Talk:Hearing loss/Archive 2

message: *Argument from principle of least astonishment
We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the readers's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about "this". Why has the link taken me to "that"?". Presently many instances of the term "deaf" are wiki-linked on several articles. If a reader is pursuing the subject of deaf culture and history and they click on a wiki-linked "deaf" it takes them to an article that is outside the scope of study. A disambiguation page will aid in the goal of least astonishment.
*Argument from Redirect guidelines  
This guideline refers to deleting a redirect but it is relevent to what our problem our present redirect configuration causes.
"You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." This is the present situation. Again, a redirect to a disambiguation page would solve the problem. Readers will be able to find the sense of the term "deaf" they want. Ray Foster 08:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm coming here from the Requests for Comment page. I don't completely understand the finer points y'all are discussing above, but from my point-of-view as someone with little familiarity with deaf issues: to me, 'deaf' and 'hearing impaired' are synonymous, and both refer directly to an inability to hear. I recognize there are social and historical issues beyond the simple definition - but I would expect them to have their own articles, linked from the 'deafness' article (maybe even as "see also" at the top of the article). If I click 'deaf' I expect to go to an article on hearing impairment, not to a page asking me what I mean by 'deaf'. - Brian Kendig 16:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute: More arguments favoring redirection to a disambig page

message: I removed the "other meanings of deaf" notice since it was no longer needed since deaf is no longer a redirect to hearing impairment. If others feel that it is essential for some reason, put it back. Qaz 00:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there expecting deaf (disambigation) to become the disambiguator for all similar terms. Unfortunately, the Wiki crashed before I could arrange for this. JFW | T@lk 10:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguating "deaf"

message: These comments have been copied from the [Talk:Deaf] page as they are relevant to both. Sorry it's long but I don't want to make changes without agreement by the interested parties.
Currently, if you type 'deafness' in the Wikipedia search box, you are re-directed to the 'Hearing impairment' page. If you type 'deaf' you are taken another page with statistics about deafness, a reference to the deaf community, and other meanings of 'deaf'. The two pages have very different information. It seems to me 'deaf' and 'deafness' should redirect to the same page!
On some level it looks like what's going on with these two pages is territorialism, with two different models of deafness competing over terminology - a medical perspective and a social or cultural one (see discussion above and on Talk:Deaf). However, if you look at the best pages on wikipedia, the different meanings or categories of the term used as the page name are outlined at the start of the page; there's a general overview, and the different areas of interest branch off from there.
If you look at the 'Hearing impairment' page (also 'Deafness'), the opening paragraph is almost exclusively about treatment and rehabilitation - in fact everything after the first sentence.
I would rather see something like what is on the 'deaf' page (with some improvements) move to become the first paragraph of the 'Hearing impairment' page, and the information here about treatment moved under a heading like 'Treatment/rehabilitation'. I think that page should be named 'Deafness' or 'Deafness/Hearing impairment'.  The opening paragraph should be an overview of what deafness IS, not just how to treat it.  Please see this site for one approach to the kind of thing I have in mind.
Here's a quote from the page I just gave the link to:
::DEAFNESS - While deafness is a hearing impairment, someone who is deaf is not usually described as having a hearing impairment. A person who has a total hearing loss is described as being deaf. The key difference in the common use of the terminology is that someone who has a hearing impairment, has a mild or moderate hearing loss, and a person who is deaf has either no hearing or has a severe hearing loss.
As someone immersed in Deaf culture, I'm strongly in favor of a reference to the deaf community and sign language in the opening paragraph of the 'deafness' page. However I think we need to remember that the number of signing deaf are a tiny proportion of the total number of people with hearing impairments (eg. in australia, there was an estimated 750,000 people with a hearing loss (5% of total population) in 1986 - current research puts the number of sign language users at about 6,500 . The proportion may be greater in other countries but you can do the maths. Also ref. this site. Other estimates put the Deaf Community at 0.1% of a general population.
Yet despite small numbers, the Deaf community offers important insights into a number of fields of knowlege that should ensure its mention in the page 'Deafness', somewhere prominent. Eg. Nicaraguan Sign Language is at the core of the investigation into the nature of language. The Deaf community's challenge to widely believed notions of 'normal' and 'disabled' are forcing many other fields of knowledge (eg. sociology, anthropology) to question their frameworks. Also, the 'public face' of deafness in some ways includes sign language (eg. films about deafness like Children of a Lesser God); it's prominent in the general public's mind. All this should be a part of a page about deafness.
Hope you're still with me :)
Alternatively (though I prefer the first option), we could expand the 'Deaf' page a lot, explain the way the term 'Hearing Impaired' is used differently from the word 'Deaf', and put a link to the 'Hearing impaired' page in the opening paragraph. The 'Hearing impaired' page would then have to do something similar referencing the 'Deaf' page. The 'Deaf page would be renamed as 'Deafness'.
So I would really like to see a response from others who have contributed to this page and the ongoing debate. Anyone who wants to have a private discussion or chat online is welcome to contact me on my talk page. As the discussion is inseperable from the hearing impairment page, I guess i'll copy these comments there as well. --ntennis ntennis 02:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I get something from what you write:) I am a native finnish speaker and am working mainly at that side of the Wikipedia, but I would be happy to take part in this kind of discussion. Lasse 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 'Deaf' page with 'Hearing impairment'? 

