Talk:Deafness/Archive 1

Brief history of Deaf

For those that have just tuned in: The page "deaf" was once a redirect to hearing impairment. It then became a page about deafness and Deaf culture. It was like this for a while. The title was changed to "Deafness". Then much of the content was merged with hearing impairment and replaced by new content which later became (through another page rename) Models of deafness. Deaf became a redirect back to hearing impairment for a while and then was changed into a disambiguation page, which grew to become a page specifically addressing the term "deaf" and the disambiguation notice removed.

--Pengo 22:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation between Deaf and deaf

I suggest creating a disambiguation page between the words "deaf" and "Deaf." "Deaf" with a capital "D" is the accepted and correct manner with which to distinguish "the absence of hearing" from the culture of Deaf people. "deaf" with a lower-case "d" can include all auditory related issues, such as JFW’s “hearing impairment.” I disapprove very strongly with this terminology as a description for people with an absence of hearing, but none the less it is term that is still used today and thus has a place in this objective encyclopedia. However, it cannot be applied to those who consider themselves “Deaf.” Nearly no one in the Deaf community considers the fact that they cannot hear an “impairment.” Thus, a disambiguation between “deaf’ and “Deaf” could serve to correctly distinguish the auditory issues from the cultural issues. MLJhill

Redirect to Deaf individual vs Hearing impairment

for the vast amount of the readers, "deaf" is acoustic receptive impairment, not its resultant social issues

--Jfdwolff (taken from edit summary, when redirect changed to hearing impairment.

Sorry, but deaf, as a noun, means "the deaf" (not the condition itself). and "Deaf individual" is emphatically not about social issues, but a disambiguation page.

--Pengo 23:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I think you and User:Ray Foster should put all deafness-culture related material in ONE article, and not force this fringe terminology on your audience. I have always learnt not to treat individually incapacitated people as a group, and I find your classification of hearing impaired people as "The Deaf" discriminatory. Obviously, I am reverting your partisan redirect to the most plausible direction. JFW | T@lk 00:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deafness-related articles need to be broken up, but simply having Hearing impairment and Deaf culture is too simple a split.

Again, the article Deaf individual is not about Deaf culture. Nor is it a page about deaf individuality. It is a disambiguation page so that any link to "deaf" can be given a proper meaning and all parties can be happy. Hearing impairment is not the relevent issue when talking about members of deaf society, just as deaf culture is not relevant when talking about a late deafened adult. That is why I have made a disambiguation page. I have used the term "Deaf individual" exactly for the reason you have stated: so as not to have to use the group term "The deaf". If you prefer we can make "Deafness" into a similiar disambiguation page where instead of "pre-lingually deaf individual" it would say "pre-lingual deafness" etc, but this would be somewhat redundant.

Deafness and hearing impairment are very broad topics, and you cannot simply seperate out deaf culture from hearing impairment. I'm not saying that from a moral or partisan point of view, but from a practical one. Topics like "treatment" are going to be POV if their only mention of the other side of the debate is "see also: deaf culture".

Having said that, not all types of deafness have such controversy. And there's no reason to tie up a topic such as late onset deafness in "medical vs cultural" debates. That is why I have made a deaf individual disambiguation page so the apropriate article can be chosen from a link to "deaf" or "deafness". As a bonus, topics like "How to communicate" will make a lot more sense and be a lot less vague when you choose a topic from Deaf individual. Similiarly "Causes of deafness" will also be less vauge as you might get some indication of what age is being talked about. And hearing protection doesn't need to be mixed with deaf schooling. Less vague means the articles will make more sense to read, and will be easier to write.

I'm not doing this for partisan reasons. If you read other posts you'll see I have been opposed to Ray Foster's zealotry.

Splitting deafness into Hearing impairment and Deaf culture is overly simple. If you have a better suggestion for a split than the topics in Deaf individual please say so, or edit that page.

(note: i'm copying this text to Talk:Deaf individual to explain the motivation for the page. Continue here or there.)

--Pengo 02:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will respond on Talk:Deaf individual. At any rate, I am pleased that you have kept the redirect. If someone reads: Ludwig van Beethoven went deaf, they would probably prefer to read hearing impairment first... JFW | T@lk 00:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would they prefer hearing impairment? Vint Cerf, the "Father of the Internet" is listed on the List of Deaf People I corresponded with him about his hearing impairment only two days ago. I know what he thinks of it. You could write him also and find out. There's a link on his article that leads to his home page and email address. Let's hear your rationale, Doctor. I think it would be helpful to understand why cultural deafness is to be retired from consideration as an alternative, say, to always depending on medical intervention as a solution to the multitude of problems one can encounter as a hearing impaired person. I, myself, first turned to that very model and it provided me with no assistance beyond a hearing aid. That did help momentarily, but in the long run, it, too, reached its limitations and no one within the medical establishment then knew what to do. No one said, "Ray, have you tried sign language to overcome the isolation? Or have are you aware that deaf users of sign language have a great many strategies that deal with the disadvantages of being deaf that medical science does not address?" You're ruling out deaf culture as an option and it's clear, from your very own words on the Hearing impairment article that you absolutely know that even the cochlear implant is not effective for practical for some deaf people. Doctor. I must ask. Do you want people in this very difficult predicament to have no options at all, rather than to have some possibility of having a modicum of peace, just to keep your sacred reverence for medical intervention intact? Ray Foster 03:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hearing impairment is not a purely medical article. It addresses the causes, it addresses treatments and the problems with them, and I think it should include all non-medical coping strategies that deaf people employ in social interaction. At the moment there is a patchwork of articles that look at deafness from a number of perspectives. I'd rather collaborate with you on a good article that addresses all approaches harmoniously. I am fully aware that medicine does rarely cure hearing impairment. If you read the intro I wrote, you see what I mean.

Vint Cerf is invited to offer his opinion. This is a wiki. Have you asked him to contribute? As the co-inventor of TCP/IP, he must be interested in the wiki concept! JFW | T@lk 18:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In spite of your insistence (speaking to Jdwolff) that you know what people are looking for when they enter deaf as a search keyword, I can not imagine that all people think only as you do. For example, someone following deaf from the eugenics article could very well be interested in the medical condition as you seem to think is the only possible outcome but they could also be looking for cultural information. There are other examples that I have not mentioned here but the point is that you have no way of knowing which way someone’s interests would make them lean. Therefore, both possibilities should be catered to. This is NOT a radical notion that when topics are very broad and therefore reasonable people might use the same word to look for more than one kind of information; a disambiguation page is in order. Qaz 03:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I think it's very logical and unsurprising to have a search for deaf return the deaf article, with a prominent note at the top of the article (as it used to have) linking to Deaf culture in case that's what was actually desired. I suggest this with the Principle of least astonishment in mind. -- Ds13 04:12, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that you think it's very logical and unsurprising to have a search for deaf return the hearing imparirment article? Qaz 05:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the ambiguity. Since deafness and hearing impairment are synonymous, then I think it's logical and unsurprising to have a search for deaf return the deafness/hearing impairment article rather than a disambig page. The deafness article has a very useful and prominent notice at the top, linking to Deaf culture in case someone arrived there specifically looking for Deaf culture.

