Talk:Deafness/Archive 1

message: For those that have just tuned in: The page "deaf" was once a redirect to hearing impairment. It then became a page about deafness and Deaf culture. It was like this for a while. The title was changed to "Deafness". Then much of the content was merged with hearing impairment and replaced by new content which later became (through another page rename) Models of deafness. Deaf became a redirect back to hearing impairment for a while and then was changed into a disambiguation page, which grew to become a page specifically addressing the term "deaf" and the disambiguation notice removed.
--Pengo 22:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief history of ''Deaf''

message: Am I alone in thinking that before we leave this new disambig page in place, all the current links to 'deaf' throughout Wikipedia should be reviewed?  There are 160 such references currently. Many of those are now inappropriately going to a disambig page.  At the very least it's lazy and possibly confusing to send links from the Phil Collins, Congenital disorder, Boxer (dog),  or Acute facial nerve paralysis articles (a few examples of many) to the disambig page when they should and could easily (with some work) be sent to the correct underlying page.  This is both Wikipedia policy and just general decency.  I suspect most can probably go to the hearing impairment (used to be deaf) article.  Some might go to the Deaf culture page though.  Some I'm not sure of.  I'll help in this operation, but I'd like to point out that this could and should be done before just redirecting everything. Agreement? --Ds13 06:45, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
:Sorry to be absent for so long. My computer was stolen and I encountered a setback from that experience.  I'm glad to see this issue on the right footing with a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page serves Phil Collins, Congenital disorder, Boxer (dog),  and Acute facial nerve paralysis splendidly since it refers readers to the correct article. Given the amount of haphazard redirecting this term (deaf) has experienced in the past couple of months, it probably wouldn't hurt to give each of the links a look. However, I don't foresee a problem now that clear alternatives are available on the disambiguation page.  Ray Foster 21:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Ray, sorry to hear about your computer and it may very well be my misreading, but I'm thinking at least one of us is misinterpreting Wikipedia policy as it relates to disambig pages and how to (not) link to them. Here's an an excerpt:
:::
:::There is rarely any need for links directly to disambiguation pages--in most cases links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended, and not to a disambiguation page. Before making a page into a disambiguation page one should first look at each page that links to it (using the "pages that link here" feature of the software) and correct the links as appropriate.
:::
:::People have a tendency to create disambiguation pages without fixing all the links to them. The result is that Wikipedia is left in a worse state than it was before the page was split.
:::
:::Before creating a disambiguation page, click on "What links here" to find all the pages that link to the page you are about to change. Make sure those pages are fixed or that they won't be adversely affected before you do the split.
:::
:::A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix the mis-directed links that will be created when the disambiguation page is made.
:::
::So of the 160 or so links to deaf, I think it makes sense to send certain things directly to the pathological hearing impairment page.  I thought those were fairly obvious examples I gave above, but maybe not. --Ds13 07:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
:::
:::I would like to interject here since Ray has not responded yet. As you have nicely shown in your excerpt, the guidelines say in most cases, not all. I humbly suggest that the ongoing debate on this page is clear evidence for the fact that this could very well be a special case or an exception to the rule. From many articles, eugenics being one example that I have given already but there are many others, you cannot predict if a person would want the medial facts of what it means to be deaf or if they would prefer the cultural perspective on the issue. Qaz 02:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One more implication of the disambig page

message: Despite vociferous complaints from Qaz, Pengo and Ray Foster, I will explain again what is wrong with the disambiguation.
The article hearing impairment is indended to cover the subject of deafness from the pathology to the social and cultural response. When I did a significant rewrite some weeks ago, I tried to cover as much as possible, to show that it is - indeed - a major article that will hopefully become a featured article one day.
To argue that deaf culture should be disambiguated right from the start is claiming undue importance for one of the many aspects of deafness. I will repeat the example I gave above: Pakistan is a "container article" that summarises everything about the country Pakistan. It links to more in-depth articles such as Politics of Pakistan. When I type "Pakistan", I do not want a disambig, but I want an overview. Similarly, someone who types "deaf" in the search box will find out there are many aspects to deafness, from microbiology and neuropathology to developmental psychology, psychoacoustics, sociology and cultural views. This is the prevalent style on Wikipedia.
The fact that some authors identify strongly with deaf culture is not an argument to give what I feel undue attention to this aspect. In fact, I compromised on disambiguating deaf culture right at the top of hearing impairment, but apparently this is not good enough.
I have already requested comments from the community. The response has been lukewarm. If you feel this is so important as to request mediation, I have no problem with that. I will, however, expect a serious answer to my points. I am not, as Qaz claims, "ignoring" social and cultural aspects. I am insisting that they are linked in context and not in a misguided disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 01:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit humorous that you expect a serious response when you have (again and again) in response to serious and various claims on the talk page, kept repeating the same things over and over again, all the while insisting that you would not be moved from your position no matter what. However, to ignore that and take your last statement seriously - that you want this one article to cover all aspects. In that case, as I have said before with no response from you, the medical/pathological view and the cultural/sociolgical view are often diametrically opposed. Since this is the case, a simple one line reference at the top is not enough. If you want to avoid a disambiguation, you would have to address the glaring differences in each approach, in depth, in the main article and mention it on equal footing with the medical model in the introduction. Since there are two almost contradictory approaches to this issue, if they are to live on the same page, they must both be treated fairly. I personally do not see how this is possible since the mere name of the article you propose as a "container" (hearing impairment) is seen by the cultural model as a bias clearly stated at the outset. Qaz 02:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try again 