message: I have read in anumber of places (inc RNID fact sheet) that long term exposure at 85dBSPL does minimum damage to hearing. THis page says 70dB. Or is it 85 dB for 8 hours a day? Could someone comment on this please? 8-)--Light current 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term exposure levels. 

message: Many health warnings advise that higher frequencies are more damaging to hearing. This implies that lower frequencies are less damaging. So what is the difference between high and low frequencies limits in dB? Also anyone know  how  low frequencies are defined in this context?? 8-|--Light current 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most damaging frequencies 

message: Is this the right word here? Or should it be 'deficiencies' (or 'defects') 8-?--Light current 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deficits 

message: OK, I myself am hearing impaired, and I am sorta dismayed to see a lack of proper citations on this article. In a few days I plan to remedy this. I will list sources here, if anyone has problems and or questions let me know. This article really should have a chance at becoming a WP:FA. I will grab the appropriate citation data when I do the proper  (Cite.php) format. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Alright, I am just going to expand the intro, and effect a total rewrite on this article. If anyone has problems with my changes, please undo just those changes and not everything, thanks.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things I took out for now are in Talk:Hearing impairment/removed material. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's too much to study at once.  First problem I notice is in line 1:  why change "perceive" to "detect"?  There are certainly hearing impairments that affect your perception of sound, music, speech, etc., more than they affect your detection thresholds.  Should we be construing hearing impairment this narrowly? Here's a book with a much broader definition. Dicklyon 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding intro 

message: This recently added couple of sentences has a lot of problems:
:Sound waves vary in amplitude and in frequency. Amplitude is the sound waves highest point of oscillation. Frequency is the speed of sound divided by the wavelength of the sound wave, which is referred to as the pitch of the sound. Therefore losing the ability to detect some frequencies, or very soft sounds, that an organism naturally detects, creates some form of hearing impairment.
There's really nothing here that's meaningful or useful.  For one thing, pitch is not frequency; for another, this is very backward way to define frequency; and the definition of amplitude as it stands is both too narrow and vacuous.  But mainly, the idea that sound waves can be described by amplitude and frequency is itself very limiting and not at all general; it's really only applicable to the way hearing is tested with sine waves.  The old lead that didn't try to get into this slippery area was better, but then the next section had similar problems. The final sentence seems to have the causality backwards; hearing impairment leads to increased detection thresholds for sinusoids; hearing impairment is NOT a RESULT of loss of ability to detect certain frequencies (that's a symptom, not a cause).  I think we should just remove it from the lead, and work on getting things right as they come up. Dicklyon 02:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amplitude, frequency, pitch, etc.

