Talk:Deafness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to sign languages, Deaf culture, deafness etc. For guidelines see the project page or talk page
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Full Deaf?

My grandma is deaf in one ear, or partially deaf in both, and she can hear if u talk loud, when she watches the price is right you can hear it all around the house! (She needs the TV loud to hear). Is it possible to be 100% deaf when no matter how loud someone talks or how loud the TV is they still cant hear? RealG187 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are many people out there that can't hear anything, regardless of how loud. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals

They say most white cats are deaf, I cant rememebr if its White Cats with Blue Eyes or White Cats with Green Eyes. Duz any1 know/remember? RealG187 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks.

White cats with blue eyes. :) Féerique

[edit] Undeaf?

I don't see why the term "undeaf" be defined here. It is a word coined by one or two partially hearing people to describe the no-mans land between deaf and hearing. This spurious word is a eccentric convention which is most unlikely to be adopted by deaf or partially hearing. Accordingly the definition for undeaf have been deleted. 86.131.1.114 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move/copy (Deaf to Deafness)

Note this page has been copied from Deaf and the page history is there. —Pengo 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not a fan of this move. I do not see a need for it. It seems in most cases redirects should go from derivations to roots and not the other way around. Additonally, much of the article makes less sense as being text of an article on deafness vs being an article under deaf, as it was. Qaz 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation?

Should deaf be capitalised or not? I'm sure it shouldn't but it appears capitalised in lots of these articles. Skinnyweed 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph of this article should address your question. Excerpt: The word “deaf” used in a cultural sense is almost always capitalized (Deaf), while in a medical sense is almost always lower case (deaf). For those unfamiliar with Deaf culture, this can be an initially confusing distinction. --Ds13 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deaf culture

This seems rather biased towards US-centric "Deaf culture". Just zis Guy you know? 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic prose

Besides the objections cited in this talk page by other users, I think:

  • That the article needs to be rewritten. How come the importance of the spelling of Deaf is one of the foremost topics discussed?
  • Too long paragraphs
  • Non-encyclopedic copywriting
  • Why doesn't the article start with a summary or a quick definition of what deafness is?
  • Why does the article start with "deaf" instead of dealing with deafness directly? Yes, deafness is defined through deaf, but the title says DEAFNESS.
For a wiki-historical background, and to reply to your first and final questions (and skipping the middle ones), the article was original titled "Deaf" and later moved to "Deafness", and so the focus is on the word "Deaf". But yes, the article could still use much tidying as you have said. —Pengo talk · contribs 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
agreeing on some on these issues, i took a stab at a better lead in to the article. I tried to make it as NPOV as possible, but it could be sturder with some outside references, of which i just don't know where to look. tell me what you all think. JoeSmack Talk 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is possible that the article needs a rewrite, I find the tag on the page questioning whether the topic is encyclopedic absurd. How could this not be an encyclopedic topic? - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the topic of deafness is encyclopaedic, the constant soapboxing is not. Guy 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deafness/Deaf/CannotHear

I was being directed back and forth between deafness and deaf. For the lack of any article, I will redirect both deaf and deafness to Hearing (sense), so that at least there is an article which can be refered. I don't have full knowledge regarding what is politically correct description of "can't hear" (or is this not even a politically correct discription) so I leave it at that. But I would think at least one article should describe medical/biological aspect of deafness. Vapour

For someone who is deaf, doing a search with the term "deaf" and being redirected to the article about "hearing" may be, ahhh, quite politically incorrect. Somewhat, wikipedia won't let me fix it. Whoever I offend, I apologise. Whatever the problem with deaf/deafness article, please fix fast. Vapour (18 Sept 2006)

Now in the article: "The term hard of hearing may be used to describe all degrees of hearing loss up to and including total deafness." I believe that this is simply wrong (it's also uncited). "Hard of hearing" implies some ability to hear. To call a deaf person "hard of hearing" is like saying that a blind person "has poor eyesight". - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deaf is not cannot hear

There is no such thing as absolute deafness. All people experience sound and vibrations. All deafness is hearing impairment but the degree of deafness is what defines deaf. Profoundly deaf or functional deafness relates to the ability to understand speech and communicate though sound. There are people with deafness that can hear just fine but brain damage or anomaly preclude them from making sense out of what is being said.

[edit] Hard of Hearing

Hard of hearing refers to the functioning of the hearing faculty and not to the ability to communicate. Deafness refers to the ability to receive communication through sound independent of the functionality of the hearing faculty. Could someone who can write figure out what I just said and write it properly for me?

