Talk:Deaf culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

This material was in the article:

All Deaf communities speak a sign language. In some places, such as Marthas Vineyard, groups of deaf people without a language have invented a sign language spontaneously. Deaf people write in a spoken language, not in an orthography of their sign language (although writing systems have been developed for some sign languages). Various degrees of speaking and lip reading ability are also found among Deaf people, for interacting with hearing people who do not understand sign language.

After moving much material around in my ordering and expansion of what was there, this was left over and I am not sure where to put it or if it even belongs on this page. I could just be overly tired since I have moved a lot of stuff around in one day. In any case, I did not want to just dump it so I placed it here for now. Qaz 02:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As they encourage on Wikipedia, I'm going to be bold.

Deaf students inside the classroom of a special school for the hearing-impaired in Baghdad, Iraq (April 2004).

Since there are so many issues surrounding the so-called validity of Deaf culture, I'm going to add appropriate sections onto this article in hopes that people will fill them in. An older section described the aspects of any culture, and so I think we should include separate sections for every aspect.

Deaf culture is a huge topic that entire books have been written on and this half-assed article does it absolutely no justice. --Damae 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that none of the sections that have been added have indeed been filled in yet. Regarding "aspects of any culture", a discussion of "Deaf Culture and Music" will for obvious reasons not require the same prominence in the current article as in articles about other cultures.

To the extent that there are things to say about music within Deaf culture, they could perhaps be covered under the Art and Literature section. I don't think we need a separate "Deaf Culture and Music" section and since no one has provided any text under this heading, I'm removing it. --82.46.53.168 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent site for american sign language

http://where.com/scott.net/asl/abc.html --205.213.111.51 17:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we delete this? Despite what a great reference fir ASL [sic] it might be, the link is dead. --Cathryn 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Is the Deaf community a real culture?" section

"Sociologists, who are the ones we charge with settling such questions, have a list of properties that a group of people must possess in order to be considered a culture. For example, a prison population would not be considered a culture in the sociological sense because the people interred are not there of their own free will. The Deaf community has all of the attributes a group of people need: a shared language, attitudes and beliefs in common, literature, art, volunteer associations, a tendency to marry within the group, etc., in order to be considered a true culture.Therefore, it is not an instance of grandiosity or even a slight exaggeration to use the phrase Deaf culture."

I'm not challenging the conclusion, but it needs to be presented in a more balanced way. The conclusion made here is obviously not obvious to everyone, or there would be no need to explain this. Who are "sociologists"? Why were they studying this in the first place (i.e. why wasn't the conclusion immediately obvious)? Or have there been studies or scholarly publications of some sort? I assume so, but this paragraph doesn't tell me. Culture might be a good place to start, but I don't know where this specific information came from. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have doubts that a prison population is not considered a culture. I don't know why free will would be necessary for a population to be a culture. Tuf-Kat 05:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the others who have expressed with concern with this section. The list of properties should, IMO, be introduced first and, if this really is an accepted list, then it should also exist in the culture article (I couldn't find it there). The conclusion that there is no prison culture, but there is Deaf culture, also seems strange to me since I thought it was not out of free will that most people are born Deaf; the conclusion may be valid, but a few steps need to be added to get us there. -- Oarih 04:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Oarih. Prisons most certainly have cultures of their own. I'll devise a diffent explanation using better know sub-cultures to put deaf culture in its rightful context. Ray Foster 04:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not an issue of free will

You're using the wrong group to make the comparison. There are only a couple hundred books and scholarly essay, studies and articles that have defined why deafness is a culture. It's because it is a LANGUAGE. Culture is bound to it's language and language to its culture. The entire argument for deafness as a culture is based on it's striking similarities and pararalles to Minority Language Groups. Look around the United States. In California we have Iranian, Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and on and on. There is a "Chinatown" or "Koreatown" or Jewish ghetto or Italian ghetto in most large cities. These exist because the people speak a common language, yet they are all minority languages in the United States. American Sign Language happens to be the most used indigenous language used in the United States, more than Navajo, Cherokee or any of the major native American tribes. It's about language. Here's the criteria:

1. Language, 2. History, 3. Social Organizations and mores, 4. A political agenda and 5. A unique dignity.

The deaf have all of these; a language that binds them all, for their entire lives. They have a shared history of struggle.

