Talk:Models of deafness

message: Why is "deaf" capitalized in the article? -- Tarquin 00:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a justified ethnicization of the term, coming from living in deafness. Only deafness generates a cultural outcome, because of their use of sign language, which results in the formation of a culture. According to the English orthography, such a population with a distinct culture is capitalized. ~User: Hartmut, 07 April 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.235.84 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of "Deaf"

message: === Implanting very young childrend is no longer so controversial ===
Implanting very young children -- at ages as young as 6 months old, is no long so controversial from the perspective of efficacy. There of course remain ethical and Deaf cultural issues, but by today (Aug 2004) many studies have proven the efficacy of the treatment. Very early implantation combined with speech and language therapy has a very high rate of successfully enabling children to obtain spoken language. I suggest editing the paragraph on Medical Treatments to reflect this data.
Please note that I am somewhat biased -- my 5 year old son uses a cochlear implant, implanted at age 12 months. By age 3.5 years he was at a spoken language level appropriate for his age. At age 5 (current), his speech and language is indistinguishable from his peers. This outcome is not exceptional.
===Like Hell it isn't! ===
It's child abuse.  In 1995 the Mayo Clinic's follow-up research on the cochlear implant demonstrated that 70 percent of implanted children were no longer using the implant by the early teen.  Seventy Percent, Sir!  Why?  Because with these 70 percent, the implant made no significant improvement in the deaf's ability to understand or articulate language.  Not controversial?  You must be working for the Cochler Corporation.  It's child abuse.  These children grow up still not hearing and understanding yet they also have no critical-age mastery of a language, including sign language.  If you've ever worked with developmentally disturbed deaf children with these "transistor radios" surgically implanted in their skull and witnessed how language deprevation has stunted their intellectual growth, you'd not be making such a broad brush endorsement of this Frankensteinian "technology of normalization."
=== Let's all be sure to have our references straight ===
I'm obviously representing a Point Of View -- as are you -- but let's please make sure our facts are correct. Please cite the research where the 70% number comes from. How old were the children when implanted? Current data shows very high success rates over the long term for children implanted before the age of 5. Here's a pointer to one of my data source (2003 -- much more recent) -- http://www.bapo.org.uk/8th_ESPO/data/html/2744.htm -- and I would encourage everyone to research this issue and come to their own conclusions. This is obviously a controversial issue. The point here on Wikipedia is to try to represent a neutral point of view. It's OK to point out that there is controversy in this area, but let's try to keep the main article from espousing one belief or another, but rather I think it should raise the controversy itself and inform the reader. For you it's child abuse, for me, it's an amazing thing -- my child can speak as well as, and hear almost as well his hearing friends at school. He does not struggle with speech reading or strain to be understood. Given that he is going blind, I don't think it's child abuse at all. However, I understand why you do. How can this dispute be fairly characterized in the main article page? I have very slightly edited the main section (leaving your additions) to point out the NPOV question. And to answer your question, I don't work for Cochlear Corp -- I'm the father of a customer, not an employee or shareholder.
=== "Views of Treatment" Insulting the Deaf community then blaming the victim. ===
"This is obviously a controversial issue"
Thank you.  That's a sea change in your prior attitude from "... is no longer controversial" stated in bold headline.  My data came from "Audiology," the professional, peer reviewed publication of American audiologists. It was about 1995.  I haven't been able to find an online link to the article, but I wrote an editorial on the issues at the time, when I was the editor for a deaf social services organization.
:12 year old information?  That's the most current? RyanGrant 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disability is defined differently to many different people and is never defined by its literal meaning. Plus, this is the point of view of many in the Deaf community so it has to be mentioned. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 02:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Views of Treatment dispute

message: "This is obviously a controversial issue"
Thank you.  That's a sea change in your prior attitude from "... is no longer controversial" stated in bold headline.  My data came from "Audiology," the professional, peer reviewed publication of American audiologists. It was about 1995.  I haven't been able to find an online link to the article, but I wrote an editorial on the issues at the time, when I was the editor for a deaf social services organization.
