Talk: Deaf
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
This page was a redirect to hearing impairment when I started on it. It needed to discuss Deaf culture.
Now we really need a Deaf person or a translator to look over this page and add to it!
There is a lot about the history of deaf people that I leaft out. Also, it needs discussion of organizations like the NAD and NTD. A reference to Gallaudet University, since that is so important to Deaf history in the U.S., is warranted as well. Also lacking is discussion of Deaf history outside the U.S. --hb
- Thank you, hb!! I didn't know enough about this culture to do this myself, or I would have. It always bothered me that Deaf was just a redirect to hearing impairment, with nothing about the culture. - Montréalais
Why is "deaf" capitalized in the article? -- Tarquin 00:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)~
- That is a "holy war" type issue. Some deaf people consider there to be a deaf culture, separate and distinct from the rest of the world. Because their culture is distinct, they want it to be capitalized just like French culture or Russian culture. -BuddhaInside
- P.S. - Good link here [1]
- I think the capitalization in the article goes a little overboard. The "d" should not be capitalized when writing about the condition of being deaf, only when speaking of Deaf culture. Which leads us to trying to make the distinction between "deaf woman" (a woman who cannot hear) and "Deaf woman" (a woman who is a member of Deaf culture)... -BuddhaInside
The Deaf community and Deaf Culture really deserve their own article seperate from the article here. I have taken the cultural information and moved it to its own page and plan to expand on it over time. This way this article can just mention the big 'D' deaf and supply a link, then go on with elucidation of what this article should be about which is the state of being deaf seperate from the culture, hearing or Deaf, which a person may belong. The two topics are very large and deserve seperate treatment. Hopefully both articles will continue to be refined -Qaz
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.
I don't know how common it is, but I know a fellow who became deaf from ... (no)hjernehinnebetennelse ... It's one of those -itis ilnesses in english, can't remeber. Innflamation of the brain membrane.