And if you'll look at your own page you'll see that it wasn't a sociologist who identified this culture. It was a linguist, William Skokie. As every linguist knows, you don't have a natural language without having a culture that is bound to it. After Slokie came Klima & Bellugi, psycholinguist Harlan Lane, and many many more. It was the people who study language that put it all together and if you'll take note, there is a specific category on Wikipedia where this discussion of deaf culture most logically fits: Minority Language Groups. Ray Foster

FYI, it's William Stokoe, not "Skokie" or "Slokie".

Disturbing Content.

I've made extensive updates and changes on this page because it was replete with statement that just left questions hanging in the air. In fact, I found that as I was editing the page and tactfully attempting to "add-to" statements that were pregnant with implied horrors on deaf cultural views, it became necessary to jump through hoops to make coherent and put into rational perspective the original text.

I'll cite a couple of examples to give you and idea of the problems I encountered:

1. (Original): Culturally deaf people (sometimes called the capital D deaf) do not look on deafness as a disability.

Yes. But WHY? The idea is posed but left unaddressed. I answered the question.

2. (Original): As an example of how thouroughly deafness is seen as a positive attribute, many Deaf individuals wish for their children to be born deaf.

Yes. But (again) WHY? This statement was just left hanging.

3. (This one gave me a nice chuckle) For example, a prison population would not be considered a culture in the sociological sense because the people ""interred"" are not there of their own free will.

Dead convicts, as a group usually don't meet the definition of a culture.

4. (Original): In hearing cultures a similar expectation is made of foreigners who are expected to learn the language of the land they have emigrated to if they expect to successfully assimilate into the culture.

I found this statement extremely biased and troubling, if not threatning. It suggests that foreigners who speak and hear are being compared to people who have a several thousand year history of being unable, even under the greatest effort, to acquire the language of their native country. This is a very old and ugly story that was well-documented by Harlan Lane. In France, indeed all of Europe and in the Americas there was a long period of frantic Assimilation terror. It is absurd on it's face to suggest the deaf are some kind of threat to nation-building because they use a different language than the majority culture. This comparison sets up the deaf as some sinister "foreign" entity bent on infiltrating and destorying their own homeland. What part of "deaf" does this insinuation not understand? We are talking about a group whose gentleness is unquestioned.

5. I'd like to know who is editing this page and inserting emphatic statements in mid sentence like "radically alters one's perspective" and this one: "Even hearing persons who are members of the Deaf community are expected to know about and even exhibit some of the adaptations deafness induces in an individual."

If you are going to say someone is expected to do a certain thing, why don't you just go ahead and tell us what it is that must be done rather than leave it hanging there like some gruesome mystery. This makes the deaf sound like some rigid and extreme cult or political movement.

And what is this? "Depending primarily on one's eyes instead of ears for interaction with the surrounding world radically alters one's perspective and expectations about functioning in the world."

What on earth are you talking about; "altered perspective about function"? The deaf perspective isn't altered? That's the fantasy (or horror) of hearing people when they contumplate losing their hearing. There perspective would be radically altered. But the deaf have but one perspective. Since they can't become "un-deaf" there perspective of the world doesn't alter. It remains a singularly unchanging view. There is a deaf parallel to this fear. Most deaf people feel so comfortable with their deafness, they fear becoming hearing for the same reason hearing people fear becoming deaf: it alters the very comfortable view one has engrained in one's brain. The only other thing I can think of, speaking as a deaf person (which I am) is that the threat of isolation or the fact of isolation can radically alter a deaf person's view of how they will function. When you are the only deaf person in a family, isolation and frustration is an everyday emotional beating you endure. Imagine feeling that way then going off to a school for the deaf where you can understand people. But then you are faced with having to return home on holiday or when the school term is over to people how don't sign and don't care to learn how. Add to this that you will immediately be saddled with all burdens of clear communication when you get home because, hey, you're supposed to be learning how to speak and lip-read like they show actors doing on television. Believe me. You'll cry when you see your father's car pulling up in front of school to take you back to that awful experence. It will warp you.

This is really pretty shocking editing I've discovered here. I can only conclude that any edit placed on this page is deliberate. I must admit, many things I've found here are profoundly disturbing. I will continue as a contributor but at this point I'm pretty devestated at the tone of much of this language. I'll sleep on it, but I think this page needs an extreme makeover along the order of starting at the first word at the top of the page and erasing everything down to the last word at the bottom.