:12 year old information?  That's the most current? RyanGrant 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views of Treatment" Insulting the Deaf community then blaming the victim. 

message: Okay, look, if we break down the word "disability" we get "dis-", meaning, in this case, "lack of", and "ability". It simply means a lack of an ability. In the case of deafness, it is a lack of ability to hear, an ability present in the large majority of humanity. I fail to see why this is an insult or controversial. Sharazel (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disability is defined differently to many different people and is never defined by its literal meaning. Plus, this is the point of view of many in the Deaf community so it has to be mentioned. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 02:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disabled" is an insult?

message: In the absense of a means of contacting the contributor, Dcreemer, I'll ask here.
There is a great deal that can be done to achieve the neutrality of the article's content; bland though it will become.  I'm willing to discuss it but there seems to be no one willing to so much as comment or interact on this issue with the exception of this one comment by Dcreemer.  I'd go ahead and make such an attempt but I'd rather not do so without input on what specific language is at the center of the debate. It would be wasteful to attempt writing a neutral POV then have someone come along and critize the work for non-neutrality as in the present case.  Let's take case of it beforehand.
Therefore, I'm willing to offer the use of my personal web site, a site that is password-protected and in which any conversation can be hidden from the view of any other site users without their knowing it even exists.  This would insure the private and uninterrupted flow of discussion.  But this is prefaced on the willingness of other people to participate.  It will require me to set up a private account for other participants and add them to a special group.   I want to be fair about this, but one person doing the writing without feedback is an invitation for failure.
Please contact me via my Wiki page using the email feature if you'd like to join in on creating a document that we all can live with.  I suppose at time limit is in order.  I have a great deal to say regarding a number of pages that deal with the deaf.  I'm willing to wait five days for responses.  If I do not hear from anyone within that time frame I'll assume my present work on the page is satisfactory and I will remove the NPOV disclaimer.  The time limit begin today, Sunday, Dec. 19, 2004 and will end at midnight, Dec. 24.  
Ray Foster
:: 1. Why use your personal web space? Please use Wikipedia itself, (i.e. this talk page) to discuss changes.
:: 2. As for point of view, you really need to clean up your style. Comments like:
:::Human-service professionals react by finding yet more "needs" of the deaf person that must be fulfilled and they will not hesitate to appeal for funding with tears rolling down their faces and dollar signs in their eyes.
:: is not NPOV. You've consumed the entirity of "Adaptations to deafness" with 380 words on why the term TTY is preferred over TDD. It is a valid POV, but it is really your own view, and you have not stated it in an encyclopedic way, but as a soapbox style rant.
:: 3. "Views of treatments" is even more one sided. While your views are valid, again they are narrow so far as to be derogatory towards Human-service professionals. Rather than write merely as a rant, you have included an anonymous narrative. Again, please try to write in an encyclopedic style and use facts and figures. Also remember this article is about deafness, which includes late-deafened and others who are often not part of the Deaf community. Some care should be taken to differentiate where views are coming from.
:: Please continute to contribute, but be aware of the goals and style of Wikipedia. See the Community Portal link on the left nav on every page as a starting point for more information.