Please note that I'm not implying that Deaf culture is a subset of deafness. It's not. But unfortunately, it's literally called "Deaf culture" and the most common (and largely least surprising) use of the word "deaf" is pathological deafness and hearing impairment.

The Wikipedia guidelines state "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." So it all comes down to this... Putting myself in the shoes of someone entering "deaf", looking for Deaf culture, on Wikipedia and being presented with the deafness/hearing impairment article with a clear notice at the top to Deaf culture, will I be confused? I doubt it. That's my interpretation of the guidelines. --Ds13 07:06, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Deaf and hearing impairment are not synonymous though, and that is the problem. If you are looking for cultural information, to be taken to the medical/pathology model page is almost the exact opposite of what you are looking for. I have fixed some links in articles, for example, one talking about deaf dogs, to bypass the disambiguation page and go straight to the hearing impairment article because in that case you are right, it is the least astonishing. However, if someone types in deaf into the search box it should definitely take you to a disambiguation page because there are huge, and growing, populations that use the same word to mean and to search for something quite different from each other. This is a fact. As I said on the hearing impairment talk page, I read that in the US the number of college students taking sign language has already, or is about to surpass the number taking Spanish. In most, if not all, of those classes students are encouraged to seek out information on deaf people and deaf culture. We are talking about millions upon millions of people who want information about a culture that has a long and interesting history. They are looking for information about deaf people. They happen to use the keyword deaf. Why is that so hard to understand? Medicine is a science but so is sociology, both fields deserve equal treatment. Qaz 19:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Qaz, as "Deaf culture" is a result of hearing impairment, it cannot be of parallel importance. You're making leaps of logic that I find very hard to follow. Hearing impairment is not a "medical" deafness page, it is about HEARING IMPAIRMENT in every sense of the word. Please compare this to Pakistan and Politics of Pakistan. Pakistan is the "container article", if you want, and Politics of Pakistan a more in-depth coverage. This is the relationship that I am trying to promote. You are not the first person I've been arguing with in this really very simple matter. I think Ds13 is "spot-on" with his comments. Please stop reverting. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the mediation was declined. JFW | T@lk

As "Deaf culture" is a result of hearing impairment, it cannot be of parallel importance, is the most stupid attempt at logic I've ever heard. Since when was the importance of something based on which came first? Deaf culture probably did appear before the medical view of deafness, which is the focus of the "hearing impairment" article, and cultural issues are a "part" of hearing impairment only when taken from the medical prespective. Deaf culture is as much about deafness as astronomy is about telescopes. Adn following your form of logic, astronomy would be sub-topic under telescope. Please stop being so arrogant. --Pengo 22:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You (Jdwolff) have said again and again that one thing is the result of the other. Like I have said before, that has no bearing on the issue. Some people are interested in the cart and others are interested in the horse, no matter which comes first. Furthermore, as you know, the medical/pathological view of the deaf and the cultural one are often diametrically opposed and so neither could or should serve as the "container" for the other. Qaz 16:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Qaz, thanks for responding, but I'm more interested in your thoughts on my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Put simply: The guidelines state that what Jfdwolff keeps reverting to must be adopted unless it results in confusion. (The revert in question being that "deaf" redirects to the "deafness"/"hearing impairment" article with the leading sentence suggesting the "Deaf culture" link.) I can't imagine any confusion resulting from this and let me explain why.

Can you imagine anyone who searches for the word "deaf" on Wikipedia who would be genuinely surprised to receive the article on deafness/hearing impairment with a useful link to Deaf culture? It doesn't matter if you think it's more informative to create a redirect page; the guidelines clearly advise against it unless confusion would result. Are we really risking confusion? Thoughts? --Ds13 00:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

We risk no more confusion than is caused on the disambiguation page for hearing which has more than one sense and which rightly sends users to a disambiguation page. Qaz 15:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leave It as it Is

I vote to leave this article as it is. There are clearly two different meanings of the same word, and therethore a disambugiation page is clearly needed. Also having a disambugiation page is clearly in the spirit of Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' (NPOV) pilosophy. James Pole 03:42, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

One more implication of the disambig page

Am I alone in thinking that before we leave this new disambig page in place, all the current links to 'deaf' throughout Wikipedia should be reviewed? There are 160 such references currently. Many of those are now inappropriately going to a disambig page. At the very least it's lazy and possibly confusing to send links from the Phil Collins, Congenital disorder, Boxer (dog), or Acute facial nerve paralysis articles (a few examples of many) to the disambig page when they should and could easily (with some work) be sent to the correct underlying page. This is both Wikipedia policy and just general decency. I suspect most can probably go to the hearing impairment (used to be deaf) article. Some might go to the Deaf culture page though. Some I'm not sure of. I'll help in this operation, but I'd like to point out that this could and should be done before just redirecting everything. Agreement? --Ds13 06:45, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Sorry to be absent for so long. My computer was stolen and I encountered a setback from that experience. I'm glad to see this issue on the right footing with a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page serves Phil Collins, Congenital disorder, Boxer (dog), and Acute facial nerve paralysis splendidly since it refers readers to the correct article. Given the amount of haphazard redirecting this term (deaf) has experienced in the past couple of months, it probably wouldn't hurt to give each of the links a look. However, I don't foresee a problem now that clear alternatives are available on the disambiguation page. Ray Foster 21:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ray, sorry to hear about your computer and it may very well be my misreading, but I'm thinking at least one of us is misinterpreting Wikipedia policy as it relates to disambig pages and how to (not) link to them. Here's an an excerpt:

There is rarely any need for links directly to disambiguation pages--in most cases links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended, and not to a disambiguation page. Before making a page into a disambiguation page one should first look at each page that links to it (using the "pages that link here" feature of the software) and correct the links as appropriate.

People have a tendency to create disambiguation pages without fixing all the links to them. The result is that Wikipedia is left in a worse state than it was before the page was split.

Before creating a disambiguation page, click on "What links here" to find all the pages that link to the page you are about to change. Make sure those pages are fixed or that they won't be adversely affected before you do the split.

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix the mis-directed links that will be created when the disambiguation page is made.

So of the 160 or so links to deaf, I think it makes sense to send certain things directly to the pathological hearing impairment page. I thought those were fairly obvious examples I gave above, but maybe not. --Ds13 07:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

I would like to interject here since Ray has not responded yet. As you have nicely shown in your excerpt, the guidelines say in most cases, not all. I humbly suggest that the ongoing debate on this page is clear evidence for the fact that this could very well be a special case or an exception to the rule. From many articles, eugenics being one example that I have given already but there are many others, you cannot predict if a person would want the medial facts of what it means to be deaf or if they would prefer the cultural perspective on the issue. Qaz 02:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's try again

Despite vociferous complaints from Qaz, Pengo and Ray Foster, I will explain again what is wrong with the disambiguation.

