Talk:Deaf-mute

message: It is FACT that the term "deaf-mute" some users tend to use in wikipedia, is an offensive term for us in our world.  We have language and culture.  Have you ever considered someone as "hearing-mute" in your world, huh?  Do you know what is the synonym of deaf-mute? It is "deaf-and-dumb", which is pretty self-explanatory.  We will be very appreciative if you refrain from using that term from now on.  Please use "Deaf" with D as capital letter instead to describe or to refer us.  
It will make us proud and it will give the idea that it is nothing wrong with being Deaf.
While I understand your point, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Furthermore, 'deaf' should not be capitalized as it is an adjective, not a proper noun.  If we capitalize Deaf just because it is an important identifier in deaf culture, then we might as well capitalize Gay and Liberal and any other number of adjectives that people think are important.  Joey 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not going to be reinventing the rules to the English language.  Irish is captialized because it is a nationality adjective. Rastafarian is capitalized because it refers to a religion. Medical conditions and self-identified cultures are not capitalized in English. E.g., People in Star Trek culture are "trekkies", not "Trekkies". Star Trek itself, however, is capitalized because it's a proper name.  You could form an organization called "Deaf", and then it would be capitalized. -- Rei (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: A deaf mute is someone who has both deafness and the inability to speak. In some cases the muteness is due to lack of attempting language (since language is more difficult to master when deaf), or due to a separate disorder.
The phrase is used in The Catcher in the Rye to indicate someone who does not speak their mind, and hears nothing, in effect becoming isolated from the world. It is also a key statement reiterated by Laughing Man in the anime Ghost in the Shell.
::An article titled Deaf mute was accidentally created as no redirect existed between these two terms.  Above is the text from that article, redirect now exists. Dina 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C&P from [[Deaf mute]]

message: So this article goes in length to talk about that you shouldn't call deaf-mutes by that name, but it doesn't say what you should call them. Also, it goes into how the name is offensive, but it doesn't talk about, well anything else really. How it can happen, what treatments there are, famous people that were deaf-mutes... none of that. Only talk of why you shouldn't call them deaf-mutes JayKeaton 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JayKeaton, I think it is clear by several uses of simply the term "deaf" in the the article that the preferred term is "deaf".  For more detail about "what to call them" see the article Deafness. In regard to the article "doesn't talk about, well anything else really", please note that this is not the article on deafness, and I refer you again to that article for much more detail about causes, treatments, and much more; and to the article List of deaf people for informaton about famous deaf people.  The deaf-mute article is only a discussion of the historical but outdated term, not a comprehensive discussion of deafness. Ward3001 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mute

message: Hi. I'm deaf/hard-of-hearing and an anglophone (well, more of an angloscribe than an anglophone, but since English is my only fluent language - spoken and written, not signed - "anglophone" will have to do), and I'm wondering. Was there a time when most deaf people couldn't communicate via a language (signed, spoken, or written)? If so, when?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: w00t, I used a rare word! Practically coined it! (Well, the word was tossed around before by other people, but a Google search doesn't reveal very many examples, although one has cropped up on Wikipedia.) —  Rickyrab | Talk 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of examples of "angloscribe" on Google: 20. Not exactly crying out for a Wikipedia article any time soon.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In reply to your query it is thought that sign languages or manual communication arose before vocalizations see .  From what I've read, in the days of strict oralism, kids in schools for the Deaf many times invented their own languages out of gestures.  Humans have a need to communicate and I really doubt anything will keep us from communicating.Eclarep 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possession of language

message: Was there not a character in Doctor Zhivago who was a deaf mute? He had taught himself to speak fluently, and was frequently spoken of at one point in the novel. Page 160 something, I think. Would it be worth mentioning in the  'art and literature' section? 90.242.78.225 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctor Zhivago]]

message: I have read all of the above and rephrased the article to reflect the relevant concerns. In the process I was able to remove the POV tag that has existed since 2009. I declare a possible COI - born profoundly deaf 1962; never been taught to use a signed language. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV rephrasing 