:: --Pengo 02:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an oralist/audist, nor would I class myself as a proponent of "technologies of normalization", but I still believe these areas should be given fair and neutral treatment. I look forward to seeing your proposed changes. --Pengo 04:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: *Thank you, Keith. This is news to me as, it seems, just about all the procedures on Wiki are. I'll chalk it up to the learning curve and continue my education.  Actually, I'm anxious to get back to work on the page. I have a proposal to make regarding the entire premise of the discussion, something I've been working on since I first engaged the article.  I'm going to contact Wally and decline advocacy, then I'm going to decline mediation.  I certainly hope that is the correct procedure. Is it necessary for all interested parties to decline mediation and advocacy in order to end this fiasco? Would you mind alerting me if there is anything else I need to do in order to disengage from the mediation process at hand? I'm asking because I don't yet have the experience and knowledge to know what steps are involved.   Ray Foster 18:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issue 

message: I'm not getting any feedback from the person who posted the NPOV notice so I placed a Request for Comment when I found out there is a system in place to assist to resolve problems.  At dispute presently, or as pertains to the NPOV, a contributor cited a study that supposedly closes the debate as to whether the cochlear implant is controversial. He even states this view in a comment in this Talk page. I am not unsympathetic to his views, especially since I learned he has a deaf son. But his is not the only concern or viewpoint.  Beyond that, before I edited the original section, someone arbitrarily stated that the concern deaf people had about the cochlear implant was mainly that it would reduce the numbers of deaf people.  No data or research was sited and I strongly disputed the remark because I knew, after nearly 20 years of research on deaf culture, that assertion to be false.
At that time, the contributer posted the NPOV notice, then, simply.......vanished.   Posting an NPOV notice implies that one is prepared to engage in any dialogue that would hasten an agreement and get it removed to that progress on the page can continue. But that hasn't been the case. I've not hear a peep and I'd like to re-write this entire page and give it a truly neutral POV.  In its present state, I've had to tactfully rebute out-and-out falsehoods. People have been posting negative views of the deaf, or things that suggest the deaf have an irrational view of the world, then not explaining why the deaf see certain things in certain way. One glaring example was a comment on how deaf people exclude certain others from their community.
So I ask others to guide me. I new to Wiki, but I'm not new to any issue concerning deafness. I've been deaf most of my adult life, have written on deaf issues as an editor and reporter and have been a student of deaf history and deaf culture for nearly three decades. I'm dedicated to providing quality and impartial content on all deaf issues and I just seems to me that this current conflict seeks to exclude the input of the deaf community, the very people it concerns, because it's something other contributors never bothered to learn about.
I also want to add, that the person who posted the NPOV comment may be as ignornant about the process of resolution as I am.  Instead of posting a request for comment, he went straight to posting the NPOV after only one exchange. Clearly, that isn't the way the resolution process works and it abuses the established system: if you can post an NPOV then just disappear, everyone else is left to deal with the disagreement while the person who posted the NPOV has no intention of returning to work out a solution. Such an act ought to be put to the test by requiring the person who posted the NPOV notice to defend his position to those who are willing to resolve the problem (me, for example.) Posting an NPOV  implies that other don't have the right to remove it. I'm honoring that, but how long do I wait for the person to return to the discussion and get the resolution under way?
Ray Foster 19:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Some contributors have not seen the request to refrain from editing this article while it is in mediation. I have reverted to a previous version because ALL information on this page is being mediated and contributors have posted information since a "stop editing" request was posted, including external links and additions to any section.  I ask your patience and understanding while we await the appointment of a mediator.  Thanks to all.    Ray Foster 00:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you, Keith. This is news to me as, it seems, just about all the procedures on Wiki are. I'll chalk it up to the learning curve and continue my education.  Actually, I'm anxious to get back to work on the page. I have a proposal to make regarding the entire premise of the discussion, something I've been working on since I first engaged the article.  I'm going to contact Wally and decline advocacy, then I'm going to decline mediation.  I certainly hope that is the correct procedure. Is it necessary for all interested parties to decline mediation and advocacy in order to end this fiasco? Would you mind alerting me if there is anything else I need to do in order to disengage from the mediation process at hand? I'm asking because I don't yet have the experience and knowledge to know what steps are involved.   Ray Foster 18:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted to 22:07, 1 Jan 2005 Version

message: First off, great piece of work. I recently commented on your soapbox style of writing, and this piece certainly does not suffer the same problems. It does not have the same POV issues, or at least they're too subtle to warrant debate. The content is good. I have no problem with it being immediately included in the main article as is.
Having said that, I'd still like to see some editing (all of which could be done after the material is included in the main article).