The article hearing impairment is indended to cover the subject of deafness from the pathology to the social and cultural response. When I did a significant rewrite some weeks ago, I tried to cover as much as possible, to show that it is - indeed - a major article that will hopefully become a featured article one day.

To argue that deaf culture should be disambiguated right from the start is claiming undue importance for one of the many aspects of deafness. I will repeat the example I gave above: Pakistan is a "container article" that summarises everything about the country Pakistan. It links to more in-depth articles such as Politics of Pakistan. When I type "Pakistan", I do not want a disambig, but I want an overview. Similarly, someone who types "deaf" in the search box will find out there are many aspects to deafness, from microbiology and neuropathology to developmental psychology, psychoacoustics, sociology and cultural views. This is the prevalent style on Wikipedia.

The fact that some authors identify strongly with deaf culture is not an argument to give what I feel undue attention to this aspect. In fact, I compromised on disambiguating deaf culture right at the top of hearing impairment, but apparently this is not good enough.

I have already requested comments from the community. The response has been lukewarm. If you feel this is so important as to request mediation, I have no problem with that. I will, however, expect a serious answer to my points. I am not, as Qaz claims, "ignoring" social and cultural aspects. I am insisting that they are linked in context and not in a misguided disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 01:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit humorous that you expect a serious response when you have (again and again) in response to serious and various claims on the talk page, kept repeating the same things over and over again, all the while insisting that you would not be moved from your position no matter what. However, to ignore that and take your last statement seriously - that you want this one article to cover all aspects. In that case, as I have said before with no response from you, the medical/pathological view and the cultural/sociolgical view are often diametrically opposed. Since this is the case, a simple one line reference at the top is not enough. If you want to avoid a disambiguation, you would have to address the glaring differences in each approach, in depth, in the main article and mention it on equal footing with the medical model in the introduction. Since there are two almost contradictory approaches to this issue, if they are to live on the same page, they must both be treated fairly. I personally do not see how this is possible since the mere name of the article you propose as a "container" (hearing impairment) is seen by the cultural model as a bias clearly stated at the outset. Qaz 02:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is cultural deafness diametrically opposed to the medical model? It's about sound not getting to the brain, right?

I have no problems with an equal treatment on the same page, and I'd prefer if we went that way. But in what way does the cultural model disagree with basic facts of pathophysiology?

"Hearing impairment" is a euphemism for deafness; it also covers those who are partially hearing. If you find the title too POV, we can move the article to deafness. I don't mind.

Could you please outline in which ways the cultural deafness model opposes the medical model? Perhaps we're disagreeing simply because I've been confused by the terminology. And please stop reverting until we've settled this. I am listening to your arguments, but at the moment too many articles link to this page in the context of "medical" deafness (e.g. Phil Collins banging his drums to loudly). JFW | T@lk 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to outline how the two views are often diametrically opposed but I would like to take some time to collect some thoughts on the matter. I do not want to carelessly summarize. One thing I can say for certain though is that your statement that hearing impaired is simply a euphemism for deaf clearly shows you have a very one-sided understanding of the issue. From the medical view it is a euphemism, a nicer way of expressing the idea but from the cultural perspective it is anything but. It would be as if we were in colonial America and I insisted that American culture was simply a consequence of English or European culture. It would be as if I demanded that the article for American redirect to "European impaired". That may be a simplistic way to express it but I wanted to attempt to give you some indication of why I and others have been so stubborn on this point. Any authority from Europe could claim (rightly I might add) that European culture came before American culture and the one is simply a consequence of the other, but I doubt that would make anyone in America all of a sudden relent and agree that we should be directed to a page called "European impaired" when we typed American in the search box. No American, or even just an already knowledgable person who was interested in the American people and their culture, would appreciate the affront before they were allowed to be presented with the information that there is a less Eurocentric perspective in existance which is increasingly common in fields like linguistics, sociology, education, and even in business and media.

Please notice, by the way, that if you type American in the search box you are taken to what amounts to a slightly expanded disambiguation page that makes early and detailed note of the controversy surrounding the label. This exactly parallels what should happen with the deaf article.

Now to return to the issue of the edit war we find ourselves in. As James Pole said earlier on this talk page, having the disambiguation page is more NPOV and so I feel that until the situation is resolved we should keep the disambiguation page. Until you can prove a case for a more POV situation, you should stop reverting it and asking me to just go along with your POV solution.

Because, from many of the links, we cannot with certainty predict which side of the issue someone would be inclined to explore first, they should rightly be provided with a choice (a disambiguation page). Qaz 05:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how the medical view and the cultural view are opposed

Perhaps the most important way the two views are incompatible is that the medical perspective often seems to view deaf people as just non-functioning ears. It is similar to the critique levied against the profession by older women who claim that the medical perspective treats menopausal women only as non-functioning ovaries. Many menopausal women, and many of the people who treat them (who are not medical doctors) instead say that they are going through a natural stage of life. Thus, many Deaf say they are a natural variety of humanity that simply uses a differnt mode (visual) of language. Neither the menapausal woman nor the deaf individuals are trying to deny the factual basis of their "impairment" but suggest that to see the situation only through the lens of lack or limitation is a simplification that leads to many critical thinking errors and does the people you are supposedly serving a disservice.

If you are interested, here is an external article about one issue that shows well how the two perspectives can lead people to be at odds. Qaz 22:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are obviously not going to concede. Frankly, I've had enough of talking to a brick wall. Could you please go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Deaf and tidy up the mess that your viewpoint is creating. This means all the pages that link to hearing impairment should actually link to hearing impairment and not this *****.

You have a totally ridiculous view of medicine. The time is past that a deaf person is seen as one who cannot hear. Medicine now understands the psychological, social and - yes - even the cultural aspects of deafness. You are fighting stawmen. Bye bye, Qaz. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Menopause clearly is a natural stage of life, because all women who live long enough will go through menopause. Deafness only occurs if one fails to process sounds. It is blatantly obvious that it is a disability because it is the lack of an ability. Anyone (who is not blind) can learn sign language, only hearing people can hear. Ichelhof 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Once asked whether he would have his own hearing restored if he could, I. King Jordan, the first deaf president of Gallaudet University, told interviewers, “That’s almost like asking a black person if he would rather be white ... I don’t think of myself as missing something or as incomplete ... It’s a common fallacy if you don’t know deaf people or deaf issues. You think it’s a limitation.” I might add, by the way, that blind people can and indeed do learn sign language - see tactile signing. Perhaps you lack a few abilities yourself? ntennis 07:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I should have done more research into the blind signers; thank you for correcting me on this point. The rest of your response does not substantively address my post. I was concerned neither with how deaf people view their deafness, nor with whether it limits their ability to lead productive lives. Deaf people are simply unable to do something that everyone else can and does do, and this is the definition of a disability. It is irrelevant that the deaf see benefits in their disability. A man unable to walk but equipped with a (theoretical) scooter that moved him about faster than walking might well claim benefits in his own disability. My other point was that the beneficial trimmings of deafness (deaf culture) may largely be experienced by the hearing; they may learn sign language and be able to communicate through glass or over long distances, etc. Deaf people can never experience the benefits of hearing, so long as they remain deaf. Ichelhof 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point ntennis is trying to make is that just because some people see deafness as a disability does not mean that it is a disability. The meaning of disability is implied in the word itself—the un(“dis”)-ability to do something—and is very subjective. There are many things which I cannot do (lift 500 pounds, for example), but I do not see myself as disabled. So, while it is true the deaf people cannot do one thing (hear), they do not define themselves by that inability. I think the I. King Jordan example is very appropriate: a black person would not define themselves as disabled because they cannot be white, even though they cannot be. Gay people do not define themselves as heterosexually impaired.

