This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page seems to be based completely on the American oralism debate. This is an issue in far more countries than just America- I can state that this also happens in my home country of Australia. I wouldn't be too sure on how to fix this, since I don't know too much about how to edit, and I'm not sure I have enough of the relevant information, but I think this is an issue that needs fixing with this page. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, oral vs. manual debate in the education of the deaf is much older than 1867 as given in the article, even in the U.S. The start of the oral vs. manual debate must be attributed to the exchange of letters between German Samuel Heinicke and French Abbee de l'Epee.
The article needs to be overhauled with more historical data and citations of the proponents of both sides. 126.96.36.199 (talk) Hartmut 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10 September 2013, 18:50 —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. The oralism debate of today is more based on the late 1800's than on the previous periods, simply because the issues are much different in a world of technology. Sculleywr (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Summarize Kim Baker (2004) + add relevant Deaf Culture info
I think this article would greatly benefit from a good summary of the arguments found in the Kim Baker (2004) reference (I've now replace the dead URL with a live one). She (or he?) basically presents the arguments (with useful references which we can presumably also use) for Oralism (basically best for integrating with the rest of society in education, work, etc), then for ASL (basically best for self-esteem and emotional development), before arguing (with a few references) for a combination of both (on grounds of Aristotle's Golden Mean and offering each individual the right to choose, etc). At present Baker is only cited misleadingly in a purely Pro-Oralism context which misrepresents her/his position. It is also wrong to cite Baker (as is currently done) in support of Oralism providing better social development, as it raises the question of social with who (basically Oralism makes the deaf able to be more social with the hearing, while ASL enables the deaf to be more social with other deaf people). Presumably what is true for ASL is also broadly true for other sign languages such as BSL, etc, though Baker doesn't mention them. I may eventually try to fix all this myself, but it's currently low on my list of interests and priorities (to the point where I could easily forget about it altogether), so perhaps somebody who is more interested than me might get it done a lot quicker and better than me. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
However when summarizing her work, please note that Kim Baker (like Mary Shelley up to a point, I think - I haven't actually read her book Frankenstein) is sympathetic to Frankenstein's Monster as a persecuted outcast, but Hollywood mostly is not, and Baker's deaf readers and their friends and sympathizers may be offended by her problematic analogy.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Relevant info can also be got from Deaf culture, which I've now linked, including the following (which seemingly implies, without explicitly stating, that exclusively teaching Oralism now violates international law):
Deaf culture is recognized under article 30, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that "Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture." Tlhslobus (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)