	• 	I found the article pretty confusing to read when it jumps between models of deafness and models of disability. Can the models of deafness be said types of models of disability? and then just have links to, for example. Medical model of disability and Social model of disability rather than re-including the material. 
:There is one major difficulty in linking and it has to do with the Social Model of Disability.  The major weight of the argument from the Culturally Deaf view rests on an issue that is not addressed in the Wiki article on Social disability.  Here is the concept that is absent from that article: ""...respecting that unique organization of life while regretting the conditions that create it.."  In my rush to get the proposal online, I did not amend the Social Model of Disability article to incorporate this distinction.  It is the Paramount, but certainly not the only concern deaf culture makes to distance itself from the conceptual framework of what constitutes a disabled group (there are other thorny issues of the impact of the label "disabled" that have importance also) The argument turns on the words "respecting" and "regretting".  The Deaf cultural model "respects" but absolutely does not "regret" the condition, state, or anything else that might cause deafness because within their conceptual framework, nothing about deafness evokes negativity and nothing about deafness gives rise to regret.  I would consider it presumptuous of me to amend that article without discussing the proposed amendment with other editorial contributors.  They appear to be exceptionally well-informed on the entire scope of social disability and I want to respect that.  I'll put it on my to-do list.  Ray Foster
Actually, I'm confused as to how the models of deafness fit in with the models of disability.
	• 	I take it the "Infirmity Model of Disability" means the same as the "Medical Model"? (judging from Medical model of disability). Personally, I'd prefer the term medical to infirmity.
:It doesn't appear to have the same vein of meaning from what I can gather in the literature.  "Medical" does not automatically connote "Illness".  The history behind the argument shows language from the culturally deaf like "Pathological view of deafness" or "illness view of deafness"  "Infirmity model" seems to be the current language.  You can look at my argument below for a greater discussion on the subtlties.   Ray Foster
	• 	Does "The Cultural Deaf view of the Infirmity Model and Disability Models" really need to be its own (rather long) heading? I'm guessing you may have structured it this way to avoid POV issues, but I don't think it's necessary. This material could equally well be included at the end of the section titled "The Cultural Model of Deafness".
:Yes. I did structure it that way on purpose.  I've explained my reason for doing so below further down the Talk page, but in a nutshell, I believe that since the minority view of the deaf is the least known and the most prominent in its opposition, that is bears the most weight of responsibility to explain it's views.  Seeing as how this article will serve as the principle source of that explanation, the deaf cultural view really must to make it's major case know right here on the Deafness article.  Other Wiki articles on deaf issues can be referred to this one in order to give background for deaf cultural beliefs, more, political agenda, organizations, art forms and history for other article. But it is here that the case must be made because it is only at the this particular crossroad, this context, this single juxtaposition, where Disability, Infirmity and Deaf Culture cross paths, that the differences can be examined side by side and with best clarifying effect.  One of my great frustrations with the previous article was how the Deaf cultural view was brought into play but was so inadequately expressed. For example, the old article stated that the main concern deaf people had with treatment was the concern from depletion.  It didn't explain that statement, didn't cite a source as evidence of it's truth. In short, it made an unsupported, unexplained assertion.  To be honest, I cried about it. It upset me terribly. It was far off the mark, and when I tried to edit the paragraph, I got hit with an NPOV complaint. Yet the article had about one year of history behind it and no one had so much as disputed the statement.  It was just left dangling there for some school child to come along and use in a school paper.  So, when I came back to the article, I thought the best way to deal with that and several other extremely troubling problems would be to ground the article in the correct premise; one that did not invite such horrific conjecture and speculation.  To do that, the deaf cultural view has to bear strong responsibility and given the complexity of the problem, I just had to try my best to restrict the explanation to as little space as possible.  I do seem room for revising the view into more concise examples. I'll add that to my to-do list.  Ray Foster
	• 	Is there a Social Model of Deafness (seperate from the medical and cultural models?) 