So, if you wish to see deafness as a disability, that is perfectly fine—the word is adaptable. But for reasons of NPOV, it cannot be used as fact in deaf articles.Gaep13^(talk) 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the examples I have been presented with. Being black is not similar to being unable to hear. Being black is an actual quality; deafness is the fundamental lack of something. Not being white means you are black, or some other color. One can not call this a disability without espousing preference for a certain color. Not being able to hear has no alternative option to interact with sound. It is simply the absence of that option. You might well see yourself as disabled if you could not life 500 pounds were you to encounter 500 pound weights that 95% of people could lift and did so on a continual basis. Just as a deaf person is clearly disabled when he can not perceive and interpret sounds. I agree that all things are subjective, but some are so far to one end of the spectrum that their inclusion in a category seems assured. If deafness is not a disability, if nothing can be called a disability, then disability is meaningless. And yet, the concept it expresses IS useful and meaningful, so I suggest that it be used, perhaps with a disclaimer. Ichelhof 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I once shared your view of deafness as a disability or medical deficit, but the more I got to know Deaf people, the more it honestly became untenable for me. I want to encourage you to consider the possibility that Deaf people themselves have a special insight into deafness and disability that others who haven't experienced these issues directly might want to "listen" to; for instance, very few of the Deaf people I know would choose to become hearing if given the choice. They would see that as a loss rather than a gain. Why do you think that is?

Disability is not merely an scientifically observable physical attribute like eye color, but is a social phenomenon whose meaning changes over time and between cultures. Homosexuality, to use the example given above, has gone from moral flaw to disability to minority rights; only a few decades ago it would have seemed inconceivable to most heterosexuals (and even many homosexuals) to think of different sexual orientations as being equally valid, much as it is inconceivable today for many Hearing people to imagine that Deaf people are not disabled. Your point that "one can not call [being black] a disability without espousing preference for a certain color" is actually very pertinant here, because you make it clear that "disability" is partly about values. When you state that someone is disabled because they can't do something that 95% of people in a given society can do, it is also illuminating, as it makes it clear that we are talking about social norms. So a short person in a tall society in disabled, and vice versa. And as a hearing person whose partner snores, I can testify to how having hearing can be a disability — as can those around me when I'm grumpy at work from an interrupted sleep!

There's a very readable and thought-provoking essay that you might like to read, called "Do deaf people have a disability?" by Harlan Lane, in Sign Language Studies 2:4 (2002). I can email you a PDF copy if you are keen to find out more. ntennis 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it any better than ntennis. I second everything s/he says; "disability" is solely about social perception. (A very good point, which I had forgotten to mention, is the homosexuality issue; it is remarkable how the history of homosexuality parallels the history of Deafness.) The main point is that deafness cannot be construed as uniquely a disability in any deaf related articles. We can, however, say that some people see deafnees as a disability and some don't, which I think will maintain a NPOV. If you are interested, Ichelhof, in deaf issues, I encourage you to join our proposed Wikiproject. You can sign your name and provide input at either User:Ntennis/Deaf WikiProject proposal or Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects. Hope to see you there.

And thanks, ntennis; you rock. Gaep13^(talk) 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*blush* (^_^) ntennis 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the phrasing "some view deafness as a disability while some do not." As a homosexual myself, I do see some differences which hurt its use as an analogy to deafness. Homosexuality is a preference, motivated psychochemically or not, for an action. It is difficult to frame it in terms of a disability in ANY but social terms. Deafness is not a preference, it is a state which describes a purely physical condition. Ichelhof 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. I am also gay, but I don't see it as a "preference" or choice at all. So, as we can see, there are varying views for everything. I am glad we could come to a conclusion about how to address deafness in articles.Gaep13^(talk) 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying one chooses whether to be attracted to a certain sex or that it is a choice at all, but that the action it references is a voluntary behavior. A "straight" man might only have sex with men and be indistinguishable clinically from a homosexual. A deaf person could never voluntarily hear, while they were still deaf. Ichelhof 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ichelhof, you said "Deafness is not a preference, it is a state which describes a purely physical condition." in the context of medical deafness (I assume). But would you agree that Deafness is a preference? (i.e. cultural Deafness) Whether or not I am (medically) hearing, I can choose to live culturally Deaf, in a community where hearing is basically irrelevant, and hearing-centric values go away. --Ds13 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on my limited knowledge of Deaf culture, I would agree with you. If most everyone were culturally Deaf, I would retract my claim

that medical deafness is definitively a disability. Ichelhof 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Diametrically Opposed

Models of Deafness deals with this diametric opposition in part, but not completely. First, let us understand the proper analogy for this issue. There is at least one other cultural group which was historically identified from a pathological view that no longer - at least in western society - is identified in that manner, but rather as a cultural group: homosexuals. We don't learn about gay and lesbian culture by searching for it under, for example, "mental illness". That is precisely what occurs with "deaf" when it is confined to the pathological view. It's like searching searching for Jew by going to Tay-Sachs disease or searching in mental illness for Gay Culture.

The principal opposition has to do with language, which is a marker of culture, not medical diagnosis. In January, National Public Radio (NPR) reported that American Sign Language had exceeded Spanish as the second-most taught language in colleges and universities in the United States. As college students are well-aware, a language cannot be taught indendent of culture and history, so that means that of the 1,000-plus institutitions of higher learning in the USA, deaf culture is the second-most studied culture in colleges. Additionally, American Sign Language is now the 4th most used language in the USA, behind English, Spanish and French. It is the most-used indiginous language in America although it is the newest of some 200 indigenous American languages. Even the USA most authoritative voice on the medical model of deafness, the National Institutes of Health - Institute on Deafness and Communicative Disorders acknowledges the important status of deaf culture and sign language. Deaf culture finds its center in language, not diagnosis. The medical model persistantly insists that deafness is *only* about illness. If you ask a doctor and a deaf person what the major problem is concerning deafness, the doctor will say it's the tragedy of not hearing, and the deaf person will say it's the tragedy of no communicating. There is no cure for deafness and the people we're talking about, mainly but not exclusively pre-lingually deafened people, can cite the historic failures of medical and educational efforts to make them into a broken sort of hearing person. I don't mean to be harsh but stating the facts in those terms. I'm citing verbatum what repels deaf people about medicine and draws them to a view that emphasizes their abilities. In the context of a sign-language based culture, disability evaporates. That signing environment has an enormous positive impact on a deaf person's mental health.

