Talk:Audism

message: I incorporated a new section on the practice of audism, including a distinction between the person who is actively and knowingly pursuing the goals of audism, and the person who just does what he does because of ignorance. I am basing it, for now on the Deaf Expo in Nashville, TN, as referenced below. I am getting my citations that can be accessed online, and they will be posted in a week. If someone wants to add or edit, please do. --68.60.17.78 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section refers to a "description given above by Lane", which is not found in the current version of the article, possibly because it was deleted. If anyone knows what that referred to, could you please fix it? --Distinguisher (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes as of February 20

message: Reality of audism.
Audism seems to be a perceived belief that hearing and non-cultured Deaf people treats cultured Deaf people differently. This describes a person as an audist, one who is perceived as practicing a generalized sense of superiority over cultured Deaf individual. What about a perceived belief by cultured Deaf people toward hearing and non-cultured Deaf people? Audiphobia would be a good description about cultured Deaf people’s perceived attitude and inferiority – a sense of mis-guided fear about hearing and non-cultured Deaf people.
If there is a perception that hearing and non-cultured Deaf exhibits audism does this imply that audiphoia exists? Is a cultured Deaf person audiphobic? If one is audist then the opposing person is audiphobic. ---Peter [rebeldevlin@cox.net]
:Peter, are you saying that deaf people have been cultured in a Petri dish?
:Audismus is not just perception, but reality. I can give you numerous examples, too many to give here. ---Hartmut, 1.08.2007
What you describe as Audiphobia, I would describe as the results of long term and institutionalized audism.  You oppress people long enough, and they get, yeah-- paranoid.  I submit that many of the problems of the African American community today could be termed caucasophobia and are the result of long term institutionalized racism.  ---cwterp168.9.24.58 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audism vs Audiphobia 

message: * "Deaf people who can speak well are more successful or smarter than those who can't or don't speak."
Well, within a very limited context, it is true that Deaf people who can speak are in fact more successful than those who cannot. They are more successful at speaking. (Presuming, of course, that the ones who can't speak have at some point actually tried to do so, which may not be the case. I imagine, though, that most Deaf have tried to speak, though perhaps many couldn't really be bothered and haven't tried very hard.)
The bit about the speaking ones being smarter, though, is of course completely wrong, as the article suggests. ---TRiG 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such sentence like the one above has actually been spoken to deaf children. What "more successful" in the sentence always meant is "more successful in life". Implied is here that speaking deaf people will be more respected, so racism is implied here and internalized by deaf people. Audismus is just another form of racism, directed against deaf people. ---Hartmut, 1.08.2007
The term Audism was originally phrased by Tom Humphries "The Making of a Word : Audism" (1975) Humphries’ definition of audism is “The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears.” The term has been defined differently by so many deaf and hard of hearing people, including those within the deaf culture. www.deafvideo.tv showcases many videos where people are accusing other deaf/hoh people of being Audist when there are opposing views of any topics that involves in the many ways a deaf person lives their lives from opting for ASL to spoken language or opting a device such as a cochlear implant.  The end result is a great divide among the deaf community over the word "audism".  Question is, should Audism even be an official word when Oppression or Discrimination or perhaps Disablism or Ablism would do sufficiently. A thought to ponder: Why should deaf/hoh people have their own oppressive term when they are considered disabled by definition.  Special treatment for the deaf/hoh would defy the purpose of equality. The difference of opposing views, differences in opinions, and different personalities should not be construed as "Audism". GinaAS (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audist Prejudice 

message: Possible re-write This article is essentially unsourced—"citations" that simply read "(Pelka 1997: 33)" and "Nashville Deaf Expo Tennessee Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf 2006" do not constitute verifiability—and it appears to be written from the perspective of deaf identity politics. In addition, it is not clear if this is simply an ephemeral neologism. These issues need to be addressed and if the latter cannot be proven, this should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio as well Looking at one of the two external links, this is a copyvio as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, only Audism#Definitions is plagiarized from Gallaudet.  The rest looks clean; I suggest just deleting that whole section and letting the rest stay (with cleanup tags, of course). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I removed the problem section, and the copyvio template, per WP:BOLD.  I know it says not to remove it, but I think this was such a clear-cut case and the solution was so simple (remove the copyvio, leave the rest) that it doesn't need admin intervention, and since no specific copyright concerns were raised about other parts of the article (I checked the rest against the about.com page and saw no plagiarism) there's no need to hide the rest. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked around some more, the only other concern I had was this site, the last couple paragraphs of which are identical to the lede here.  I can't tell for certain, but I think that site was copied from our article, rather than vice versa—partly because that language has been in our article for several years, whereas this other site was last updated in June 2007 (of course, the particular page I linked may have been written well before that), and mainly because half of the worrisome content was written in the first revision of the article, and another paragraph of it was added several months later; if it had been copied from that other site, you would expect that it all would have been pasted in at once.  So yeah, all in all, I think it's more likely that the other site scooped this article in June 2007, rather than vice versa. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several issues with this article 