I rest my case. Ray Foster 11:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deaf organizations

I was wondering if a section should be inserted regarding Deaf organizations such as (in America) the National Association of the Deaf (NAD). As of this moment, the NAD doesn't have an article of its own, but I am considering at least creating a stub for them. What do you think? The Bearded One 04:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, IMO. Important enough for a stub, at least. --Cathryn 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy that a section dedicated to Deaf Organisations should be here - It should be under a completely different heading. This is about Deaf culture - that crosses the geo-political boundaries. Organisation for Deaf specific to each countries should be in elsewhere. It is pointless that a British Organsiation should be here if a person who is not in Britain looks up on Deaf Culture in general!! --Dazissimo 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs work

A lot of this article seems biased toward the deaf culture. For example:

Culturally deaf people do not look on deafness as a disability. There is a simple explanation for this: within the community of deaf people, deafness is not a disability but an asset in much the same way it is an asset to be a Navajo within the Navajo tribe or Korean within the community of Koreans of Los Angeles.

Disability literally means "not able." Someone with a disability is not able to perform certain tasks. In this case the task is sensing sound waves, therefore people who are unable to hear are disabled. The explanation following the first sentence is absurd. Deafness isn't an asset in a community of deaf people. Knowing sign language and being able to lip-read are assets in a community of deaf people. Sure deaf people usually have those assets, but that's because they're forced to adapt to their disability.

And that's just the beginning. The entire article seems very supportive of deaf culture and only offers a few weak criticisms. Also, the more controversial aspects of deaf culture aren't mentioned, such as opposition to cochlear implants. Sorry if I come off as insulting, but this article looks like it's been written by some special interest group. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, there may be a bit of POV skewing in the article, though I don't think it is severe/critical. Would you like to propose some changes here? The Bearded One 05:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• You're 100% right, but in the context, your point is moot. Deaf people (and I mean Deaf, not deaf) don't view themselves as disabled. To a hearing person it's a logical impossibility, but there it stands. Don't try arguing it. You can't win. --Cathryn 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is, however, a controversial view, and the article fails to make any gesture towards this controversy. That is a serious failing in the article. 128.227.82.110 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathryn- One of the most powerful arguments that I've ever come across is the well-known fact that a very large chunk, if not the majority, of the population in the United States who identify themselves with this Deaf Culture movement rely on Social Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). The qualifying factor to be eligible for these checks are in fact their deafness... and yet, they claim that they are not disabled in any sense whatsoever. Speaking as a 7th generation prelingual deaf adult of a deaf family, this doesn't compute. This is a very serious logic fallacy, not quibbling over semantics. On a somewhat sidenote, this brings a new meaning to the old saying... "Follow the money." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.196 (talk • contribs)

Add a citation for this "well-known fact" to the article — I think this makes for a very relevant addition. I'm missing the conclusion this "powerful argument" leads to, though. I wouldn't expect a Deaf culture to be immune to hypocrisy, entitlement, greed, etc. --Ds13 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can provide not just one authority on the topic, but a whole list of them can be found at http://www.deaftennessean.org/board.php. Now, that doesn't mean I don't support the Deaf culture. We can provide citations all eternity and not finish, and since personal experience is the best way to learn something, I suggest you take an ASL 1 class at your local college. The requirements to go to Deaf events will give you plenty of time to see first hand what the Deaf culture is like. Anywho, if we are really going to change something up there, would it not be disrespectful to claim the culture doesn't exist without first consulting the Deaf??? ;)

As a deaf person, this entire thing reeks of the extreme wing of "Deaf people for Deaf people" seclusiveness. AngryParsley is entirely correct- the type of "Deaf people" that talk about Deaf culture, etc, are opposed to hearing aids and cochlear implants, because they make you "less Deaf"- a phenomenon similar (imo) to the "not black enough" phenomenon. The article goes way beyond neutrality to blatantly supporting that POV. 128.61.38.107 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Few attributes of deaf culture mentioned

"Deaf culture has its own values, mores, history, organizations, art and behaviors that mark those individuals who embrace the group."