It just makes common sense that people who are weary of being defined as not quite human because of their difference would naturally gravitate to an environment where their difference is of no consequence or concern to anyone at all. To achieve that, a deaf person, by necessity, has to reject a diagnostic view of their state of being and hold fast to the language and values that make them feel good about themselves. It's impossible to be referred to as hearing-impaired, or for that matter, "anything"-impaired, and maintain a state of good mental health. That is what deaf people understand better than doctors do about deafness and it is why medical and cultural model are diametrically opposed. Language is the center of deaf people's lives, not medicine. Deaf people say "sign language" is our solution, not hearing aids and cochlears implants. Deaf people say they are a language minority, not a guinea pig for medical intervention. Ray Foster 23:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Another ridiculously biased view. Deafness is pathological in the sense that hearing loss is not "normal". Medicine has little to say about the state of deafness, or how it is experienced by the deaf. So what? Does that mean they have to be diametrically opposed? JFW | T@lk 07:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk about ridiculous bias DOCTOR! You think it doesn't matter for you to trivialize the cultural identity of the deaf? That's not mere bias. It's bigotry. You shouldn't even be involved in this issue of deaf culture given the obvious financial stake you have in in medicalization of deaf people, always stearing them toward expensive surgery that you can't even say with any assurance will work. You're just aiding and abetting a long tradition of medical practitioners who experiment on children, sell false hope to their parents, and can't deliver what they promise, and doom them for life to illiteracy. You should be ashamed! Ray Foster 00:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ray, sorry, but you lost the argument by using an ad hominem attack against all doctors. It's quite clear you've got a strong POV against cochlear implants but this is not the medium for trying to impose your views as the truth. If you want to express your particular POV, there are other wikis you can contribute to that encourage this. Alex.tan 07:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alex, you'll have to show me in some article where I've imposed my views. I've been the principle author in only one article, Models of Deafness, and if you'd like to refute it for NPOV you are invited to do so. When I encounter someone whose bias is so complete that he won't even acknowledge the existance of cultural deafness, it's pretty shocking. Deaf culture pre-dates otology and our esteemed medical expert doesn't even know that. While he's done excellent work in many areas, it's clear he hasn't read any of the significant works on deaf culture. If he had, he wouldn't be asking these stupid question about why the medical and cultural views of deafness are diametrically opposed. He simply wades in and asserts the dubious superiority of the medical view and then redirects to satisfy his own bias and ignores all objections. It wasn't me who who did that. It was Dr. Wolff. That, sir, is just plain bigotry. Medical science does not trump social science. Ray Foster 15:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am not trivialising cultural identity, but I have strong issues with Ray's attempts to redefine deafness. Doctors are not in it for the money, you know? And this surgery is carried out with the genuine concern that these children should hear, you know? Perhaps it was you, Ray, who was bigoted. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs new article

This is in response to the revert by JFW who said on the edit description that the article should be a disambiguation and not a new article. The article on American, which is another term that is used very differently by people from differnt cultures, follows the same format as this article. The similarity is intentional because in both cases a simple list is not sufficient. JFW, you have your medical perspective at the very top of this article. When others asked that you include a link to the cultural view near the top it was something which you would only do after a protracted debate back when you had this page wrongly be a redirect to the hearing impairment article. I have been respectful to you at every turn and I will continue to be even though your last comment to me on this page contained a link to the article on profanity. If you wish to change something, please explain your reasoning here so that others may comment on it and so that you do not appear to now be on a personal vendetta against me for finally breaking your attempted ownership of the word deaf.Qaz 08:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The template says it is a disambiguation page, while in its present format it is not. I conceded to a disambig, not to a new article. I have no ownership over this page, and neither do you. I have been reasonable and respectful with you too, although you have still not explained your obvious bias against the medical profession, and this is why I lost my cool in the above posting. Doctors are humans too, and modern medicine is actually very good at addressing cultural concerns. It is therefore very POV to claim that "medical and cultural deafness are diametrically oppposed".

I was hoping hearing impairment could be a comprehensive article addressing all views, rather than Balkanising matters concerning deafness over various pages. If so, you will have to tolerate the "pathological" waffle about what causes deafness, the anatomy and physiology of the cochlea, and the various treatments. There are a lot of similar Wikipedia articles.

I will not revert now, but I urge you to format the page.

I also take issue with your insistence that "hearing impairment" is no more than an euphemism. It is actually used in a much broader sense than "deaf"/"deafness", as even slight loss of high tones can give profound impairment without actually causing pure deafness. In medical practice at least, the term "impairment" is used as a minor but significant disruption of function (e.g. "renal impairment" is broader than renal failure). JFW | T@lk 09:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you look at what I have said in the past, I have not claimed that "hearing impaired" is just a euphamism. I said something to the effect that the mainstream culture views it as a euphamism whereas the deaf culture views it as an insult. Earlier on this talk page, I did say it was used by the medical view to mean such and such and what I meant in that insteance was the mainstream culutre, not the medical culture so I regret that miswording. As far as the medical profession goes, especially after good points were made for why deaf should not be a redirect and you just kept repeating the same few claims (such as the medical condition predates the cultural affiliation), and also, because you were so dedicated to not giving an inch, I was inclined to think you were just another doctor that could only see deaf people as broken or disabled and had no understanding of an alternate perspective. This was reinforced by you asking things like, since when is deafness not a pathology, does that mean it is normal now? (or some question very similar to that)

The medical perspective and the cultural perspective are often at odds, this is not just my view it is an objective fact. I am not even saying which is right or wrong. I personally believe neither side is right all the time. Like many things, when you change your perspective, certain things become easier to see and other things fade into blind spots. It is analogous to having a scientific model. When you change the model, it illuminates or hides differnt aspects of reality. I am not saying medicine is wrong and deaf culture is right. I am not saying that deaf culture is wrong and medicine is right. All I am saying is that the two models see things differntly and both deserve attention. The fact that they are at often at odds though is simple fact. To report a controversy is not POV as long as it is really out there, and in this case it is. There would not be such an uproar over cochlear implants being used on children if there was no opposition in the two camps. I can understand your wish to have a comprehensive article. I have doubts as to whether that article could live at the "hearing impairment" article though unless it immediately addressed the real life controversy over that label and you apparently were very hostile to having cultural information appear anywhere except buried deep within the article. Actually, I take that back. You can and should have a comprehensive article at hearing impaired. That would in no way though lessen the need for deaf to lead to a page that gave reference to how the label is used by both deaf and by hearing people.