message: I'm placing this topic here as well as on Talk:List of deaf people since I think this is related to the disambiguation of "deaf" currently underway here.  Since appear to be working under the assumption that "deaf" means different enough things to warrant a disambiguation page, should this list now be split into Famous people in Deaf culture and List of famous hearing impaired people?  eg. I would suggest that folks like Beethoven, Ronald Reagan, and Steve Jobs would be on the latter list but not the former (since Deaf culture either didn't exist at their time or they were/are not members of the Deaf community). --Ds13 03:57, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
: I think a simple list of deaf people should include anyone who has any degree of hearing loss that gotten them named deaf by history. I have never seen anyone complain that people who were not culturally deaf were on that kind of list. I do not have any strong feelings about it either way. Qaz
:: Qaz, have patience with me, because I'm still trying to understand...  You seem to erode your own position on the need for a disambiguation page when you say that "deaf people" can be safely understood to be "anyone who has any degree of hearing loss".
:: You suggested "Indian" or "American" as possible comparisons to "deaf", due to the different meanings of the word to different people.  Fair enough.  It wouldn't make sense to have a "List of Indians", since that would mean very different things to different people (ie, is it a list of Native Americans, or people from India, or both?), but if we can get away with a single "List of deaf people" it says to me the word may not really have the "very different meanings" that the disambig intro says it does (your words, by the way).  Are we going full circle?  --Ds13 08:58, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
:::I thought of the point you are making before I posted my response that you say erodes my point. The reason I posted it anyway though is that it has been my experience that lists of famous peole who were some quality or another tend not to make very fine distinctions. For example, I have seen lists of famous Jewish peolpe that include anyone that could possibly be labeled Jewish no matter how leinent your standrds are. The same seems to apply to lists I have seen of all kinds of famous peolpe who can be labeled x. In the end, because I recognized that there is a lot of play, I stated I did not have strong feelings no matter which way it went. I do not agree however that since list makers usually strive to have as big a tent as possible that there is no differnce between the "very different meanings" (my words and the words of many others as well) that are ascribed to the label deaf. Qaz
::::* By the way, the reason it is possible, even if it may or may not be advisable to have everyone on one list is because, as JFW is fond of pointing out, almost all members of Deaf culture are also deaf by the medial use of the label as well.  This situation is different from the Asian vs American Indian example. Most people from the country India are not also American Indians. As with most comparisons, if you push it too far it will give. Qaz
::: I feel we definitely need to sort that list out into a List of culturally Deaf people (including people who are only culturally Deaf, such as children of deaf adults, or are important people in Deaf history), and a List of Post-lingually deaf people who would not be considered nor consider themselves to be part of the deaf community nor deaf history (e.g. Ronald Reagan). There is an obvious divide between the two categories with little ambiguity. If there is an any overlap then people can go in both lists, as they're not really mutally exclusive. I think the only thing stopping the list being split up is the work it would take to sort it out. Alternatively the lists could remain in the one page, divided by different headings. --Pengo 12:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate the "List of deaf people"? 

message: Putting the deaf vs. Deaf vs. hearing impaired argument aside for a moment, I'd like to point out the use of the term wider community in this article.  Is this really the best word for "people who are not deaf?"  As a professional within the field of deafness, I would be more inclined to use a term like hearing community or even hearing world, which is a common enough phrase in the Deaf community.  (Incidentally, the ASL phrase is signed as DEAF-WORLD or HEARING-WORLD while English speakers are more likely to say deaf community or hearing community.  To me, wider community sounds a bit too vague.  Thoughts? -Etoile 16:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context simply "outside of the deaf community" is the best phrase. Saying "Hearing people" would wrongly include hearing people who are part of the deaf community. And "hearing world" would just require further explanation for the hearing world.  --Pengo 14:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider Community 

message: I don't think deaf should redirect to deafness. Only "deaf" is related to deafness. "Deaf" is an entirely different concept which is already being developed in this page. What do you think? Rodrigo Novaes 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments with four tildae. Anyway, due to technical limitations of the MediaWiki software, Deaf and deaf are the same article. Karimarie 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we could create a disambiguation page under Deaf, that would link to Deafness and Deaf culture, for instance. In fact, it is the very first suggestion on this page. Sorry if I forgot to sign. Here it goes: --Rodrigo Novaes 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Rodrigo Novaes 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to deafness