What are these values and mores? There are only a smattering of values listed, and nothing at all about history or art. This article seems to be devoted to proving the existence of a Deaf culture rather than describing it. Strad 01:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Deaf Articles

I would like to start slowly trying to add my input to the Deaf/deaf/deafness/hearing impaired articles. I think they are in pretty sad state and are much too convoluted for how important a topic they are. I am on the pro-disambiguation side and very much agree with the assertions that Ray Foster has made on Talk:Hearing impairment about the un-NPOVness of “deafness” being a redirect to “Hearing impaired.” I would very much like to restart Ray Foster’s movement. I would like to recreate a disambiguation page, but I do not want to do it in the middle of what is obviously a very complex issue. Is anyone in favor of a disabiguation and would be willing to back/aid me?

(My most recent edit is in response the above comment from AngryParsley. I hope that he can kind of understand a little better about the “disability” issue.) Gaep13 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. I very much agree, and made similar comments on Talk:Deaf back in March last year when I was new to Wikipedia. However, I got scared off because of the heated nature of the dispute and the lack of response to my suggestions. Now that I've got my wiki sea-legs though, I'm ready to wade back in. :) Would you be interested in collaborating on a WikiProject on deafness and sign language? If there are 5 or more people with a genuine commitment to editing these pages, it might be a good way to co-ordinate the efforts. I made a similar suggestion recently on talk:List of sign languages and one editor responded. ntennis 10:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely be up to starting a Wikiproject! But I am limited in the amount of time and effort I can put into it. Like I said above, everything I am doing is going to have to be done slowly. But I would still love to participate

There are a few users I can think of who could be willing to join on: Ray Foster, Qaz, Etoile, The Bearded One, and maybe JFW. I would be willing to contact these users on their talk pages and I think if we make a Proposed project we could get even more interest. Does that sound like a good plan of attack?

(But again, I am going to have to be a bit of a sporadic contributor.)Gaep13 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Also worth contacting are Jadriaen and Sonjaaa. It's still fairly small number and as far as I know only one of the nine editors we have listed as potentially interested is Deaf. There are one or two other Deaf wikipedians but they aren't regular contributors so it might be also worth recruiting outside of wikipedia for a greater participation from Deaf people. I've put a note on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects; a description can be found at User:Ntennis/Deaf WikiProject proposal. —ntennis 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I just spotted this discussion. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not really sure exactly what such a Wikiproject would entail, but I'm heading over to the proposed project page to see if I can locate answers and sign up. The Bearded One 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Post from a culturally Deaf individual

First off, I think we can all agree that this is a rather complex, and in some ways, confusing topic, so please bear with me and feel free to ask for clarification.

I call myself a culturally Deaf (just "Deaf" from here on out) individual, despite the fact that most would call me hard-of-hearing because I speak like a hearing person and can follow conversations when they're one-on-one. On the other hand, I am fluent in American Sign Language, and my entire family is deaf. Therefore, I'm a part of both hearing and Deaf cultures.

1. Deaf people do not look on deafness as a disability: Let me put it this way. In a group of other deaf people, do I care that I do not hear everything? No, there's no reason for me to. However, among hearing people, I am "disabled" because I am not up to par with everyone. Aside from being able to communicate 100% freely with hearing people, I see myself as fully capable to do anything. Just like some people can't benchpress 250 lbs, I can't hear higher pitched sounds. Does that make me a lesser person (the most common connotation of "disabled")?

I do not know where you are getting your "connotation" of disabled, but the definition (from American Heritage's Stedman's Medical Dictionary) is: Impaired, as in physical functioning. Impairment does not make you less of a person. It just means that you do not have all of the abilities of a hearing person.

We are speaking of the common connotation that most people, purposely or accidentally, connect with the word.

oh, and since I am not able to lift 200 pounds, does that mean I am disabled?

2. Deafness is a positive attribute- generally, I am more observant/receptive to things than my hearing peers. I tend to be the first one to notice that someone's had a haircut, or that someone's upset, etc; I live in a world where my primary source of information is visual, and am especially attuned to body language (ASL is a body language; it is more than just moving your hands). Furthermore, whether I'm queer or black or Muslim or Amish or purple with three legs, I'm primarily Deaf, and Deaf culture recognizes this. Because D/deaf people are excluded when they are among hearing people (not necessarily purposely, but excluded nonetheless), D/deaf people seek connections, especially with those who are similar to them and who understand them. Therefore, D/deaf people are more accepting of each other and of diversity; minorities tend to understand each other and can relate similar experiences. Please note that I know I'm generalizing here; this is certainly not true for every D/deaf person, but from my experience, I would say that it is for most.