One thing you have not addressed on the talk page and I have brought it up a few times is the way differnt cultures use the term American. This exactly mirrors the problem with the word deaf. The reason the "American" article looks the way it does is because there are real differences in how the term is used by large groups of people. To outline this controversy is not failing to be neutral. Please respond to this line of reasoning. I would like to know your thoughts on it. Earlier you offered to move the page to "deafness" and off of "heaing impaired". I would consider that a big step away from the impass, however, that still leaves a big problem. It is the same problem when people from differnet cultures enter American into the search box and expect much differnt results and so therefore both groups must be catered to. There is a huge group that uses the word Deaf as the name for their culture, as the label for their people, as the word that sums up their identity. As such, does it make sense for deaf to be a redirect to anyting else even if that other uses is just as valid? The name of the culture is not "deafness" and it is not "hearing impairment". I do not see why you are so against having deaf lead to a page that honors how differnt groups use the term. I would not have imagined that having a fair representation of all sides of an issue would be such a contentious thing. Btw, I am aware that in the unemotional/technical vocabulary of medicine, heaing impairment is not meant to be an insult in any way. I agree that in medicine, it is a broader term than deaf. My point was never that you were wrong, it was just that you were not allowing any space for views other than the medical one. Qaz 11:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This (below) is what I added to part of the political corretness article if this will help explain what I meant about deaf as a euphamism. Also, thank you for your return to comity.

Additionally, the PC movement sometimes has to confront the fact that some of the groups it aims to protect have a much different perspective than the mainstream culture from which political correctness sprang. For example, deaf culture has always considered the label deaf as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The politically correct term now often substituted for the term deaf, hearing-imparied, while less offensive from the perspective of the mainstream culture, is considered highly derogatory by the deaf culture supposedly being saved from derision and discomfort.

I'm still wondering if we could not bring all models under one big happy umbrella (titled deafness, hearing impairment or whatever) and branch off the rest from there. I will not repeat my Pakistan example again, but inhabitants of India certainly have a different view of Pakistan than its own inhabitants (e.g. about border conflicts). Still, Wikipedia does not have an Indian model of Pakistan etc etc. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we bring all of them under an article with neutral term for the title, can the "deaf" article still be left to tell the difference between how different groups use the term to mean differnt things, just as the "American" article does? Just as the "American" article is there to aid people who use the term differntly, so "deaf" should be left to steer people in the direction they want to go rather than picking sides and forcing one view over another. Wikipedia does not have an "Indian model of Pakistan" article cuz all sides use the terms to mean basically the same things. There is wild debate about the issues they disagree over but the labels for the groups themselves are agreed upon and so no article is needed to explain any difference. The term "Indian" is also used differntly by differnt groups. If you had forced "Indian" to be a redirect page I imagine a similar problem would break out on that talk page. If we can find mutual ground I would be happy to stand on it with you. Qaz 01:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this page presently duplicates articles elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion undet this heading on this part of this page has been between you (JFW) and I (Qaz), but your edit summary for the remark above this one says response to Ray. That confuses me. Do you think I am another ID held by Ray Foster? Qaz

No, I'm not accusing you of being a Sockpuppet. You don't respond like Ray, anyway. I simultaneously wrote a response to Ray in the previous section, and typed this one as an afterthought.

Shall we go and stand on mutual ground, then? JFW | T@lk 16:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Search for common ground

That depends, do we agree that like American and Indian, deaf should not be a redirect and that whatever page deaf leads to should deliniate how the term is used differntly by differnt populations? I have thought about it for awhile and I think the reason I feel that the cultural view and the medical view is "diametrically opposed" (sorry it seems to bother you to put it that way) is that the medical view strives to fix what the cultural view does not feel is broken. Many or most culturally deaf people would not take some magic pill or avail themselves of some surgery to become hearing if given the chance. Many deaf people hope for deaf children. These attitudes are traditionally impossible to understand by many doctors and the medical establishment at large. It is the role of doctors to make everyone normal, it is the feeling of deaf pepople that they are normal. (Please be aware that I know full well the two uses of the term normal in that sentence are slightly different from one another. It is part of what drives the split that many of these words have meanings that do not coincide with one another inside and outside the medical establishment). In any event, can we agree that there is a split here in perspective? Qaz

I still don't think that deaf should disambiguate, but that the differences in perspective and emotional "baggage" are addressed as a part of a larger article. After all, they are all facets of the phenomenon that people have difficulty perceiving auditory information.

To counter your "American" example, we don't have multiple pages on George W. Bush, even though the Republicans think he's great while Michael Moore thinks he's the devil. Wikipedia aims to address these perspective as part of the flow of an article. I can bring various other examples. In fact, Wikinfo was started so that every POV could have its own page.

I completely appreciate that there are deaf people who hate being labeled "pathological" for their inability to hear. Still, this has come about because a disease process or a hereditary disorder has made them incapabale of hearing, which is why they still belong in this article. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you get the people who watch the article on Indian and on American to consent that they should not have a disambiguation I will agree for deaf too. Qaz

I came here from the RfC page and would like to contribute. From what I understand from reading the Talk pages, the issue currently is what to do with the word "deaf", i.e. whether to have: 1) a "Deaf" disambiguation page; 2) a Deaf article that covers it all with links to particular sub-topics (e.g. lists of people who are deaf and/or hearing-impaired); or 3) neither of the above (i.e. separate pages with "deaf" redirecting to one page). Just from reading the Talk pages, it is clear that deaf aka hearing-impaired is a very different creature than deaf as in deaf culture. Consider three different types of searches of "deaf":

• parents who type in "deaf" searching for medical information and the social implications for their deaf/hearing-impaired toddler.
• a young deaf person typing in "deaf" to find non-medical information that may help him lead his life.
• a hearing worker or student typing in "deaf" to find information helpful for understanding his deaf co-worker/roommate.

The first searcher is probably looking for the hearing impairment page. The second is probably looking for pages in the deaf culture vein. The third searcher may be looking for BOTH types of pages. And all may not know enough about the topics to type in "hearing-impairment", "deaf culture", or any other term apart from "deaf." I would argue this dispute should not be framed in terms of diametrically-opposed POV positions or "models", as the dispute is framed in the outside world. Rather, it should be viewed as for what information people will actually be looking. In my humble opinion, I think that all of them would benefit from a disambiguation page. Those that are looking for one type of information or the other, but not both, would not have to read through one rather long article. Those exploring could have easy links to both types of information. I hope that I have contributed with this. -- JimCollaborator 03:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, having read again the page on disambiguation and when it should be used, I realize now that my suggestion above may not fit with Wikipedia policy on such pages (please forgive me, I'm new at this). That said, I still think that Deaf should serve the function of such a page if not the form, since there are two distinct and independently significant topics (or groups of topics) that are related to this word, and having both together would be overly cumbersome. -- JimCollaborator 04:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think I muddied the waters by talking about how the article on American was like an expanded disambiguation page and how I wanted that same kind of treatment for deaf. I should not have refered to it that way perhaps. I agree with all you have said though JimCollaborator. Thanks for stating it so well.Qaz

Disambiguate the "List of deaf people"?