[edit] Weak introduction

The first paragraph (the first proposed definition of "deaf") contains the weasel word "could" three times. Can we streangth this a bit? The intro currently carries an almost apologetic or argumentative tone and I think one improvement could be to simply pare it down to stating two well-published and verifiable definitions for "deafness" (e.g. a medical or ability-based one, and a cultural one) and then leave the details and controversies in the body of the article. Anyways, some weaknesses currently include:

  1. "could be considered controversial" So is it or is it not controversial? This should not be hard to determine and cite. (I personally don't think it is controversial, so I'll leave that burden to those who do.)
  2. "could be felt as offensive" Why not say that it is offensive and give some notable reference so we can verify?
  3. I've tagged a request for citation on the last usage, referring to what a theoretical definition "could be". This almost sounds like original research, but maybe a citation can be found. --Ds13 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal definition

What follows below was added to the article before the intro. That is not the propoer place for it and it does not say what geographical area it covers so I moved it to the talk page until someone can improve it and move it into a proper section Qaz 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deafness is legally defined by degree of hearing loss

  • Profound (90 dB - 120 dB) or more of Hearing Loss is referred to as profoundly deaf or total deafness.
  • Severe (60 dB - 90 dB) could be referred to as Deaf or partial deafness or hard of hearing.
  • Moderate (30 dB - 60 dB) could be referred to as partial deafness or hard of hearing.
  • Mild (10 dB - 30 dB) of hearing Loss would generally be referred to as hard of hearing.
Someone added it back in but did not say what region this law is from. If it is just the US it should say so. If it is worldwide it should say so. Qaz 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworked introduction

I totally redid the introduction as it was seeming to get more disjointed over time. I attempted to describe the issue from both sides as each side would be glad to be shown. I started from the scientific/mainstream view as seems fitting while being carful to note that there is controversy around the issue. Most of all, I tried to address all that while at the same time making overall readability better. There are many complex issues right under the surface here but we should be able to have a concise and articulate statement of the situation. Qaz 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some pertinent info was lost in the shuffle, although I like the intro in paragraph form. Maybe I can help put it back, hm.... J Lorraine 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that the Padden definitions made it back in, and that more of the 'human' label element was worked out. I'd prefer if the term 'animal' could be worked out of the intro; i see no reason to refer to animals when referring to deaf/Deafness. JoeSmack Talk 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to say person or animal even though science sees the human as just another animal. It reads better that way for the less science minded. Qaz 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is safe to presume that anything that can hear can also be deaf. Differentiating that both person and animal can be deaf isn't necessary. I'd propose the wording change from 'characterized by lack of sensitivity to sound in a person or animal.' to just 'characterized by lack of sensitivity to sound'. JoeSmack Talk 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the first paragraph slightly - it now says "in legal terms" and "in medical terms" rather than "in the legal/medical community". It's more precise and accurate this way - there are, for example, lawyers and doctors who would use the word deaf differently in different contexts - in one sense when referring to a deaf club, and in another sense when referring to a client/patient. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an absolutely horrible article

This is the most off topic page I have ever seen. I was looking for information on medical deafness, which this page doesnt even touch on, it only whines about how deaf people have been discriminated against. I think this entire article should be deleted or seriously revised, or possibly made into another articel about deaf people, but the term deafness should give medical facts, not just someone's biased opinions abotu hwo deaf people are special and unique and how no one understands them.

thanks for your input, I agree that this article needs a lot of work, especially in the area of facts about the medical condition. Do you have any ideas on where to start research? What specific information were you looking for? That might help us make the article better. BTW, please sign your posts. J Lorraine 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Me again. You may be more interested in the article with the title Hearing impairment. In this vein I suggest...

[edit] Split/Merge/Redirect

Should this article's information be merged with deaf culture and relevant sections moved to hearing impairment (which is a far more in-depth article at first glance), and the page 'deaf' and 'deafness' be redirected to a disambig page ? at the very least I will put an appropriate re-direct sentence at the top of this page. J Lorraine 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note-- after writing that blurb at the top, I found the article models of deafness, which seems to address what I said this article was about. since there is a models of deafness, a hearing impairment, and a deaf culture page, what, exactly, is this page supposed to discuss? (note, I have not finished reading the original talk page for deaf yet, I may find answers there) J Lorraine 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if someone would work out a plan for parcelling off the various aspects to appropriate articles, rewrite this article as an overview, and provide a Nav Box to link the aspects together. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/Talk%7EDeafness_1299.html"