Talk:Deaf culture/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: As they encourage on Wikipedia, I'm going to be bold.

message: http://where.com/scott.net/asl/abc.html --205.213.111.51 17:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is an excellent site for american sign language 

message: "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. Aranel ("Sarah") 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Is the Deaf community a real culture?" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disturbing Content. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea, IMO.  Important enough for a stub, at least. --Cathryn 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaf organizations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs work 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Few attributes of deaf culture mentioned 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Validity as a culture" 

message: 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 (). Readers who aren't Deaf (such as I) would appreciate it. NatusRoma 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Blind culture

message: 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)
thread_title: Specificity

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is there some reason for an empty section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mutes in Deaf culture 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Time for a major overhaul? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recruiting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um...what the heck are you talking about? JoeSmack Talk 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article needs extensive work