:No.  A cultural model and a social model are one and the same.  The tradition of referring to Deaf Culture is well-established and would draw enormous anger by modifying it to Deaf Society. It is one of the "constitutive rules" of deaf culture; a term for which one's acknowledgement of is a determiner of one's membership in the community of deaf people.  Ray Foster
The article seems to imply it. It also says there are three models but then only has two main headings. Can the whole thing be changed to have simply three main headings:
Models of Deafness
(introduction text)
 1. Medical model
 2. Social model
 3. Cultural model
:The three models are 1. Infirmity Model of Deafness  2) Cultural Model of Deafness  3) Disability Model of Deafness (from the Infirmity and Social Disability view).  I explained each model in this same order.  I was a little afraid to then give "The Cultural Deaf view of the Infirmity Model and Disability Models" a major heading because I didn't want to appear to be favoring the cultural deaf view of Infirmity and Disability in some special way. I can't predict how readers and other editors will react, but I know some people will deny the existence of deaf culture altogether and will never admit that a language like ASL is even a language. I've made a mistake in not creating a major heading for that paragraph. The purpose of that section is to illustrate example and rationale behind the culturally deaf opposition to the Infirmity and Disability models. The paragraph should also deal directly with each Model individually instead of trying to argue against both models within the same paragraphs and getting entangled.  I did attempt to divide things up but it is the part of the overall revision I'm least happy with. To-do.   Ray Foster
(the cultural model section would probably need to be broken up into subsections too)
	• 	Late deafened or "post-linguistically deaf" people don't seem to be addressed. I'm guessing many would be comfortable with the social or even medical models.
:  I can add this group to the section on the Infirmity model.  I did something similar with the pre-lingual deaf in the Cultural Model. I agree. They should be added.  Ray Foster
:There are alternatives: Late-deafened is one.  But in fact, the infirmity model is all-encompassing in its view of hearing loss regardless of the age of onset or the severity. We can generalize in this by stating whom among affected individuals are likely to embrace the infirmity model and describe them with something like, "people for whom the onset of deafness occurred after they acquired a mastery of language."  Ray Foster
	• 	Deaf schooling and education is a very large topic and it would be great to for it to be expanded, perhaps into its own article. But that's for another day.
:It's in my outline for Deaf History. I have a mountain of resources for this project and I'm excited about doing it.   Ray Foster
	• 	and lastly, an introduction would be nice. e.g. (this is really rough):
There are three models of deafness: the medical, social and cultural models, which affect how deaf persons are treated and their identity. The medical model sees deafness as an undesirable condition to be treated. The social model sees the design of the deaf person's environment as the major disabling factor, while in the cultural model, the Deaf belong to a culture in which they are not infirm or disabled. The three models are expanded below.
:Pengo, these are excellent points to work on.  I'll begin immediately to do them justice including the introduction.  I greatly appreciate your thoroughness.  Ray Foster 09:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pengo, I'm aware of that resemblence between Medical and Infirmity Models. I used that precise article as my source material and I simply adapted "infirmity" in place of "medical" and made the points specific to deafness. I noted that source in the References section.  In confirming your Google search terms I found 172,000 rather than 169,000 references to "Medical Model". However, for 'Medical model of deafness' I found only 67 references.  Medical Model is certainly a popular terms. Infirmity (alone) yielded 417,000 references and "infirmity model" had 10, with only one reference to "infirmity model of deafness."  I think all of these counts would increase if the professional journals that have their material online would permit indexing robots. But they don't, so there's no way to know how significant the change would be in the number of references per term. I also found quite a lot of hits when I used synonym for "model,"  such as, "definition", "type" "description" "criterion" "characterization" "portrayal" "picture" "classification" and "explantion".  Altogether they amounted to about 25,000 references to "_______" of deafness with "Medical definition" showing 23,900, and the more specific "Type of deafness" showing 811 references. I would conclude, then, that the terms "Medical" and "Infirmity" are at least interchangeable to some degree when they specifically refer to deafness. I don't think either of them would be a negative.  "Medical model of deafness" with 67 hits compared to "Infirmity Model of deafness" with 1 hit is a non-issue. We just have to be sure to make the language consistent if we go with "medical".  If it ever comes up from some social scientist guru who specializes in this area as an issue, I'll just point them at you [tee hee].  Ray Foster 11:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Pengo, The Cultural Model of Deafness is emphatically, absolutely NOT rooted in disability. It is rooted in the model of Culture, specifically "sub-culture" since it is a minority group, and equally rooted in the classification of "minority-language group". In no way is this view a view for disability. I'm correcting this misunderstand on the article. This actually calls for adding additional categories to the page.  I'll do that also Ray Foster 11:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that (and other fixes). My fault for over-generalising. --Pengo 13:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on proposal 

message: To respond quickly to the infirmity model vs medical model:
The existing article "Medical model of disability" nearly exactly resembled (bullet points and wording) of your description of the infirmity model. So they appear to be the same thing.