3. The prison comparison is a terrible one; I agree with Ray Foster on this, it should be taken out of the article.

4. Sadly, many people do see D/deafness as a threat, or at least something to be wary of. Take Alexander Graham Bell, who wanted to stop deaf people from intermarrying, or the many teachers/doctors/"experts" who believe that ASL is detrimental to acquiring written language (English). I think we can agree that my fluency in ASL has not harmed my written English. In some instances, upon telling people that I'm deaf, I've been treated as a leper; people get uncomfortable and are unsure of how to address me. Again, this helps to create a bond between those who are comfortable interacting with each other and know how to do so. Hearing people can be included into Deaf culture (for example, interpreters and CODAS- children of Deaf adults) if they know the language and if they understand the cultural norms. For example, hearing people should understand that eye contact is essential in communication, that Deaf culture does things that hearing people would see as bizzare or rude (banging on a table to get someone's attention, for example), and most importantly, that Deaf people are in a constant struggle to be included.

Examples of Deaf values/mores: -hugging another Deaf person when meeting up and departing -having a close-knit community where everyone knows everyone else's business (hearing people would see this as nosy); Deaf people announce to others that they're going to the bathroom instead of saying "Excuse me for a minute".

History: Like any other culture (African-American, queer), Deaf culture has a history. We have our notable historical figures, our movements (Deaf President Now), our literature, etc.

Art: Many Deaf artists incorporate their D/deafness / experiences being D/deaf within a hearing world into their art. Check out http://www.deafart.org/Deaf_Art_/deaf_art_.html for more specifically about Deaf art/artists vs. deaf art/artists.

As for those of you who say this article is "biased towards Deaf culture," I'm afraid that you seem to be hung up on the idea that D/deaf people have formed a culture. I can imagine white plantation owners thinking the same thing about their African slaves- "Culture? What culture?" Why should the article criticize Deaf culture? It should certainly address the fact that there ARE criticisms of the idea of Deaf culture, and that some peopple are dubious of the culture, but it should in no way detract from the idea that Deaf culture is a valid one. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that the article on African-American culture should criticize it.

I hope what I've written has been insightful, or at least informative for everyone intested in this topic. Please contact me with any questions/comments/criticisms you may have. I may be interested in the project, if anyone wants to contact me with some more information.

Best to all. -Xyu

You see yourself as being able to do anything apart from communicate with a hearing person who doesn't know sign language. Okay. Can you hear an angry dog rushing up behind you? Catch the sound of an onrushing train? Enjoy music in any form? Be aware of shouted warnings? There are a number of things that a deaf person cannot do, and there is no shame in that. But to pretend that it isn't a hindrance is absurd, and to deny people treatment for it on the basis of betraying "deaf culture" is criminal. Rogue 9 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rouge, It is not criminal, to human laws or American laws, to see deafness as an opportunity. From my own past, up until 3, I was deaf because of a blockage in my ears that my parents were unable to get fixed because of my multitude of other medical problems. They finally got it fixed and within 3 weeks, unlike most other children, I had fully formed the language base of a 5 year old. One of my friends in the Sign Language Interpretation Department (Tennessee Temple University) is a CODA. He had a language base at 6 months. There, to my knowledge, is only beneficial results from that. The sooner a child develops a language base, the easier they find it to learn other languages and other facts of life. As for criminal acts, would it not be criminal to deny a person their own true identity by treating their Deafness just because you see it as a disability?

Maybe you should look for the three ingredients to a culture: Language (ASL), history (Read above), and physical traits (Well, duh!).

Xyu, great job. If you see anything I made a mistake on in this, post it up. I may have been accepted by a small part of the Deaf community in Chattanooga, but I don't yet fully know the language. I fully understand being uncomfortable, but it is more with my half knowledge of the language. Have fun.

Regarding the comparison of deafness to the inability to bench-press 250 pounds.. That is not a valid comparison, since most people can hear, but most people CANNOT bench-press 250 pounds. It takes special training to be able to lift that much, but hearing obviously takes no effort at all, as most people are simply born with that ability. As an obviously biased hearing person, I cannot help but see deafness as the lack of a very important gift of life. It is true that when a person lacks one sensory ability, the others are amplified; which can lead to gaining other unusual gifts (such as super-acute visual attention) that the rest of us lack, so that is certainly food for thought. I hope that this discussion continues; sometimes I wonder what I would do if I had a deaf child. My favorite thing in life is music and if I lost the ability to hear it I think that life would no longer be worth living for me; therefore I would be tempted to "fix" the child's deafness if that were medically possible. However, I could see that a person who has lived their entire life without hearing obviously has a very different experience and viewpoint, so that definitely raises questions...