I'm placing this topic here as well as on Talk:List of deaf people since I think this is related to the disambiguation of "deaf" currently underway here. Since appear to be working under the assumption that "deaf" means different enough things to warrant a disambiguation page, should this list now be split into Famous people in Deaf culture and List of famous hearing impaired people? eg. I would suggest that folks like Beethoven, Ronald Reagan, and Steve Jobs would be on the latter list but not the former (since Deaf culture either didn't exist at their time or they were/are not members of the Deaf community). --Ds13 03:57, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

I think a simple list of deaf people should include anyone who has any degree of hearing loss that gotten them named deaf by history. I have never seen anyone complain that people who were not culturally deaf were on that kind of list. I do not have any strong feelings about it either way. Qaz

Qaz, have patience with me, because I'm still trying to understand... You seem to erode your own position on the need for a disambiguation page when you say that "deaf people" can be safely understood to be "anyone who has any degree of hearing loss".

You suggested "Indian" or "American" as possible comparisons to "deaf", due to the different meanings of the word to different people. Fair enough. It wouldn't make sense to have a "List of Indians", since that would mean very different things to different people (ie, is it a list of Native Americans, or people from India, or both?), but if we can get away with a single "List of deaf people" it says to me the word may not really have the "very different meanings" that the disambig intro says it does (your words, by the way). Are we going full circle? --Ds13 08:58, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

I thought of the point you are making before I posted my response that you say erodes my point. The reason I posted it anyway though is that it has been my experience that lists of famous peole who were some quality or another tend not to make very fine distinctions. For example, I have seen lists of famous Jewish peolpe that include anyone that could possibly be labeled Jewish no matter how leinent your standrds are. The same seems to apply to lists I have seen of all kinds of famous peolpe who can be labeled x. In the end, because I recognized that there is a lot of play, I stated I did not have strong feelings no matter which way it went. I do not agree however that since list makers usually strive to have as big a tent as possible that there is no differnce between the "very different meanings" (my words and the words of many others as well) that are ascribed to the label deaf. Qaz

• By the way, the reason it is possible, even if it may or may not be advisable to have everyone on one list is because, as JFW is fond of pointing out, almost all members of Deaf culture are also deaf by the medial use of the label as well. This situation is different from the Asian vs American Indian example. Most people from the country India are not also American Indians. As with most comparisons, if you push it too far it will give. Qaz

I feel we definitely need to sort that list out into a List of culturally Deaf people (including people who are only culturally Deaf, such as children of deaf adults, or are important people in Deaf history), and a List of Post-lingually deaf people who would not be considered nor consider themselves to be part of the deaf community nor deaf history (e.g. Ronald Reagan). There is an obvious divide between the two categories with little ambiguity. If there is an any overlap then people can go in both lists, as they're not really mutally exclusive. I think the only thing stopping the list being split up is the work it would take to sort it out. Alternatively the lists could remain in the one page, divided by different headings. --Pengo 12:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current state of dispute

Did we end up with some kind of consensus here? JFW?

It seems to me a little awkward to have two 'zones' on wikipedia about deafness that aren't very well integrated - especially when the 'deafness' page redirects to 'hearing impairment' rather than this 'deaf' page (cf. deafblind redirect to deafblindness). Please bear with me as I have quite a few suggestions to (humbly) make! I firmly believe that we can accomodate all sides here.

I came to this page after viewing the hearing impairment page, and made some comments on the talk page there that regular contributors to this page may like to see.

My own take on the dispute is that JFW and Ds13 want to ensure that the 'deafness' page is not swamped with an undue focus on deaf culture, and should retain the wider community's sense of the word. Qaz/Pengo/Ray Foster's concern is that Deaf culture is invisiblised and the voice of the deaf community is drowned out by the medical profession.

While I strongly agree that there's a need to indicate the existence of a deaf community, sign language, etc, I can see JFW's point that the deaf community is inextricably linked to the physical condition of deafness. In my view, the Deaf community is a subset of the deaf population (if u can follow my logic). The two groups need to be clearly delineated, preferably in the first paragraph where a there would be a link to deaf culture and sign language, taking interested readers to those pages and leaving the rest of the 'hearing impairment' page to the medical persective. (As an encyclopedia, of course, the medical aspects of deafness are only part of the picture - it should include sociological information as well).

I believe that information from this current ('Deaf') page could be integrated into the first paragraph of the current 'Hearing impairment' page. The 'Hearing impairment' page should then be renamed as 'Deafness' - and the 'Deaf' page made to redirect there. Still with me? This seems to me to be a much more internally coherent organisation of this area of knowledge within Wikipedia. --ntennis 13:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that more integration is a goal, however Deaf should never redirect to hearing impairment for for all the reasons I have outlined in the debate on this talk page. Qaz

What I changed already and why

Despite wading into a fiery dispute a little late I've made some significant changes to the Deaf page - I hope they aren't too controversial. If so, there's always reverts!

I tried to make the opening description general and useful to the average reader.

I tried to distill the extant information down to the significant parts in a logical order.

I put the deaf culture paragraph with the hearing impairment para as I feel they are much more linked conceptually than the colloquial use of the word, which i moved to it's own section as 'other meanings of deaf'. There may be a wikipedia convention that I'm missing here?

I also re-worded the deaf culture paragraph with a view to it's eventual integration in a general page about 'deafness'

I look forward to getting feedback on any of this and sorry if I stepped on any toes. --ntennis 13:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say "eventual integration" into a page about deafness. I hope you do not mean you hope to remove mention of deaf culture from this page as that would be a mistake. I reintroduced the way the page started before which warned that the term is used to mean very differnt things by differnt groups as this seems to me to be at the core of why this page needs to exist in the first place. Qaz

No I hope I did not give that impression! I don't want to erase the information here, or water it down. In fact I have quite the opposite in mind. I will try to make myself clear. Again, please read with an open mind.

Currently, if you type 'deafness' in the Wikipedia search box, you are re-directed to the 'Hearing impairment' page. If you type 'deaf' you are taken to the page that we are on the 'discussion page' of now. The two pages have very different information. It seems to me 'deaf' and 'deafness' should redirect to the same page!

On some level it looks like what's going on with these two pages is territorialism, with two different models of deafness competing over terminology - a medical perspective and a cultural one (see discussion above). However, if you look at the best pages on wikipedia, the different meanings or categories of the term used as the page name are outlined at the start of the page; there's a general overview, and the different areas of interest branch off from there.

If you look at the 'Hearing impairment' page (also 'Deafness'), the opening paragraph is almost exclusively about treatment and rehabilitation - in fact everything after the first sentence.

I would rather see something like we are developing here at the 'deaf' page move to become the first paragraph of the 'Hearing impairment' page (though i think it still needs work), and the information there about treatment moved under a heading like 'Treatment/rehabilitation'. I think that page should be named 'Deafness' or 'Deafness/Hearing impairment'. The opening paragraph should be an overview of what deafness IS, not just how to treat it. Qaz, please see this site for the kind of thing I have in mind.

Here's a quote from the page I just gave the link to:

DEAFNESS - While deafness is a hearing impairment, someone who is deaf is not usually described as having a hearing impairment. A person who has a total hearing loss is described as being deaf. The key difference in the common use of the terminology is that someone who has a hearing impairment, has a mild or moderate hearing loss, and a person who is deaf has either no hearing or has a severe hearing loss.