Doing a quick google search gives the following number of pages with each term:
"___ model"
*Medical: 169,000 pages
*Infirmity: 10 pages
"___ model of disability"
*Medical: 6,910 pages
*Infirmity: 0 pages
"___ model of deafness":
*Medical: 58 pages
*Infirmity: 1 page
If the term "infirmity model of disability" was once popular in journals, it certainly isn't popular on the internet today. 
Note: only English pages searched. (my default)
--Pengo 09:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pengo, I'm aware of that resemblence between Medical and Infirmity Models. I used that precise article as my source material and I simply adapted "infirmity" in place of "medical" and made the points specific to deafness. I noted that source in the References section.  In confirming your Google search terms I found 172,000 rather than 169,000 references to "Medical Model". However, for 'Medical model of deafness' I found only 67 references.  Medical Model is certainly a popular terms. Infirmity (alone) yielded 417,000 references and "infirmity model" had 10, with only one reference to "infirmity model of deafness."  I think all of these counts would increase if the professional journals that have their material online would permit indexing robots. But they don't, so there's no way to know how significant the change would be in the number of references per term. I also found quite a lot of hits when I used synonym for "model,"  such as, "definition", "type" "description" "criterion" "characterization" "portrayal" "picture" "classification" and "explantion".  Altogether they amounted to about 25,000 references to "_______" of deafness with "Medical definition" showing 23,900, and the more specific "Type of deafness" showing 811 references. I would conclude, then, that the terms "Medical" and "Infirmity" are at least interchangeable to some degree when they specifically refer to deafness. I don't think either of them would be a negative.  "Medical model of deafness" with 67 hits compared to "Infirmity Model of deafness" with 1 hit is a non-issue. We just have to be sure to make the language consistent if we go with "medical".  If it ever comes up from some social scientist guru who specializes in this area as an issue, I'll just point them at you [tee hee].  Ray Foster 11:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infirmity vs medical

message: As, from a medical view point, deafness is a disability, the medical model of deafness is going to be a type of medical model of disability. I don't think you need a journal article to point that out. The same applies to social models. For now I've verbatim pasted your "social of disability" description into a "of deafness" heading. The content should (at a later stage) really be merged into "Social model of disability" or adapted to discuss deafness in particular.
--Pengo 09:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pengo, The Cultural Model of Deafness is emphatically, absolutely NOT rooted in disability. It is rooted in the model of Culture, specifically "sub-culture" since it is a minority group, and equally rooted in the classification of "minority-language group". In no way is this view a view for disability. I'm correcting this misunderstand on the article. This actually calls for adding additional categories to the page.  I'll do that also Ray Foster 11:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that (and other fixes). My fault for over-generalising. --Pengo 13:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Model of disability vs Model of deafness

message: I moved the following sections from Deafness to Hearing Impairment:  I've recently worked on the H.I. article because I knew it dealt with the entire range of the various types and ranges of hearing loss.  It is precisely the all-encompassing term that best depicts the infirmity view.  So in addition to what I've done, I'll be spending a great deal of time with that page in an attempt to move it toward Featured Article status.  It has tremendous potential and at least one person who has a special interest in the subject. Here are the sections I moved:
*Causes of deafness (Changed to "Causes of Hearing Impairment")
*All Subsections of Causes of Deafness including 1.) Genetic, 2) Disease or illness, 3) Medications, 4) Physical Trauma.
