Talk:Deaf culture

Deafness article

Please join in the discussion at this location. Photouploaded (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance merging content

The second half of the Deafness article had a great deal of content related to Deaf culture. Deaf culture was originally quite short, but with the content merged in, it has grown to a substantial size. Suggestions for how best to organize the information would be appreciated. Photouploaded (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Could someone please explain how the 'Terminology' section contradicts itself as the tag says? I don't really see a problem with it. If someone could point this out I would be happy to help correct it! •Felix• ^T 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, and, when I have confirmed the details, I am going to be fixing the details and citations. Sculleywr (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural centers

Shouldn't there be a mention of the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf located near Salt Lake City, UT (in Taylorsville, I believe)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahbrwn (talk • contribs)

Cochlear implants

I'm surprised the controversy over cochlear implants gets no mention on this page. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats because there is no controversy. Deafness is a handicap. Thats like saying there is a controversy over artificial limbs because it destroys amputee culture. Alyeska (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of controversy. See 1, 2, 3, 4, and that was just in a few minutes of searching. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Alyeska, you don't agree with the view that Deafness is a culture. There is a big difference between a cochlear implant and an artificial limb. Namely in that most people who have children with cochlear implants don't teach their children sign language or expose them to Deaf Culture or the Deaf Community. musicalmeg20 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is perhaps the most ignorant thing ive heard in quite a while. And it is the very core over the controversy. That people like yourself, deaf or otherwise, think its a bad thing to hear.

It is not. Nor should deaf people be considered inferior outside of the physical inability to hear and how that inability affects their life in a world designed for the hearing. There is no difference in the comparison of disabilities in relation to this controversy. An artificial limb is no different than artificial hearing. And what would be hilarious, if not soo disgustingly sad, is that those like yourself think its not the same. That if a group of disabled people without limbs thought it was "ruining their culture" to use limbs, or that they denied their children limbs, you would think it was "bad". Wow, now perhaps you might see why this "deaf culture" idiocy is so damn ignorant. 121.215.64.69 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

The difference, whoever you are, is that culturally Deaf people share a language. They are partially isolated from the larger culture by the inability to hear the language used by the larger culture, and so they connect with others who share their signed language. There is also a long tradition of residential schools for the deaf, where students stay at the school for long periods of time, further emphasizing their connections to each other while further isolating them from the larger culture. Amputees have no such communication barriers, and so there is no isolated "amputee culture" to disrupt.