As someone immersed in Deaf culture, I'm strongly in favor of a reference to the deaf community and sign language in the opening paragraph of the 'deafness' page. However I think we need to remember that the number of signing deaf are a tiny proportion of the total number of people with hearing impairments (eg. in australia, there was an estimated 750,000 people with a hearing loss (5% of total population) in 1986 - current research puts the number of sign language users at about 6,500 [1]. The proportion may be greater in other countries but you can do the maths. Also ref. this site. Other estimates put the Deaf Community at 0.1% of a general population.

Yet despite small numbers, the Deaf community offers important insights into a number of fields of knowlege that should give them at least a prominent mention in the page 'Deafness'. Eg. Nicaraguan Sign Language is at the core of the investigation into the nature of language. The Deaf community's challenge to widely believed notions of 'normal' and 'disabled' are forcing many other fields of knowledge (eg. sociology, anthropology) to question their frameworks. Also, the 'public face' of deafness in some ways includes sign language (eg. films about deafness like Children of a Lesser God); it's prominent in the general public's mind. All this should be a part of a page about deafness.

Hope you're still with me :)

Alternatively (though I prefer the first option), we could expand this page a lot, explain the way the term 'Hearing Impaired' is used differently from the word 'Deaf' and put a link to the 'Hearing impaired' page in the opening paragraph. The 'Hearing impaired' page would then have to do something similar referencing the 'Deaf' page. The 'Deaf page would be renamed as 'Deafness'.

So I would really like to see a response from others who have contributed to this page and the ongoing debate. Anyone who wants to have a private discussion or chat online is welcome to contact me on my talk page. As the discussion is inseperable from the hearing impairment page, I guess i'll copy these comments there as well. --ntennis ntennis 02:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wider Community

Putting the deaf vs. Deaf vs. hearing impaired argument aside for a moment, I'd like to point out the use of the term wider community in this article. Is this really the best word for "people who are not deaf?" As a professional within the field of deafness, I would be more inclined to use a term like hearing community or even hearing world, which is a common enough phrase in the Deaf community. (Incidentally, the ASL phrase is signed as DEAF-WORLD or HEARING-WORLD while English speakers are more likely to say deaf community or hearing community. To me, wider community sounds a bit too vague. Thoughts? -Etoile 16:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this context simply "outside of the deaf community" is the best phrase. Saying "Hearing people" would wrongly include hearing people who are part of the deaf community. And "hearing world" would just require further explanation for the hearing world. --Pengo 14:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's Consider Additional Vocabulary

It has been a pleasure to consume the passion expressed so far on this page. I was surprised that no one (unless I overlooked it) used the term "CONTINUUM" as a tool to organize the wealth of information that you all hold collectively. As I spent so much time reading and processing what was being expressed, I do not have time to look at the guidelines for article format and content, but, I do have a few general suggestions to throw out to the crowd:

Why not consider organizing EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH the medical and cultural aspects of hearing impairment and deafness along linked continuums?

for example: CONTINUUM 1 - anatomy of hearing impairment which would address the known functions of aural structures, and how the impairment of various structures can lead to the inability to hear from slight to complete. CONTINUUM 2 - perspective and interpretation of hearing impairment and deafness at one end would be the purely medical point of view in which the normal and desired state is to be able to hear un-impaired, and the focus would be to restore hearing AND the individual's place within the hearing community. At the other end would be those who belong to the deaf community (which distinguishes itself from the hearing impaired community) and have no desire to discredit the value of their cultural variation by labeling and treating the inability to hear as an "impairmant." (It would be interesting to see this continuum written twice - once by a member of the medical community and once by a member of the deaf community. I say this because I have gained a great deal of understanding and insight reading the different perspectives expressed in the previous discussion. It allows for more accurate interpretation of messages being expressed in future struggles.)

I think that it is within this continuum that the definition and explaination of deaf culture would exist, however, deaf culture could be a continuum of its own if one were to examine the magnitude of adaptation in attempt to co-exist with the hearing community and the resulting cultural variation within the deaf community.

I am so tired that my brain has just about stopped functioning. My last word is this: I am not a member of the medical or the deaf community and I hope that I have not ignorantly written something offensive or insulting. I appreciate the privilege of viewing everyone's posts which are obviously generous in intelligence and emotion.

5% below average?

"Worldwide, at least 5% of the population (1 in 20) is estimated to have less than average hearing." This doesn't make much sense to me. My guess would be that somewhere closer to 50% of people would have less than average hearing, although I suppose this depends on your definition of average and your measure of hearing. Another term besides "less than average hearing" probably ought to be used, but I'm not sure which term is most accurate. I also don't have the source that the original contributor used (it would be nice if it were cited), so I can't be sure that the term I use would match correctly with the source. NoIdeaNick 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, the assertion that 1 in 20 people have less than average hearing is nonsensical. The article used to say 1 in 20 people have a hearing impairment significant enough to cause them some difficulty, but was recently changed (Jan 2 2006) to the "less than average" wording. i have to confess it was me who put the "1 in 20" figure there back in March last year (along with the other stats) but forgot to reference this one and actually worded it inaccurately myself. A good estimate is by the World Health Organisation (Global Burden of Disease, 2001), that 250 million people have disabling hearing impairment, which is defined as hearing loss that measures in the moderate through profound ranges in the better ear. This represents approximately 4.2 percent of the world’s population. Two-thirds live in developing countries and 75 percent experienced adult-onset loss while the rest have had hearing impairment since childhood. Additionally, 340 million people have mild hearing loss. (see this link). According to Deafness Research UK, "almost 9 million people in the UK, one in seven of the population, suffer from deafness or experience significant hearing difficulty." So it all depends how you define hearing loss.

To be honest, I think this page needs a big overhaul. I'll come back and fix the stats and references along with the other stuff. Promise! :) —ntennis 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Not all people who view themselves as Deaf are unkind to hearing people"

This just leapt out at me. Why is it included? Does the writer believe that there is a general perception amongst "hearies" that "Deafies" hate them? Some elaboration needed.

Moved to deafness

I don't think deaf should redirect to deafness. Only "deaf" is related to deafness. "Deaf" is an entirely different concept which is already being developed in this page. What do you think? Rodrigo Novaes 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildae. Anyway, due to technical limitations of the MediaWiki software, Deaf and deaf are the same article. Karimarie 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we could create a disambiguation page under Deaf, that would link to Deafness and Deaf culture, for instance. In fact, it is the very first suggestion on this page. Sorry if I forgot to sign. Here it goes: --Rodrigo Novaes 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of this move. I do not see a need for it. It seems in most cases redirects should go from derivations to roots and not the other way around. Additonally, much of the article makes less sense as being text of an article on deafness vs being an article under deaf, as it was. Qaz 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Rodrigo Novaes 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Deaf/Deafness

Due to my screwup, anyone who type "deaf" in search term is currently redirected to article about "hearing". Sorry about that. Appreciate if anyone can fix it. As for my two yen, I would find it helpful if article about deafness explained biological aspect as well as cultural one. Vapour