However, the definition doesn't leave limits to what it is. I was going by the definition. Here is an idea. It isn't an authoritative source, but it is an online discussion board used by the deaf. Head to www.alldeaf.com if you really want to bite into the debates they have over this. My username there is sculleywr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.154.101.185 (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Please note that, to a Deaf person, there is nothing "lost" by not being able to hear music. If a Deaf person has never heard anything to begin with, they surely won't miss it. I sincerely hope that if you were to have a Deaf child, you would not impose your "hearing biased" viewpoints on him/her. Instead, embrace his/her uniqueness. --Damae 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm this is pretty unconvincing if applied generally: 'To someone who was born with cataracts, there is nothing lost by not being able to see. If a person was never been able to see to begin with, he/she surely won't miss it. I sincerely hope that if you were to have a child with cataracts, you would not impose your vision-biased viewpoints on him/her. Instead, embrace his/her uniqueness.' You can apply the same reasoning to any kind of disability. In the case of cataracts, a simple operation can restore sight if they're removed early. Would you seriously not want to do this for your child? --Distinguisher 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the blind don't have any culture of their own nor language nor history, unlike the Deaf people. Therefore the analogy of cataract (or blindness) and deaf is a poor one. (EdwardBlake (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Validity as a culture"

I tried to fix a little style here and to clarify some things. All in all, this section was pretty repetitive and bordering on POV. I think the second section/paragraph was very redundant and so I eliminated it. It said almost the exact same thing as the first part, literally word-for-word in most of it, and what was not repetitive was POV. If anyone thinks they can improve on the second part and rejoin it in, awesome. It's still not up to my satisfaction, but hopefully it is a little clearer. Gaep13^(talk) 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

References

It seems that a good deal of the text of this article has been added by D/deaf persons who are as such familiar with Deaf culture. However, many of the claims in the text are unreferenced. The numerous books listed at the end are good, but some specific references within the text would be helpful. As it is, much of the text seems truthful but constitutes original research, such as this edit ([1]). Readers who aren't Deaf (such as I) would appreciate it. NatusRoma 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing notes

I removed the content of an edit which was just a new heading with text under that said the section would be expanded soon. Editing notes should be kept out of articles. I would be glad to see a new heading and new information added though, so please do not see my removal as some kind of veto on the content that is planned. Feel free to reinsert the heading even with just a small amount of information under it that can be expanded on later but try to do it in stages or in a way that keeps the article looking like a complete unit at every stage and keep editing remarks/markup out of articles please. Qaz

Deaf pride

Let's add a section about "Deaf pride" and explaining what it means from a Deaf perspective.--Sonjaaa 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, except such a section would need to be written from a neutral perspective, obviously. Excerpts from Deaf perspectives could be cited, referring to primary sources though. --Ds13 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blind culture

To one who sees and hears, blind culture, in which blind parents are happy to have their children be blind also, would seem to make as much sense as deaf culture. Yet I see no listing for that. How come? There are many blind individuals who function very well in our society. Edison 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is language. Blind people use the spoken languages of the dominant culture. ntennis 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in DeafBlind culture. It is closely tied to Deaf culture because many/most DeafBlind people use sign language as a primary method of communication. Take a look at Deafblind, although it is seriously lacking a section on DB culture.

Don't need a blind culture, they fit in with us. Fuck the deaf culture jewboys. Sign language isn't fair on blind people. The deaf culture is elitetist.