A disability that affects verbal communication has far greater ramifications than one that affects mobility or dexterity, when it comes to participating in society. You can disagree with Deaf people who argue against cochlear implants on cultural grounds, but it is ignorant to claim an equivalency with other non-communicative disabilities. Powers ^T 11:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearing is one of the 5 primary senses. It is a critical sense that is very important for survival. The modern world makes it possible to live without the ability to hear, but it is still a dangerous world. The inability to hear is a disability pure and simple. Sign language allows deaf and hearing impaired to compensate, but it does not allow them to overcome. They are still fundamentally disabled and missing one of the 5 senses. It is a handicap. Do people take pride in being blind? Do people take pride in having no sense of taste? Pride in no sense of smell? There is no Blind Culture (who do happen to have their own language). It is good to see people who can overcome their disability and succeed in life, and there is pride in that. But having pride in the disability itself is just mystifying to me. Be proud of your accomplishments and the culture that it inspires, but do not show ignorant pride in your disability, and do not insult those who overcome their disability through receiving implants. They have overcome their disability through another method and they deserve just as much respect. Alyeska (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Blind people do not have a separate language. Braille, if that's what you're thinking of, is a system of writing that can be used to transliterate English or a number of other languages. It's more of a font than a separate language -- thus why there is no "blind culture" separate from the larger culture. As I pointed out, culturally Deaf people do have a separate language, do often spend a lot of time isolated from hearing people, and therefore do have a unique culture. I happen to agree with you that criticizing implantees on such grounds is, in many ways, cruel and unnecessary, and I don't believe in the preservation of individual cultures just for the sake of preservation, but to deny that Deaf people have formed a separate subculture in numerous societies (not just the U.S.) is willful ignorance of an astounding degree. Powers ^T 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Subculture is not the same thing as culture. People who live in Montana have a different culture than those in New York by your same reasoning. They are separated, speak different dialects, etc. But to use the subculture as a context to berate others and as justification to selectively have deaf children is insulting. Alyeska (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ASL is not a dialect of English. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Powers ^T 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Alyeska (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Considerably. It certainly seemed as if you were comparing the differences between the dialect of English spoken in Montana with the dialect spoken in New York to the differences between ASL and English. If you were not doing so, why did you bring it up? Powers ^T 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture is not dependent on a specific language. Culture comes from many areas. So does subculture. My point is that deaf people do not live in a different culture unless they came from another nation with a fundamentally different culture. What deaf people have is a subculture that can develop from their language. And something you need to consider, deaf people should also be capable of communicating in English (through written form). So deaf people are of a multilingual environment more then anything else. The uniqueness of their subculture comes from their need to communicate through gestures, and this exists with any sign language they know. So their subculture is a result of their handicap, not their language itself. Alyeska (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It can't solely be the result of their lack of hearing. There are numerous people with normal hearing in Deaf cultures -- primarily interpreters and CODAs, whose members are fluent in sign language -- and plenty of deaf people who have no connection to Deaf culture. Also, there is more than one Deaf culture in the world, usually delimited by the sign language used. Certainly, most any Deaf culture is part of and influenced by the larger surrounding culture, but I don't see how that invalidates their concerns. Powers ^T 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The culture arises from being deaf, but naturally those involved within the group also join the subculture. Like all other subculture groups work. Alyeska (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's much more to it than that, I'm afraid. Otherwise, as you noted above, blind people would have their own culture like deaf people, and more deaf people would be a part of the culture. Deafness is part of it, for sure -- it certainly has a huge effect on most of the cultural norms -- but it's quite simply not the only factor. The isolation of many deaf people in residential schools for the deaf, and the use of a unique language, among other things, are also factors. Powers ^T 12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(I think we can skip back a few indents)I am talking sub culture here. Not culture. Blind people can very well have a subculture that is connected but not directly the same as the primary culture. Deafness is the root cause. People associated with those who are deaf become associated with the subculture. There is nothing intrinsically unique about the deaf subculture outside of it being an adaption from the deafness. Peculiar quirks were adapted in the process of sign language and a semi different culture emerged. They are still part of Western Culture and within the American culture (or whatever country they are from), but adaptations from learning to speak with their hands is the primary difference in their culture. The language itself is secondary. And as such those associated with people who are deaf become part of the deaf culture. Alyeska (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOR, how could that be any clearer, dammit, we don't care what YOU think, what SOURCES say is what we care about. You are not special, you are not a source. Snapdragonfly (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation was over more than six months ago. To what are you responding, exactly? Powers ^T 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try to summarize the above debate here in the talk for future visitors to this talk page. Real quickly, however, I want to make clear that I am a hearing interpreter trained at Tennessee Temple University, with no connections to Deaf friends or family prior to that time. Prior to going to college, I had never even thought about these things. Now, I have a broader view of things, a second language, and friends I would never have made without that experience. As for knowledge to why this is a controversy:

Deaf people view the cochlear implant as a threat NOT because of what it does, but when and why people are getting cochlear implants. the surgery to install an implant is extremely invasive, costly, and has risks that are avoidable when in many cases of hearing loss, it is possible to restore a percentage of hearing almost as good as a SUCCESFUL implantee. The reason I say this is that the implant surgery has shown in studies to be only 50% successful in providing hearing improvements better than hearing aids.

The second part of the controversy is that Deaf children have their choices made for them before they can even think enough to make the decision. There are some who have, later on, thrown the external portion of the implant out, because they did not like that someone drilled a hole in their head. A surgery so invasive, which in and of itself serves no life-saving purpose, should be chosen by the recipient, and not the caretakers, unless improvement of mental statust can only be brought by the installment of said device.