message: The source does not make it unequivocally clear that these people were literally mute, meaning unable to speak even if they tried. It just uses the term "deaf-mute" to describe deaf people. Not many years ago deaf people who were not literally mute were invariably called "deaf-mute" or "deaf and dumb" even though they were neither mute nor dumb. Many deaf people choose not to speak; almost none of them is actually unable to speak. The source (almost 25 years old) states a widely held but inaccurate term. The term "deaf-mute" is both inaccurate and offensive to most deaf people. Read all of the above comments on this talk page. Thank you.
:The problem here is that you are making assumptions about what the source "means", based on a common misconception, but without any actual evidence that this is the case here. To me, the source reads pretty clear-cut; it mentions nothing of these people speaking, but of them using a sign language and being able to write. And if you stop to think about it a bit, the Sultans would certainly not employ people who could speak in their most private affairs, such as to murder political opponents. Barring evidence to the contrary about Ottoman usage, or any indication that a scholar of Lewis' calibre might be mistaken, a reference like this is more than enough. Constantine   ✍  15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So with your way of thinking, it would be acceptable to use the term "deaf and dumb" to describe them just because a 25 year old source did so. Or if they were black, it would be appropriate here to use the n-word to describe them if a 50 year old source did so. I don't think so, not with a term that is so offensive. Those terms were widely used and widely accepted years ago, even by scholars with "calibre". Again, read all of the above arguments on this talk page. This needs a source that clearly identifies them as mute, or consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing apples and oranges when you bring the n-word into play; and whether the source is 25 years old or 5 years old is beside the point. We have a high-calibre source on the one hand, and your personal suggestions, hunches, doubts, whatever, on the other. The doubts may be plausible, but they essentially are WP:OR. The weight of evidence is therefore on you to prove a respected source wrong (or at any rate imprecise) by using equally reliable sources or primary evidence, not the other way round. Constantine   ✍  15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, come to think of it, in Turkish, the term dilsiz actually means "mute", "without tongue", so I consider your concerns addressed. Constantine   ✍  15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: And furthermore, we are not dealing here with characterising a modern phenomenon, where modern sensitivities apply; it is a reference to historical usage. Just as "barbarian" may be regarded inaccurate, biased, etc. today, but it still has its uses within the proper context, if the sources refer to these people as "deaf-mutes", then that is it. Retroactive political correctness is not a good idea. Constantine   ✍  15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not apples and oranges; that's a convenient argument that invariably is used when a prejudice that was fought many years ago is used as a basis for a more recent battle against another prejudice (women's rights; sexual orientation; disability). The issues are exactly the same except for the specific perjorative term that is used and the characteristics of a disenfranchised minority (race or hearing status). And the offensiveness of the term "deaf-mute" is not simply my suggestion. If you read a bit about Deaf culture you will find that many of the pejorative terms from the past, including "deaf-mute", are highly offensive. And if someone used the n-word to describe black people based on a very old source that was viewed as acceptable at the time, I seriously doubt that you would be insisting that the "weight of evidence" is on the person who reverted it. In other words, it's OK to revert an offensive term widely used 100 years ago without "weight of evidence", but a term that was not as offensive 25 years ago requires "weight of evidence."  If you think these are just my ideas and not widely held among deaf people or hearing people who are sensitive to the issue, let me suggest that you try out some of your ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf. If you can get a lot of support there, I'll reconsider. Retroactive political correctness? Again, try that argument with the n-word. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I freely admit that I don't know enough about deaf culture and am a stranger to its sensibilities. My concern is accuracy, and I have no reason to challenge the accuracy of the source; all the more so since, offensive or not today, "deaf-mute" is in this case rather a technical term to describe a category of people with a specific background and role in a specific context, rather than with any intent to prejudice. At any rate, I have found and added a specialized publication precisely on the topic, which makes clear that they were actually mutes. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  16:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your willingness to admit your level of knowledge of the offensiveness of this term. Whether it's you or me, the process of opening our minds begins with admitting what we don't know or may not know. I tweaked the wording of your last edit a bit to make it clear that the terms deaf, mute, or deaf-mute are used in the sources regardless of their accuracy. That is what is done with other examples in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: What to call a person who can't speak! (As added by an actual person who can't speak)::::
Above, someone wrote "Actually use of the word "mute" to describe (non-deaf) people who do not speak is being used less by the professional community. Such people sometimes are simply described with phrases such as "does not speak.""
Well, I actually can't speak. I can't stand the phrase "does not speak" as it implies that I just don't want to. "can't speak" is clunky, and rather negative.
Please, just refer to me as "mute". I am mute.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.208.182.8 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman sultans and use of term deaf mute 

message: I have noticed that most of the "DEAF-MUTE" page has a lot of error word choice as "deafness," "inability to speak," and "deaf-mute." These words are harmful, and not all deaf people can't speak, some of them can talk with some devices. It's essential to research and to give out the right information. Not all deaf people like the words "deaf-mute" and "deafness." Most of them d prefer to be called DEAF!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillarypatricia (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of the article should answer your question. This article is about the historical use of the phrase "deaf-mute", and not about the present situation, or about the condition of hearing loss. There is a separate article about that. We need an article like this, to explain historical usage, so that readers of 19th century British documents, for example, can understand that "deaf-mute" and "deaf and dumb" in those documents did not originally have an offensive meaning. In Queen Victoria's era, "dumb" was not an offensive word. In England at that time, it meant only "non-speaking." Please see Hearing loss for the information that you are looking for. Storye book (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words of choice 

message: It's worth noting that in Jewish law, the exact definition of a Cheresh (especially as per whether it's only a question of lacking hearing, or of deficient intelligence - for example, if some forms of ASD are considered being a Cheresh) is a discussion in Jewish law and could be expanded.
A note though is that the should include discussions made by major Acharonic sources, which are often written in Hebrew. I've noticed a lot of articles on Wikipedia quote only the couple of sources available in English for Jewish topics, many of which are fine, but not mainstream understandings. Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large amount of discussion in Jewish Law