*Medical treatments (I removed the controversial language that cited lack of a NPOV).
*View of Treatment (I changed this back to the state it was in when I first encountered the Deaf article. I left room to add discussion, but the basic content is almost entirely in it's original form (meaning the form I found back in Dec. when I first read the deaf article).
*Adaptation to Deafness. Moved to hearing impairment and removed all my blathering about the TTY. I actually had a strong reason to include that information under the former context, but that now serves no purpose in this restructuring.
*Resources. Moved to hearing impairment.  This section seems to duplicate Adaptation to deafness but I kept it as a major heading for the time being.
The following I just plain eliminated from the Deafness article because they are better addressed in Deaf Culture or Deaf History and are made somewhat unfocused by our revision.  There is no Deaf History article yet. It's something I'm working on now.  Given the great modification of the premise on the Deafness article, I thought it was simply overkill to go on and on about deaf culture. By doing that, one loses the intent of the deafness article's intention to disambiguate a sensitive subject.  To just add more and more on deaf culture gives the appearance of tremendous imbalance of purpose.  The truth is, deaf culture and history have enormous caches of literature, endless topics and gigantic philosophical arguments.  With this page it would soon become a major concern as to where to stop illustrating the arguments over infirmity and disability the deaf cultural model has (substantial) and just seek a balance in perspective in all the competing arguments we presently have.  
*Historical attitudes toward deafness.
*Subsections addressing Historical Attitudes including 1)Education of the Deaf, 2) Oralism versus manualism.
*Deaf Culture (this title was misspelled and I hadn't noticed it until today). I eliminated this since
I'll say once again that I am preparing major additions to the Deaf Culture article and an entirely new article on Deaf History.  All the issues addressed in the sections I removed will be brought back to life in my work on the existing Deaf Culture article and the new Deaf History article.
Again, I will say that I'm not opposed to other replacing the information I've moved if will work with the overall direction we've established with the new revision.    
Ray Foster 07:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Information

message: I spent more than half an hour cleaning up spelling, grammar, and syntax problems.  I tried not to screw up the meaning of anyone's sentences in the process.  My primary goal was to make this article use Standard English so that if a deaf child's parent came looking for information, she or he would not decide that all Deaf people are grammar-impaired.  If someone would please deal with the rest of the article, I'd appreciate it. 
Also, the stuff in "Cultural deafness and the medical model" has no apparent relationship with its heading.  'We are good parents' and 'How to tell if you're Deaf and not merely deaf' are interesting stories, but they say nothing at all about the medical model.  It may be more relevant to move those to another page and delete the heading altogether. 
Finally, I beg all writers on this article:  if it's more than about 25 words long, please split it into at least two sentences! 70.137.173.241 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: Does the social model of disability include the idea that society ought to fix the environment for deaf people, so that their deaf people is less of a disablity? Is this why some people took offense at Marlee Matlin's speaking a few words aloud without signing?
Is there a taboo or unwritten rule (advocated by Deaf culture) that the way to deal with deafness is that those who can hear ought to learn signing, as opposed to the idea that the deaf should learn to talk if they have any potential to do so? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disability and environment

message: Be careful to write in a neutral voice. For example, this sentence is not neutral: "Often, due to this perspective, hearing parents may experience diagnosis of their child’s deafness as a tragedy." You could rephrase, put in a citation, or give attribution. I am not suggesting that you take out the idea. 
You might consider reordering the three perspectives so the medical model isn't first.
The whole bit about "professionals in mediating roles between cultures, notably persons engaged in activities of simultaneous interpretation, and schools." doesn't seem to fit in this page. 
There are also redundant sections that need to get collapsed.Ncaselli (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions