Talk:Filipino Sign Language
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Filipino Sign Language appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,116 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
- 1 To Kawikagami
- 2 Explanation of 23 August reversion by Wtmitchell
- 3 Title of Article to be changed from Philippine Sign Language to Filipino Sign Language
Why did you make Filipino Sign Language into Philippine Sign Language?
Please don't confuse FSL with "Philippine" or "Philippines". The primary reason why it's called Filipino Sign Language is because it is being used by the Filipino deaf people. Filipinos are group of people residing or are citizens or native of the Philippines. Philippines is the name of the country, NOT the name of a language being used by Filipinos. Take the case of American Sign Language. This is the language used by the American deaf. Should it be called following the name of the country, then, the language must be called, USA Sign Language, not ASL. Same holds true with Japanese Sign Language (JSL) or any other sign language for that matter. Also, Filipino Sign Language is NOT IN ANY WAY RELATED TO FILIPINO LANGUAGE. Filipino language is the official spoken and written language of the Philippines. Although Filipino is the term used to denote the people, it is also similarly used to mean language spoken. But definitely not the same with the word Philippines.
And why removing all the important details and history of Filipino Sign Language? Are you familiar with the developments of the sign language in the Philippines? Are you a Filipino? Do you reside here in the Philippines? Are you a member of the Filipino Deaf Community? You have no right to change this. - Jomanila (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Signing Exact English as Official Language?
When did the Department of Education declared that Signing Exact English as the official sign language of the Filipino deaf? Where did you get that information? Do you have any source? Your facts are wrong. Signing Exact English is not even a language. It's a manual representation of the English vocabulary. Apparently the link you put is incorrect. The actual link even supports the legitimacy of Filipino Sign Language. Here is the actual link from the Business World Online article. Jomanila (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- (insert) Re the initial sentence above, for corroboration see the second paragraph of HB450 s.2013 (I'm just adding info here -- I personally have no axe to grind on this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
More Questions than Answers
How do you define "Article is almost incoherent"? By changing the wikipedia article, you have created more questions than answers. Based on the article, wikipedia bots asked, when did the Department of Education declared Signing Exact English as the official language? Did Bohol IDEA ever mention that they are teaching Signing Exact English? As far as I know and I have already talked to their founder, they even produced a manual on Filipino Sign Language. Jomanila (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why did you change the original article? The content has now emphasized about the American influence. You only retained the names of Americans here like Delight Rice and Dennis Drake. What happened to the Filipinos? Did they not make any influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- For all four of your questions, (a) if I couldn't understand the prose well enough to be able to fix it, I deleted it, and (b) add or change anything you want if you have the sources for it. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- What part of the article you don't understand the prose? What is there to fix? You mean to say that you don't understand the whole article to merit removing almost everything, including the famous research made by Philippine Deaf Resource Center which was even included in the "Did you know?" list of Wikipedia? May I also ask if you have a verifiable source regarding our Department of Education's recognition of Signing Exact English as the official sign language of the Philippines? I will rest my case if you have one single link. Two Saturdays' ago, there was a fora at the University of the Philippines sponsored by Philippine Federation of the Deaf as a follow up of the Department of Education's request for forming a committee tasked to formulate the use of Filipino Sign Language using our Mother Tongue Based Education System which they started to implement this school year. So where did you get that "status" and the 54% that you added? FSL is gaining ground and it is being recognized by almost everyone here in the Philippines. Need I remind you that Signing Exact English is not even a language! Your wikipedia even stated that as a fact. - Jomanila (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was rushed when I responded earlier, and didn't have time to review my edits. I just took a new look. I removed a whole bunch of banal, frankly rather stupid stuff that anyone who knows what a sign language is wouldn't need to be told. That kind of info belongs in the general sign language article. It doesn't need to be repeated in each individual sign-language article. I actually find it rather insulting to be told that PSL is a real language just like ASL, not a bunch of gestures. How do you think it would look if we said in the Tagalog article that Tagalog is a real language like English, not just a bunch of grunts? It sounds idiotic.
- There was also a bunch of bureaucratic trivia about things that were only peripherally connected. They could be spun off to different articles, but don't belong here.
- The crystal-ball predictions of what might happen is also not encyclopedic. When it actually happens, then we can put it in the article.
- "Philippine Sign Language" is the name used in Whittmann, Ethnologue, etc.
- I didn't add SEE to the article, and there is a ref for where that came from.