Now, with schools out there in EVERY state for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, with many of them having success rates higher than their own state's public school systems, it is obvious that hearing does NOT effect mental competency. Harvest Deaf Academy, a private school in Ringgold, GA, has proven that not only can they turn out educated people that are Deaf AND hearing, taught in a bi-lingual school that is run equally by Deaf and hearing teachers and equally attended by Deaf and hearing from all over the country, and in some cases, outside of the country itself (exchanged from the countries of Romania, Ireland, and other countries), but they can make them successful either in college or in a career.

The argument of Deaf people does have only one flaw, from my point of view. There are Deaf people who refuse to accept implantees as a part of the culture, stating that they have sold themself out to the "hearing community". This also is not true, because the moment you take the implant off, you are just as Deaf as any other Deaf person. in my eyes, the surgery should be given only to those that are old enough to understand all the implications and options, because education can no longer be hindered by your hearing, if you do things right.

Now, I shall take the problems of the pro-hearing argument the rest of the way apart. I already mentioned that education is not hindered by hearing or the lack thereof. I shall take this further to state that function in the community (that is, as a contributing part of the community) is not unhindered either. Deaf people now serve in many capacities, from walmart to the government. They have shown that they can not only drive, but, without the distractions we hearing people put in our lives (cell-phones, radio, kids arguing in the back seat), Deaf people tend to be safer drivers than hearing drivers. Some will bring up crossing a road as a possible hazard, but I say that it is no more dangerous for them than it is for you or me. How many times do you see a hearing person cross the road with an mp3 player or ipod in his ear. the first time you use one, you might have trouble, but the same compensation you make crossing the road with headphones on and music blasting has been being used by Deaf people since they were born.

the final issue is the people who do not understand that ASL is a language in and of itself. ASL is most certainly a language. it has a distinctive people group that uses it, a specific and distinctive syntax and grammar that is different from English, and is actually closer to that of the French language. Connected to this issue is the recognition of culture. The three markers of a specific culture are: Language (American Sign Language) boundaries (these boundaries can be either geographical or socio-political. In the case of Deaf culture, it is a socio-political boundary that separates Deaf people from hearing people.) the most important aspect of culture, however, is a shared history. Deaf people have had a vastly different history than hearing people, even within the Americas. That is what makes it a culture, not a subculture. new Yorkers and Mississipians share a common history, while hearing people and Deaf people share major differences in philosophy and history. While Hearing people have experienced melding of races and culture, among the Deaf, there was little to no racism problem. While hearing people have been able to get jobs anywhere they want and get good education in any field, it wasn't until the late 1980's that Deaf people were educated in their own language again. and it wasn't until the ADA and other acts that discrimination against them was recognized as an issue. It is obvious that we have a long way to go, and we need to work toward a society where Deaf and hearing can work side by side. that should be our goal. we should start working towards it NOW. ~Sculleywr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.161.101 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right on most aspects, although I'm not sure what your point is. =) Is there something specific in the article you'd like to address? Powers ^T 15:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the special type of suppression that hearing people have used on Deaf people, a type that is different from the slavery pinioned on the African-American people in the past and yet easily as segregating. Instead of controlling them by physical means, Deaf people have been separated from the hearing populace for a long time now, dating back much farther than the aggressive means of slavery which black people only experienced for a few hundred years. Not to minimize the horridity of white man's slavery of black people, but Deaf people were and have been viewed as inferior for thousands of years prior to that. The method I am talking about is the provision of inferior or no educational materials. This includes the forced oral training pushed on them in the 1800's as well as the many hundreds of years prior to the 1700s where they weren't even thought worthy of time in the classroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.186.78 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Norms

