Talk:Hearing loss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Deafness)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Deaf (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disability (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Hearing loss is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Corrections still needed[edit]

Multiple issues here:

1. Please review WP:MSH: on Wikipedia, headings are not repeated in sub-headings, and uppercase is avoided.

2. I have removed a lot of off-topic content and placed it on the talk page of the more appropriate article for such content (Sign language). There is more of same. On Wikipedia, wikilinks are used so that information can be written in the correct article and then linked to from other articles.

3. The entire section on "Communication barriers" should be moved, but I'm not sure what target article to move it to. It should also be rewritten to remove anecdote and generalities (I am hoping someone else has time to tackle this section, as the work needed is lengthy and will be time-consuming).

4. There is also a problem here that citations are added to the ends of entire sections, when at minimum, every paragraph should be cited.

5. Several sections are written as if the United States is the only country in the world and are in need of clarification and globalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC) rE: "The entire section on "Communication barriers" should be moved, but I'm not sure what target article to move it to..." Good points. I would agree that it is hard to find a better location--and thus it belongs squarely here. Haring loss IS a disability of communication barriers and thus this topic is absolutely integral to this page. I agree it needs re-writing and would be interested in helping. This section would be most helpful to most people to be up front. Hearing loss is a real equal opportunity disability that can affect everyone. More coping strategies listed would be interesting and helpful. Domaon (talk)domoan — Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Not sure I see the point of changes "hearing loss" to "reduced ranges of hearing"? The former is more normal language.
  • What exactly is this ref supporting [1] Seems a little spammy
  • This sort of blog is not a suitable source [2]
  • The most important thing about hearing aids is not that they are "FDA regulated medical" devices because they are not in more than 90% of the world. Please note that this is a global encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No comments yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
By way of background, I work in R&D at a Big 6 hearing aid manufacturer. I consulted with our regulatory department. Nearly every country regulates "Hearing Aids" as medical devices. The U.S. and E.U. regulations are typically observed by other countries since they do not have the resources to produce their own. These regulations are enforced to a varying degree depending on the country and the country of origin for the devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hearingreadyguy (talkcontribs) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. If we are not going to go with "hearing loss" than we should also change the name of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to change the name of the article; hearing loss is a succinct identifier for the article. The distinction is that in certain context, it is appropriate to recognize that there are "changes" or "reductions in hearing" that may not constitute the definition of hearing loss, but which may trend towards one eventually. I regularly tell patients with borderline hearing loss configurations that while a hearing test/audiogram may not indicate a "Hearing Loss" diagnosis, that it is not to say that their hearing has not diminished from what it used to be to the point that they are aware of the changes. I was not making blanket changes, and I think if you look at the instances where I had, it does not take away from the article. Additionally, I added some valuable content and clarifications beyond these language updates. Hearingreadyguy (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is both a technical cut off and a lay meaning. Hearing loss simply means any decrease in hearing to most people who speak the English language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hearing impairment encompasses "reduced ranges of hearing"; I don't see the need for that wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Still, in terms of adhering to People-first Language, this article has room for improvment. (e.g. "A deaf or hard of hearing person can communicate over the phone with a hearing person via a human translator.")
It's great that a lot of people who sense changes in their hearing turn to wikipedia for information. It would be great to make it as user-friendly as possible, and the language that we use is a part of that.
I don't dispute that this is common and accurate language to use, but maybe it's time to modernize how we talk about this condition. "Hard of hearing" and "deaf" (except when speaking of the culturally Deaf) are labels that are, for many people, mental shortcuts that pull up stigma and baggage that triggers a grieving process which delays a person from seeking timely treatment. When possible, it should be kept functional like "reduction in hearing range" or, as Sandy suggests, "hearing impairment".
People are naturally adverse to "loss", so communicating the term "hearing loss" is best when the impairment is preventable or avoidable.
My 2 cents Hearingreadyguy (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Just be sure that your usage of deaf/Deaf is consistent with the consensus reached in the RfC on the matter and the broader principles of Wikipedia policy on the matter from which it was drawn; "Deaf" can only be used in extremely narrow contexts. From your wording, you may well follow this distinction already, but I recommend looking at that RfC anyway, because the conclusions are very nuanced. Snow talk 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to go with "hearing impairment" rather than "hearing loss" but do not see a significant difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
On that point, I tend to agree. Clearly both terms have a broader common usage and also various more refined technical definitions in particular contexts. For our purposes here, I think both could used interchangeably without confusion to the reader, with notes on nomenclature where appropriate. Certainly the vast majority of readers will be able to parse these meanings, but to whatever extent editors here prefer one over the other, it's not particularly worth arguing over. Snow talk 04:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

confusion in section on myths[edit]

Several or most of the examples in this section are in fact corrections of common wrong ideas and don't even mention the myth, which was so confusing i renamed the section, but it still needs to be rewritten. --Espoo (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)