Well, then you need to meet some deafblinds. They can actually use sign language and read it (via feeling the signs). It's quite amazing. (EdwardBlake (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

I've put a POV tag on this article - though it accurately describes the Deaf community's self-conception, it fails to note the widespread controversy surrounding this self-conception, and the very contested status of deafness as a disability. 128.227.82.110 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is deafness contested as a disability? I'm removing the neutrality tag. There are problems, but not enough for such a tag. Carcharoth 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to assert that being Deaf is about culture (and not about hearing impairment). Given the existence of different model of deaf as well as controversy surrounding the validity of each model, each assertion should have POV attribution from verified source. I've noticed alomst total lack of reference and citation. I'll restore the neutrality tag. Each assertion/statement should be properly attributed (NPOV) and sourced (verifiability). Vapour

I believe that while the article is clearly lacking in some areas at explaining Deaf culture, tagging it for not being neutral is not the answer. This subject (Deafness) is unique and cannot be compaired to other disabilities. It is not like being paralized, being blind, or like being Lithuanian. It is like being Deaf. There is a very unique set of issues that all Deaf persons must face due to the fact that they are Deaf. Humanity demands the ability to communicate with other humans. Everyone has this basic need. Being Deaf brings people together with a common "condition." That condition being that they need to communicate, but through some other means than with speech and hearing. Thrououghout history Deaf communities have used various forms of gestural languages to address this non-hearing issue. Obviously there are people capable of speech reading, but this is often a troublesome and error filled way of communicating. Perhaps these neutrality issues could be addressed with a related articles link to the controversal subjects. The fact that the article is titled DEAF CULTURE is, in and of itself, a testimate to the fact that it is, indeed, a culture. Perhaps some more specific examples of Deaf cultural phenomena would be helpful in rounding out the picture of what deaf culture is. (i.e. ways to get someone's attention without using noise, and how use of visual memory effects what is shared in Deaf conversations[what is often called bluntness or insensitivity])Martimartmart 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very much like being blind. Simply the loss (or lack of) one sense.Rational thinker 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, being deaf is also "very much" like not being able to smell. Do you believe this to be true? --Ds13 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do, to a point. I see your argument as flawed only because our society does not (for lack of a better word) nessesitate the sense of smell; it is not required in order to interact with the world in the same degree as the senses of hearing and of sight. Rational thinker 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Being deaf is like being blind. Being culturally Deaf is not like being blind. There is not a group of blind people who are resisting curing blindness. This is because blind people still participate well within the mainstream culture due to the shared spoken language. Deaf people do not participate well with the mainstream culture due to a language barrier. Certainly a Deaf person and a hearing person could effectively write notes back and forth, but who could deny the tedium. Through the medium of sign language, Deaf people have developed different sociocultural attributes, that, although overlaid on the dominant culture is not equal to the dominant culture.

Wikipedia is a place to put information on several topics involved in one thing. Yes, being deaf means that you have a hearing impairment. However, being part of the Deaf culture is more than that. Being myself new to the Deaf community, I am going through more culture shock than I expected to go through. I used to think they were just a subculture. However, beyond clothing and food, there are few similarities between the hearing and Deaf people of America. I went to the Christmas drama at Harvest Baptist Church for the Deaf in Ringgold, Ga. They have a very close knit community, in which people are often seen, still talking at the location of the event, several hours after the end of the event. We left around 10:30 and the drama ended at 8. Deaf people love to talk more than spend time alone, no matter where you go. If you know ASL, a Deaf person would likely enjoy getting to meet you and find out why you learned ASL, if you have family members or friends who are deaf, etc. Knowing these things helps them know where you stand in the Deaf Community. (Lisa Godfrey, ASLTA, RID CT/CI, Department chair Sign Language Interpretation Department, Tennessee Temple University.) And there are things in our society that would necessitate the sense of smell. If you have a gas leak in your home and can't smell the gas, you could be sitting on a ticking time bomb and not even know it.

I don't beleive that a gas leak would necessitate the sense of smell. It is a threat to your life, but what we are talking about here is being separated from mainstream culture. If you can't smell, you still can talk to hearing people without tedium. You still can go to public school and talk to your friends. You can watch TV without having to turn on the closed capitioning. Also, there is a lot of controversty around Deaf culture because deaf people only compose of .1% of the world population, so it is very difficult to get credible sources or people who are aware to add to this article about it. I'd say that it's very difficult to convey the concept and all attributes of Deaf culture, because it is still constantly changing. Leetdood 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Specificity

If this article is addressing exclusively American deaf culture, which it seems to be, this needs to be explicitly stated. If it is discussing other deaf cultures... then it needs to actually mention them. 24.216.124.180 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the concepts expressed in the aritcle border (cross the line of) offensiveness

Seriously, if a hearing person said all these things in the opposite about deaf people, he'd be considered insensitive at the least, and most likely "prejudiced." As a minority, I find the idea that one would accentuate his differentness to be offensive. There are so many ways in which people are similar. I choose to have friends from a diversity of backgrounds, because that enriches me as a person. If I choose to insulate myself and limit my interactions with other groups, not only do I perpetuate misunderstandings about who I am by people who are unfamiliar, but I put myself at a loss by not experiencing the richness of what people of other backgrounds may bring to the table.