I'm curious about one of the bullet points in the Norms of American Deaf Culture section. Admitedly, I haven't had a lot of exposure to the culture, as it seems to be dying a slow death in my area, but the point about discussing music being rude seems a bit off to me. Is there a citation to back this up, or does this seem to be the case in other areas that I just am not aware of? Again, if I'm just ignorant, please educate me :) Deafgeek (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see how discussing something which Deaf people can't access would be rude. Whether there's a citation for that or not I'm not sure. I haven't ever done it and had a Deaf person be offended, so I can't even speak from personal experience - but it seems reasonable.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is insane, as is the phenomenon of deaf parents screening their embryoes to ensure a deaf child. Deafness is a serious handicap, and those parents should be jailed if they try to do such a horrible thing. How could you take the beauty of music away from your child? Or is it just that they are scared that their children will have rich experiences that they cannot even imagine??Ndriley97 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks deaf people don't listen to music doesn't know very many deaf people. :P Powers ^T 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Man... I'm not deaf yet (less than 20% impairment but will fail before I'm 40 based on family history), and even if I was 100% deaf I would never identify with this 'culture' crapola, but I do know the joy of being able to 'feel' my music. Gliktch (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Wow, I like this discussion. I don't know which side to sway to, both sides are strong to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.136.11 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language references

I removed these from the English article because they aren't useful here, but they might be in the Spanish version if someone has the expertise to place them.

• Gascón Ricao, A. y J.G. Storch de Gracia y Asensio (2004) Historia de la educación de los sordos en España y su influencia en Europa y América. Madrid : Editorial universitaria Ramón Areces, Colección "Por más señas".
• Herrera, V. Habilidad lingüística y fracaso lector en los estudiantes sordos.[1]
• Storch de Gracia y Asensio, J.G. (coord.)(2005), Estatuto jurídico de las lenguas de señas en el Derecho español (Aproximaciones), Madrid, Editorial universitaria Ramón Areces, Colección "Por más Señas, La Llave"
• Storch de Gracia y Asensio, J.G. (2005), "Las teorías de Harlan Lane sobre la identidad sorda. Oscuras remembranzas del nazismo en estado puro", accessible at Voces en el Silencio.
• Storch de Gracia y Asensio, J.G. (2005), "Comunidad, identidad y derechos humanos y lingüísticos", Communication at the II Congreso Nacional de Lengua de Signos Española, Valladolid University (Spain), september of 2005 (accessible at Centro Hervás y Panduro).
• Storch de Gracia y Asensio, J.G. (2006), "Derecho a la información y discapacidad (Una reflexión aplicada a los lenguajes de los sordos)", en Revista General de Información y Documentación [Madrid-España], vol. 16, núm. 1, pp. 75-103 (accessible at Centro Hervás y Panduro).

--Distinguisher (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed external links

I removed a number of external links from the article with the following rationales.

The following site duplicates the functionality of Wikipedia, but is full of spam:

• A DeafWiki free-content encyclopedia of deaf and hard hearing

Already included in the 'deafness' article and not directly related to cultural Deafness:

• Broadcast Captioning & Consulting Services Inc. (BCCS) - Providing Closed Captioning Services across North America.
• About: Deafness/Hard of Hearing
• National Center on Deafness at California State University, Northridge
• Gallaudet University: Demographics of Deafness

Poorly maintained:

• Marra Museum of Deaf History & Deaf Culture

--Distinguisher (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed new 'Language Barriers' essay contributed by Anahdz0717

Since a lot of work appears to have gone into this contribution, I think it's only polite to say something here about why I removed it.

1. It contains a number of factual errors (e.g., "BSL it has in own supported language or slang ... called the SSE, which stands for Sign Supported English.").

2. It's inadequately referenced. Many of the references that have been included are broken links.

3. It's poorly phrased, uses incorrect terminology (e.g., 'glossary' rather than 'vocabulary') and is mostly ungrammatical English.