- I didn't add the 54% figure, and there is a ref for where that came from.
- Maybe you should read the article before commenting on it. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you consider factual and historical data from our country as "banal" and even "stupid". Now those assessments sealed my belief that Wikipedia should not be used as a sole repository of facts because of autocratic and demigod people who controls its content.
- Tagalog is a language used by a group of people here in my country. The word Filipino is both a language and a group of people. Filipino Sign Language means sign language used by the Filipino deaf community. That is why we believe that the ethnologue is erroneous because the well established deaf community here do not recognize it and wants to correct the term. We want Wikipedia to carry the right term since lowly people like us can edit its content. What I am only asking is why the outright removal of the history of FSL and the changing of name from FSL to PSL which, you can quote me on this, is outright stupidity? I'm a professional sign language interpreter here in the Philippines and I know my facts. I have been with the deaf community since 1991 and I am an eyewitness to their progress. I am the training director of a college for the deaf here in my country so I can consider myself as an authority on this matter. I actively blog about issues related to the Filipino Deaf community since 2008. Two bills in our congress are now being deliberated related to the recognition of Filipino Sign Language.
- You said earlier that I can "(b) add or change anything you want if you have sources for it." There are verifiable sources attached to the previous content yet you removed most of it. But I cannot anymore hold on to your statement even if I make some verifiable additions or changes simply because you already did that before and you will certainly do that again. So I feel that this discussion would be futile and would not go anywhere since you already judged the previous article as "banal" and "stupid". So congratulations! Wikipedia is entirely yours! I rest my case. I would not be surprised if the next time I log in to Wikipedia, which I have been an editor since 2006, I would be banned. Jomanila (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you consider it improper to try to create a reasonably encyclopedic article. But we are supposed to be an encyclopedia.
- We don't "correct" names. We reflect what is used in reliable sources.
- And yes, we ban people for logging into WP. Editing while logged in is forbidden. After all, demigods don't need to log in. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Explanation of 23 August reversion by Wtmitchell
This edit caught my eye. Seeing that in the infobox Glottolog phil1239] links the phil1239 part to an external link, I looked at that and saw that it mentions Philippine but not Filipino (Filipino is supported here and elsewhere). Leaving the discussion above aside (I hadn't seen it at that time), I tried to re-add Philippine as an "also known as" name and cite the link as a supporting source. There, I ran into problems I don't have the time to puzzle out right now.
- The EL in the infobox also has a ref, and that ref leads to a cite of Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Filipino Sign Language". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology." (the Filipino Sign Language link there goes to a page headed, "Philippine Sign Language")
- I can't see how the cite quoted above got into the infobox. I wanted to know this because I wanted to figure out how to use it elsewhere in the article to support what it supports.
I would have liked to have provided a good fix for this instead of reverting it, but I just don't have the time right now to figure out how. Perhaps someone else will do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC) A bit more info.
- The link I mentioned above as confirming Filipino as official actually doesn't confirm precisely that.
- HB450 to do that has apparently been pending with the Committee on SOCIAL SERVICES since 2013-07-23 (see )
- SB2118 to do that has apparently been pending in Committee since February 11, 2014. (see )
- Republic Act No. 100410, approved March 26, 2013, mandates promotion of Filipino Sign Language as the visual language of the deaf community. It does not declare FSL as the de-jure national deaf sign language of the Philippines.
- Republic Act No. 100533, approved May 15, 2013, mandates essentially that Filipino Sign Language be considered along with other languages as "mother language or first Language" for educational purposes (these terms are presumably significant in forming and/or in enunciating education policies in the Philippines). It does not declare FSL as the de-jure national deaf sign language of the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Title of Article to be changed from Philippine Sign Language to Filipino Sign Language
So, after the signing into law of Filipino Sign Language Act, is it now the appropriate time to change this article into Filipino Sign Language? It is officially the LEGAL NAME OF THE LANGUAGE. The current article is a misnomer and a misrepresentation of the language. All sign languages in the world use their official sign languages names in reference to their people. British Sign Language for UK, French Sign Language for France, American Sign Language for USA, Nepali Sign Language for Nepal, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomanila (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
At long last!!!! Thank you very much for heeding my request in changing article title to Filipino Sign Language!!! Now, how can we change the language code link (psp and iso 639-3)? I have already contacted SIL and informed them about this issue. Jomanila (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)