The validity as a culture section is particularly offensive, when it says: "Well known cultural groups such as gays and lesbians, African-Americans and indigenous peoples such as the Inuit tribe of Alaska represent minority cultures that are embedded within a larger majority. Each group has culturally devised behaviors, beliefs and values that serve as markers for who does or does not embrace the general worldview of the group." What you are saying is that, in order to be a gay or black, Jew, or Jehovah's Witness, you must act as members of that group expect you to act. So, please answer, by this example, if I am gay and choose to criticize aspects of gay activism, or am a Jew or Muslim and eat pork, I shouldn't consider myself part of those groups. I am reminded of an old song from the Garfield cartoon song, which says "if you ever disagree, it means that you are wrong."

Is there some reason for an empty section?

The section "Sign Language, Oral Deafness, Cued Speech, Signing Supported English, and Fingerspelling (The Rochester Method)" not only has a ridiculously long name, but is also empty. why? Mike.lifeguard 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutes in Deaf culture

I have found very little relating to (hearing) mutes on Wikipedia. Now I realize that they are not deaf & are fairly uncommon, but because they primarily use sign-language to communicate I think they should be a part of this article. (I'm not very well informed on the subject or I would try to write something myself.) Trcunning 13:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for a major overhaul?

I think it's time for a major overhaul on this article, akin to what happened recently on the Narratology page. This page deserves to be objectively written with frequent citations, so for all the above discussions and more, I propose we move towards a full revamp in, say, a month? Thomas1617, 17 April 2007

I would support that. As for suggestions about work to be done: (1) More citations are definitely needed to attribute sources to the claims in the text. (2) The 'Background' section could perhaps be merged with the introduction. (3) Perhaps a section could be introduced that covers some of the debates about Deaf culture that exist in the literature (citations are especially important here to indicate who is saying what). (4) Some resolution of the problem of internationalising this article so that claims that apply only to American Deaf culture aren't presented as if they apply to all Deaf cultural traditions everywhere in the world. (5) And of course more detail about the customs and values adopted in various Deaf cultures. Distinguisher 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul is indeed needed. One thing I see a lot of here in original research - we need to remove the OR or {{fact}} tag cases as much as possible right now. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, any objections? Speak (or sign, or type) now, or hold your peace. Thomas1617, 24 May 2007

This was left on my talk page, but I'd rather it be shared here where it's relevant:

Just so you know, most if not all of that info you removed is correct - I don't really know how personal communications are regarded as sources on WP, but nearly everything that you removed was included in an academic lecture on the topic I attended. I didn't add it back in, but if it was in a lecture, then it should be fairly easy to find good sources (assuming that the aforementioned lecture isn't enough). So as you're doing the re-write, you should try to find good sources so you can add that content back in. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomas1617 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomas1617"

Recruiting

Any edits who are interested are more than welcome at Wikibooks. We have several Visual Language books which are in dire need of authors. If you are interested, but want more information, feel free to contact me at Wikibooks, or ask at our Reading Room. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs extensive work

It presents deaf culture only in a positive light and glosses over many of the problems with it, such as the advocation of child mutilation by some proponents. Jtrainor (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...what the heck are you talking about? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't post a link for some reason, but Google "Deaf demand right to designer deaf children" Scary stuff. 63.84.192.253 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the link you are referring to? I wouldn't call this child mutilation whatsoever, and the article looks to be phrased in a rather reactionary way. It speaks more to eugenics than anything, and it doesn't identify any one person as wanting to do this either; it just speaks about possible laws developing on screening for deafness from an embryo. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... the mutilation you're talking about is comparable to the mutilation that most hearing parents perform on their deaf children (CI)(EdwardBlake (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Oy, stop using the word 'mutilation'. Nothing is being mutilated here. It is about checking to see if deafness is present in a set of embryos, and then picking a hearing or deaf one based on the fact. I think it is definitely controversial from either side, but please stop using such fearmongering nouns that clearly don't apply. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2