4. It's not properly integrated with the existing content of the article.

5. Much of the content is inappropriate to include in an article about Deaf culture (e.g., "There are a set of rules for using language, called grammar."). --Distinguisher (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deafness and Genetics

I just edited this page after seeing the undocumented claim that: "The causes of deafness are rarely heritable". I added a citation needed to that statement. I bring this up after reading the following article: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.52.239 (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement about heritability was made in the context of accounting for why deaf children rarely acquire Deaf culture from their own families, so the heritability of age-related deafness isn't directly relevant to the argument. For the sake of accuracy, I adjusted the statement so that it applies only to children and adolescents, which is all that is necessary to account for why the culture isn't acquired from family, and which is supported by the existing reference.--Distinguisher (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with article on deafness

I'm surprised that this article exists with no section for "Critiques of the Concept". Just because language is a carrier of cultures, doesn't mean that every linguistic group is also equivalent to a cultural group; doesn't logically follow. Deaf Culture has been erected on the notion that because they use their own language, ASL or local variants, they are THEREFORE a separate culture. I would suggest however, that a deaf Iranian has more in common with other Iranians, than he/she does with deaf Finns, and vice versa. The whole notion of deaf culture reeks of political expediency and opportunism. Just because a group is disabled and therefore deserving of sympathy and assistance, doesn't mean the rest of us have to swallow a politically charged notion that has no basis in either fact or logic. This whole page reminds me of the constant squabbles from various nationalistic groups that one still sees infesting Wikipedia.

What this means is that this page should be a sub-section of a larger page on deafness, ie, controversy over existence of deaf culture. To give it this separate page is to ratify the notion without ever really examining if it has substance.

24.81.19.230 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, it's true that not every linguistic group is equivalent to a cultural group. It's also true that deaf people often have more in common culturally with their hearing countrymen than with foreign deaf people. But Deaf culture exists, most prominently as a subculture of the broader United States culture, but other deaf cultures exist in other countries as well, and they share many elements and overlap with each other somewhat. These basic facts are not in dispute by sociologists, but rather, it seems, only by people who drop by to comment on this talk page. Powers ^T 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Disability template