message: When I worked at an auto insurance agency, at least one of our customers was either Deaf or deaf.  Since I don't know ASL, we communicated by written English, each of us with a pen and paper.  It seemed to work well.  How have you seen other people communicate with deaf or Deaf people, and how well did it work? --97.119.134.184 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socially acceptible methods of communicating 

message: Audism is not the discrimination of deaf or hard of hearing peoples.  It is the idea that an oral/auditory language is superior to any other form of language, like a visual/gestural one.  This is in direct relation to deaf people because ASL is a visual/gestural language and English is Oral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.112.17 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The language issue certainly can be a part of audism, but where did you get the idea that it is the only issue. Do you have several reliable sources that discuss  and support your comments? Cresix (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Meaning Of Audism 

message: Based on the absence of sourcing for this article, I have nominated it for deletion. ...At least if a registered user would complete the process for me.
Please see Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audism once the nomination process is complete.
98.204.116.99 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: It was originally
:Audism describes a mentality which asserts that to be able to hear and speak is necessarily better and leads to a higher quality of life.
I changed this to
: Audism is the notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears, or that life without hearing is futile and miserable, or an attitude based on pathological thinking which results in a negative stigma toward anyone who does not hear.
which I coped from the definitions given in the provided source. This is rather more verbose, but I think one can reasonably believe that "to be able to hear and speak is necessarily better and leads to a higher quality of life" without believing in superiority, or that deaf life is futile and miserable, or holding negative stigma. —Ashley Y 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed definition 

message: I removed the following-All these variations of audism, and many which have gone unmentioned, have their echoes in gender, racial, religious, cultural, social, and sexual discrimination, and, when found among the deaf community itself, bear resemblance to similar structures of self-loathing. It has no source and reads like an opinion. Also I chaged the word (dis) ability to disability. There is no such word as (dis) ability. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed  

message: The very last bit citing research of superior outcomes for those Deaf and Hard of Hearing who use spoken language and eschew sign language was later debunked to be flawed and biased research with conflicts of interests in those who researched it (working for the cochlear implant companies, etc). There is also a growing body of research that actually supports the best outcomes are for those children who are bilingual in ASL and a spoken language. That last bit about the research needs to be removed, as it is not balanced research, and also has nothing to do with the topic of 'audism'. The very existence of that sentence in this article is . . audist. I also see a lot of discussion in this talk thread about the perception of audism . . are any of you Deaf? If no, you do not get to validate or invalidate a Deaf person's perception of audism because you speak from a place of hearing privilege. I would suggest more Deaf individuals contribute to this article to make sure it is balanced and neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.75.82 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Flawed Research 

message: good start! i like it! I suggest you to add some deaf person's personal stories with audism.. we deaf people face it everyday, i think with personal stories would reach out more people. and explain to hearing people how to avoid audism or any advices to hearing people. It could reduce chance of audism deaf people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmully (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  David M's peer review 

message: I removed material backed by a comment in a comments section because those are literally the least reliable of sources, and opinions expressed by and anonymous internet commenter are and possibly that of a troll or sarcastic, and using any citaion to them is very unscholarly as material is impossible to verify to be an exact person's opinion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Comments are not reliable sources 

message: Great start on this article!  I would like to see more about how Audism affect Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing people.  Are there layers in Audsim?  How did the word popped up into our vocabulary?  If I remember correctly, Tom Humphries proposed this word in 1970's.  I think explanation of the history of Audism would make people "get" this word as it is not commonly used in hearing community. I would like to clarify on what I mean by "explanation of history" How did Tom Humphries come up with this word?  I would think if is worth it to mention a movie called "Audism Unveiled"DPFoley1 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan's Peer Review 

message: "It was further expanded by H-Dirksen Bauman, in Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression, and again, by Richard Eckert and Amy Rowley, in Audism: A Theory and Practice of Audiocentric Privilege, and institutional audism is now described as, "a structural system of exploitative advantage that focuses on and perpetuates the subordination of Deaf Communities of origin, language, and culture." [10]
Providing quotes may be seen as plagiarism. Consider revising into your own words. 
Etoppo (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section edits

message: This section is an appeal to emotion based on opinion or interpretation, and provides no evidence of truth. I recommend it be removed until a case can be made that these people did, in fact, have "audist" ideology and did advocate such. For example, there is no evidence that Alexander Graham Bell "condemned intermarriage between Deaf individuals" -- in fact, he wrote an essay published in Science specifically stating that he did not condemn intermarriage of deaf people. More information needs to be provided to support these assertions, or they should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.26 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocates for Audist Ideology Section