This redirect 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.
firstly: i think this article should be seperated into manualism and oralism. as of now they both redirect here. this would be key in for intance speaking to the debate even manualists have with each other (SEE vs ASL, etc). secondly: there should be sometime on lip readings and its trials, cued speech and its as well, and so forth. JoeSmackTalk 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. This article should be separated into oralism and manualism, or at least divide the article and make this one the article for the conflict between the two. I needs to be divided. This is the only wiki that has it merged. Check the interwikis. And still if we don't divide this there might be problems with interwiki conflicts. It will give bots quite some problems. --FelipeAira 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Split done. And article renamed to allow future development. SilkTork *YES! 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Education for the deaf be merged here. This article is sorely lacking in coverage, and they're more or less parallel articles about the same thing. The reason I propose that we merge it here instead of there is that I personally think this is the better name. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, merge the "for" article into the "of" article for the reasons you state. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I find the comparable title for blindness is Blindness and education, which has an inclusiveness to it that appeals, and I would choose "Deafness and education" over the other two titles, but the merger is the important thing. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but I feel like this might need more consensus (I've had some bad experiences with merge/move consensus and not getting enough of it in the past). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The short article Deaf education could probably also be included in this merger. Roger (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
True, it could, though it is about a slightly different subject (purporting itself to be an article about teacher training/education, whereas it just looks like a listing of deaf ed major programs that is incomplete and might be biased). - Purplewowies (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm gonna add a merger proposal tag to that article as well. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone else elects to do this, I can merge it sometime next week (I'd do it today, but I know I don't have enough time). - Purplewowies (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
YMerger complete. Well, there's still cleanup left, but mostly done. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the 3rd choice per RF. --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer the latter, although I have no valid reason for doing so! →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I would support "Deafness and education" (see below), as it implies a wider coverage of the subject. It's not only about how deaf people are educated. It's also about how they are perceived, accepted or marginalized in regards with education. And several other related aspects. Dodoïste (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Deaf education seems simpler. RichFarmbrough, 07:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Oh, gosh. Another choice. I honestly have no idea which to use now. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the latter. It's a tad broader, and the original title "...of the deaf" doesn't use person-centred language (People-first language). Gotta represent the Politically Correct vote, here. lol OttawaAC (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As a deaf education/special education major, in my classes thus far, they actually teach students not to use person-first/PC in reference to deafness. That is also more common in the field itself as well. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's right. The article People-first language is biased in this regard. "[...] 'disabled people' is the preferred terminology of those within the disability movement" (Hammel 2006). The terminology "people with disabilities" denies that the impairment is caused by the environment, and that was the source of a great controversy. And it implies that they are different than "people with abilities". Person-centred language is not encouraged.
Thus, I support the current name "Education of the deaf". Dodoïste (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deaf education - A search in google books suggests this is common. Plus, conciseness is a plus, IAW WP:TITLE. --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that a small article already exists with title Deaf education ... but that name does not look optimal (it is about "educating educators about deafness"). So, I don't think that should stop this rename discussion from moving forward. I put a notice on that other article's talk page. --Noleander (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Deaf education" is as good a title as any of the others, and beyond that, even if this article were not merged to that title, I would support merging that article into this as well, since it's really little more than a very incomplete list of programs as opposed to an article discussing the process/content/etc of becoming a teacher of the deaf. I, myself, at this point am undecided (though leaning toward choices other than #2), since:
"Education of the deaf" is the original title suggested for the merge
"Deafness and education" has "an inclusiveness to it that appeals" and is (apparently) more "politically correct" (I don't see it)
"Deaf education" WP:COMMONNAME, most concise, but has an article at the destination that would need to be moved/merged.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm definitely leaning most toward the last one. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.