Template:Disability was recently added to the article. I'm seeking opinions about whether it should remain, in that many members of Deaf culture object to the term "disability" to describe themselves. If it were any other article, such as Deafness, I would have fewer concerns. I think for this article, however, use of the template may reflect an insensitivity to the culture. Thanks for your comments. Cresix (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Deaf culture is not, itself, a disability. But deafness is (it's the inability to hear; no matter how much deaf people prefer it that way, it remains so), and the development of a unique and vibrant culture around a disability is relevant to the larger topic of disabilities. That said, I can see how some might find it off-putting, especially since there's no good way to contextualize the template. Powers ^T 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Powers. That is all I will say, given that I do not generally get involved in identity-politics-oriented discussions. Pending a collectively-sanctiond consensus, you at this article should do whatever you deem best. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think an article that discusses what is not a disability falls within the topic of disabilities as much as an article that discusses what is one. From that point of view, the template seems appropriate, but it may not be interpreted that way by everyone.--Distinguisher (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that no matter what hearing people say, many members of the Deaf community don't consider "not being able to hear" a disability. It's a construct those outside their culture, namely, hearing people, place upon them. I don't think that just because someone slapped a template that declares the Deaf "disabled" it should remain. I also think that since many Deaf don't consider themselves "disabled", it should be removed. The problem with templates is that they categorize the often uncategorizable. (Infoboxes often do the same thing, which is why I hate them, too.) I understand their purposes, so that similar articles can be grouped together, but in this case, I don't think categorization is more important than the afore-mentioned identity politics. I'm sure that a politically-active member of the Deaf community would say that here we hearing people go, trying to make them more "hearing"--again. Christine (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Deafness is in Category:Disability, and for good reason. I know that deaf (and especially Deaf) people don't like being defined by what they can't do, but there's no other way to define deafness except by lack of hearing. Even in the popular phrase, "Deaf people can do anything -- except hear", there's the admission of an inability to do something. It's the only defining characteristic, and there's no way around it. (Deaf culture, on the other hand, can be defined without reference to hearing, but deafness as a state cannot. I've seen attempts, but they aren't pretty.) Powers ^T 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can debate this all day, and this isn't the place to do so. Personally, I think it's a presumptuous debate for hearing people to have. Regarding the template, however, it may help to know that the editor who added it, User:Kikodawgzzz, is the template's creator, so he definitely has an agenda. He has also been blocked for editwarring. He's what my mother would've called "a troublemaker", so keep that in mind. For that reason, and because this article has done fine without the template in the past, I vote to remove it. Christine (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see him as a troublemaker. He was blocked once for 3RR, a common mistake and one for which he apologized. The discussions on his talk page make clear that he acknowledges the Social model of disability -- which is, ironically enough, a topic to which the above discussion regarding deafness and disability is very very relevant. Powers ^T 22:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to a comment by LtPowers. I agree with most of what you say. However, I would like to reframe your comment "there's no other way to define deafness except by lack of hearing". Medically that is true. What I think the sticking point for people in Deaf culture is that deafness does not have to be defined as a disability. This objection to characterizing a sensory deficit as a disability is not restricted to Deaf culture, BTW. The National Federation of the Blind states that blindness, with proper training, can be reduced to a "nuisance", not a disability. I don't mean to split hairs, but I think these nuances of meanings of words are important to minority groups. I appreciate all the comments here. Feel free to invite others who have an interest to contribute. Cresix (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disability" is a medical term, as is "deafness". They have other senses, but we can't ignore the medical senses because some culturally Deaf people don't like to think about it that way. We're not about to create a Template:Nuisances. I guess the problem is that some people think "disability" means "there are tasks you can't do and so you need to be dependent on other people", when really all it means is "you can't hear" (or see, or walk, or what have you). Obviously people would object to the former sense, but I don't know of anyone who uses the word that way in modern times. Powers ^T 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, at least in part. "Disability" is used in medicine, as well as other professions, but it is not specifically a medical term. It has acquired broader connotations, just as terms such as "deaf and dumb" and "deaf-mute" (once considered acceptable terms) acquired connotations that became offensive to those who were described by them. The meanings of words change as they become a part of the larger culture. You're right; "disability" has come to mean "things you can't do". I think that's why those in Deaf culture have rejected the term (as well as other disability groups). Some of this may be considered semantic quibbling, but I think for this article it goes well beyond that. The Deafness article can be considered an article about the "medical disability". My feeling is that this article focuses more on the issues beyond the physical problems with hearing. I'm not necessarily saying that members of Deaf culture should determine the content of this article (that would never work on Wikipedia anyway). But I think in an article about the culture, consideration of their perspectives is more important than in other articles. BTW, you're right Template:Nuisances would never work. I think Deaf culture feels that, when it comes to deafness, "disability" doesn't work either. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding to what Cresix has said, remember that you don't necessarily have to not be able to hear to be a member of the Deaf community. CODAs, parents of Deaf children, and some interpreters are members of the culture as well. When I was an interpreter, my ability to hear was more of a disability, even though I was a better signer than many Deaf folks, but due to the generosity of other members, I was a part of the Deaf community. In other words, most Deaf people didn't hold my hearingness against me. Christine (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)m