message: A "Prevention" section of sorts would be great. Jack Daw 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: "Personal electronic audio devices, such as iPods (iPods often reaching 115 decibels or higher), can produce powerful enough sound to cause significant Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, given that lesser intensities of even 70 dB can also cause hearing loss."
Needs a citation.  My brother just visited the doctor, who prescribed hearing aids to fix some of my brother's loss.  My brother asked, "Did listening to loud music in the 70s and 80s cause my loss?" and the doctor said not.  ----  So basically what I see hear is a contradiction: Wiki says loud music can cause loss, while a professional says not.  Can someone provide a citation to back-up the quoted sentence?  Thanks.  -  Theaveng (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contradiction in the fact that loud music can cause hearing loss and the diagnosis that your brother's may have had some other cause.  But you're right that a source should be supplied.   Here are some books to look for it in. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh huh.  (1)  Your condescension is rude.  I made a simple request, and you make a smart reply about how I should go google it.  Rude.   (2) Clearly you don't understand how wikipedia works, so I'm going to delete that entire paragraph until YOU (or somebody) backs-up the claim with a citation.  Uncited claims do not belong here.  -  Theaveng (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After spending around 2-3 minutes on Google, I was able to uncover multiple sources for this claim. I'll never understand why someone expends more energy arguing about fixing something, than actually fixing it... Erth64net (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Likewise.  I don't understand why it's necessary to be Rude when I made a simple request (followed by a polite "thanks").  -----  Also either (1) my brother's doctor was wrong when he said my brother's loud music did not cause deafness or (2) my brother lied, because he didn't want to admit he ruined his own ears.  -  Theaveng (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's effectively common knowledge, in the medical, hard-of-hearing, and deaf communities, as well as portions of mainstream society, that excessive exposure to loud sounds will damage hearing. I've heard many doctors, audiologists, and speech therapists consistently repeat that rhetoric for upwards of 30 years. As a result, it's highly doubtful a doctor would dispute this particular claim. Since hearing losses can be either idiopathic, or have known causes affected by hundreds of factors, it's entirely plausible your brother's doctor was correctly asserting that YOUR BROTHER's particular loss was not manifesting from overexposure to loud music some 20-30 years ago. Your brother's next question should have been something akin to "What is the cause?" As for the "rude" remarks, in Dicklyon's defense, I took the remarks to be more terse, than rude. In-fact, Dicklyon agreed with your request for a source, and then effectively asked you to do the research, even giving you a running start at it - maybe with the implied hope you'd contribute your findings. When editing wikipedia articles, you are encouraged to add valuable content, and to question, research and update/substantiate non-referenced uncongenial claims. It was apparent, from your behavior, that you did no such research. In-fact, after only 2-3 minutes of googling, I identified and contributed ample credible evidence supporting the disputed assertion. The next time you wish to dispute an assertion, instead of just disputing and then promptly deleting what was effectively a valid common-knowledge statement (which likely explains why it lacked citations for so long), please consider adding value to wikipedia; do a little research and contribute your findings. Erth64net (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in less than a minute on google book search many high-quality sources were found and offered up.  I'll be happy to add a source myself if the original questioner can't bring himself to contribute one bit of effort. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Common knowledge" is often wrong.  Common knowledge is often just urban legend, which is why I question (almost) everything.  -----  Also, it doesn't explain why my brother's doctor told him his loss was caused, not by the loud rock music (his car was so loud, it used to literally hurt my ears), and instead by Amtrak horns.  Maybe my brother's doctor is a quack and/or scam artist.  He did charge $2500 per hearing aid, which is ridiculous.  -  Theaveng (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed: Loud music can cause hearing loss?