a newspaper opinion piece to show how some journalists feel about the term. I added a cited note to the article to the affect that some commentators feel uncomfortable using the term, but this was reverted with the reason given that is was not a reliable source. This is the source article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/we-wouldnt-write-afro-caribbean-today-but-is-people-of-colour-ok-now

Having checked out the reliable sources page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS this allows for opinion pieces to be counted as reliable sources in some instances. It mentions specialist in the field, and Human Interest topics. They both seem to be part of this topic as the term has a subjective response from people, rather than being objectively correct or incorrect, and I would argue a journalist is in a position to reliably talk about journalists.

I do of course agree it would be better to have a full blown study on the issue, but I do not think it calls into doubt the statement in the article, as the journalist is reporting observations rather then him simply assuming what others think. Given this, I would like to add the note back into the article. If I am missing something please let me know.Fuzzything (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is skeptical of opinion pieces as sources of fact, but skeptical doesn't have to mean a total exclusion. For instance, an opinion piece is a reliable source for its author's opinion, and we can expect some fact-checking to go into such a published piece in a reliable publication. Further, the Guardian has a reader's editor (equivalent to a public editor) and although that editor's opinions appear as opinion pieces, they typically reflect considered judgments about journalism.

In this case, the author's opinion is speculative and unclear, although we could reasonably infer:

• Guardian reader's editor Chris Elliot has suggested that "people of colour" may be insufficiently specific in the same way that "Africans" is to broad a way to refer to a specific group of people from one African country.
• Guardian reader's editor Chris Elliot has observed that the use of "people of colour" is acceptable for now. ("Its unfamiliarity in the UK might have been one reason for my colleague’s concern. But it’s fine, for now.")

And we could cite this article to support claims like:

• People of color is more widely used in the United States than the United Kingdom.
• Some American commentators are uncomfortable with the similarity of "people of color" to the term "colored."
• People of color/colour has been in use since the 1980s.

There are not many facts here on this topic, but I do believe the citation is okay.--Carwil (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Changing "applied generally to people of mixed African and European descent who were freed from slavery or born into freedom" sentence

Wash whites separately has twice changed "applied generally to people of mixed African and European descent who were freed from slavery or born into freedom." to "refer to people of mixed African and European descent during periods of slavery in the Americas." I reverted the first time because "freed from slavery or born into freedom" is not the same thing as "during periods of slavery in the Americas." Wash whites separately provided a source for the change, but it has no URL to help verify that the source is being used accurately. This shows the edit in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll adjust it, since it's just a semantic issue. People can be freed from slavery during periods of slavery. Wash whites separately (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wash whites separately, this edit you made is better because it's clearer. I appreciate the adjustment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The term "radical"

Wash whites separately, regarding this edit, it appears to be fact that Frantz Fanon was a political radical. And it's noted in his Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, since Wash whites separately deleted that entire clause, this particular point is kind of moot. Additionally, I don't think the deletion of the popularization of the term by US racial justice activists, influenced by radical theorists, is appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Irn, feel free to restore the appropriate material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, don't "feel free" to restore unsourced claims. Provide sources first, then restore them. Wash whites separately (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wash whites separately, I stated "appropriate material." But on the topic of sourced information, content in an article being unsourced does not mean it doesn't belong in the article. WP:Preserve is clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wash whites separately, going by this edit, keep in mind that it is good practice to thoroughly check the referencing and that people sometimes do not duplicate references because of what is outlined at WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge with "Colored"

The two relatively small articles speak essentially of the same. The subtleties of usage, if any, may be covered in the joint page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The terms are not the same thing, which is why "person of color" is the preferred term and "colored" is largely considered outdated and offensive these days. Furthermore, "person of color" can refer to any non-white person, while "colored" was used to refer to African Americans. My statements on these matters are well-covered by the literature. I don't see that the articles are essentially the same. In any case, if a merge were to happen, the Colored article should be merged into this article, not the other way around. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer. There is overlap, but they are not the same. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)