Yes, I know. I've mentioned those very factors before on this page. But this page is in Category:Deafness, which is in Category:Disability. Personally, I hate the euphemism treadmill, but if there were another acceptable term that groups together blindness, deafness, anosmia, inability to walk, etc., I'd be willing to use it. But as far as I can see, there isn't. This page is not here for the convenience of Deaf people, it's here for the convenience of our readers, and removing a navigation template that those readers may find useful is a disservice. Powers ^T 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, in this instance, I care very little for "the convenience of our readers". If someone is going to want to find out about Deaf culture, this article's categorization isn't going to matter all that much. This article is about a group of people who find it offensive to be characterized in this way. If any of those other groups were opposed to some Category or Template being slapped on an article about them, I'd go along with what they'd want as well. Of course, I say this not as an active editor of this article, but as an "expert". (Yes, I know, I should contribute, but it's been a few years since I've been active in the Deaf community and I no longer have access to the research materials it deserves.) Personally, I understand this article being placed in the disability category; what I'm opposed to is the big, colorful template. It didn't need it before a few days ago; why even keep it if we know it's offensive to the very group this article is about? Christine (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the "eumphemism treadmill" either, but it's a fact of life that we must deal with. I think it's much easier for those outside of Deaf culture to complain that it's inconvenient to have to deal with changing meanings of words than it is for members of Deaf culture to live through the consequences of words that carry a negative meaning that they might not have had 50 years ago. If there had been an internet and a Wikipedia back then, we'd be having this same discussion about "deaf and dumb" and "deaf-mute" (or for that matter, racially related words that are not widely acceptable today). As for "if there were another acceptable term", my reaction is, why does there have to be a term? Deaf people are deaf. Their hearing sense is not the same as that of people who are not considered deaf. If deaf people do not want another term to describe them, why do we need another term? I realize the medical field uses the term, but the medical field also once used the words "moron" and "imbecile" to describe levels of mental retardation; try using those words in a professional setting today.
All of that having been said, I acknowledge that this article is not written for the convenience of Deaf people. I do feel some agreement with Christine, however, that having that huge "disability" logo slapped at the top of a page concerning people who find the term offensive is problematic. I don't know if there is a "best" solution. But in the tradition of Wikipedia, I started this discussion to see if any sort of consensus develops. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that we're not categorizing members of Deaf culture as being "disabled" by using this template. It's merely a navigational device. We use them to provide a concise set of links to related topics in a more usable format than a simple "See also" list. Articles like mainstreaming, ableism, social model of disability, and congenital disorder are very useful links to have on this article, and putting them in a navigation template is a convenient and friendly way to present them to the reader. If there is a better heading for the template than "Disability", that should certainly be discussed, but I can't think of one off hand. Powers ^T 02:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that those of us writing on this talk page aren't necessarily categorizing. But as has been said, this article isn't written for Deaf people, nor is it written for us. To the naive reader, one of the first things they see is the word "disability". I think this may be a case in which first impressions are overwhelming. To that naive reader, I think the message is "Deaf culture = Disability". I feel certain that would be more than a little offensive to the Deaf community. As I've said, I don't know that there is a "good" solution, but I definitely think we have a serious problem. Cresix (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What Cresix said. I agree, this is serious. Is this something we should take to arbitration then? Having never done that, I'll leave it to you guys to make the next step if we decide to do so. Christine (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are so at odds with each other that formal arbitration is necessary at this time, although we certainly don't seem to have much of a consensus either. (Anyone can seek dispute resolution, however, so I'm not saying you have no right to seek any solution you see fit, Christine.) I'm no expert in these matters, either, although I have been involved in some disputes much more heated than this one. I think the first step is to conclude the consensus process as much as possible. If that doesn't resolve the matter, then the procedures suggested by WP:DISPUTE might be appropriate. Perhaps the next step is a straw poll in which we each express a clear "Keep" or "Remove" opinion regarding the template. Consensus is not governed by majority vote, but sometimes a voting process can crystalize opinions. Accordingly, I'll go ahead set up the straw poll below if there are no objections. Again, if you know of other editors with an interest in deafness, please encourage them to express opinions. BTW, if you wish to add additional discussion, I think here (above the straw poll) is the appropriate place, not mixed in with the straw poll. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're dealing with a 'euphemism treadmill' in this case. The Deaf community don't just object to the term disability, but to any term that presents deafness as a pathological condition. They view the term impairment the same way for instance, not because impaired has taken on derogatory connotations like retarded, moron and so forth, but because they either don't believe deafness to be an impairment or would prefer this not be the focus of their identity.--Distinguisher (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we Keep or Remove the disability template?

• Remove - Although I have mixed feelings, for the reasons I have described above, I think for this particular article the template should be removed. This is not an opinion about use of the template in any other article. Cresix (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - My feelings about this have been made clear in the discussion above. I don't think the template is necessary, and it is a misleading and inaccurate categorization of both the subject and the group of people this article attempts to describe. Christine (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The formation of a unique culture around the language and social norms of people with a disability is very notable to the larger topic. This is a standard navigation template that is very neutral in presentation. Powers ^T 12:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - Though I can see why it would make sense for the Disablity template to go on pages like Deafness which describes the condition, I don't think it fits for a page regarding Deaf Culture. After all, there are many hearing members of the community who would not be considered disabled by the traditional definition. Deafgeek (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)