Talk:New York State School for the Deaf
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Smasongarrison in topic Adding WikiProject Disability
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of 401 Turin Street, Rome , New York 13440 be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Adding WikiProject Disability
editPer your revert Mathglot (talk · contribs), can you walk me through why adding the disability project is controversial? [1] To me it seems like an easy add because the page is classified under disability studies deaf studies (which is a subcat of disability studies), and having another wikiproject keeping an eye on the page in case there's vandalism or anything of that nature seems extremely uncontroversial. I'd really like to understand. Mason (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to see the controversy part of it, you could start with the Google query, "Are deaf people disabled?" Capital-D Deaf people are for the most part adamant that it is not a disability. I'd take it up at WP:WikiProject Deaf and get more opinions about it, as clearly legal/medical authorities and the Deaf community are not on the same page about it. Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing up where your perspective is coming from. I am aware of the deaf/Deaf debate. What I was more trying to understand was why adding an additional wikiproject to support the community is controversial. I personally don't see the harm in providing additional support with a project tag. That's what I'm trying to understand here. Mason (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, which probably agrees with most med/law sources (I haven't checked). I just think it would be best to check with those who are most involved with the topic, and most informed. Despite involvement with the Deaf community in an earlier life, I cannot claim to speak for them, but I could hazard a guess that they might say something like: it's analogous to the APA classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder since its inception, and only removing it completely from the DSM in 1994; and that the Deaf community is about 30+ years behind that, insofar as the views of the medical establishment towards them. The word "deafness" encompasses valid medical ocncepts which can certainly have good-faith academic studies done about it (just like they can about homosexuality); but the social meaning of the term "disability" (despite medical and legal meanings on their own turf) has changed over time and is now a loaded term undergoing further evolution. Deaf people were once called "deaf and dumb" and "deaf mute", both deprecated and seen now as extremely pejorative. The term "disability" in connection with Deaf people is in the crosshairs now, in my opinion, and one would do well to air this first at a proper venue, before placing a disability project unilaterally on this page. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I think that we're talking past each other. I'm not asking you to explain to me what the controversy is within the Deaf/deaf community about the label. I have a pretty good understanding of the what the controversial around calling someone in the Deaf community disabled. However, what I am trying to understand is why do you consider the inclusion of a project tag to be controversial. I think that this page is within the scope of the disability project mission. You say that the d/Deaf community would consider this controversial. But you haven't answered my question about why you want to exclude another wikiproject from helping keep an eye on the page. Mason (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- But you did ask me to explain the controversy; it's in the first sentence at the top of this section, and I thought I just did. You say you understand, but it doesn't sound like it. Trying again: a minority group (gay people; Deaf people) gets characterized by authoritative groups from the majority culture (straight psychiatrists; hearing audiologists/ENTs) with labels (mentally disordered; physically disabled) without being consulted, and which may have repercussions on their daily lives. "They're mentally disordered; print it in DSM2 as a 'sexual deviation' ." "They're disabled; _______ " – you fill in the blank, regarding the question I haven't answered. And I didn't say I wanted to exclude it. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I asked you " why adding the disability project is controversial". The addition of the "project" does not seem controversial. But as I already mentioned, I think that we are talk past each other. I understand and recognize that there are multiple perspectives on Deaf as a community and that there are many parallels in it with the debate on social versus medical model. I do think that your example with the LGBTQ+ community is excellent and gets at all the core aspects of the controversial on the labeling of d/Deaf.
- My questions were trying to understand why you thought having an additional project was controversial as that is how I interpreted the reverting of a project tag. Mason (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- But you did ask me to explain the controversy; it's in the first sentence at the top of this section, and I thought I just did. You say you understand, but it doesn't sound like it. Trying again: a minority group (gay people; Deaf people) gets characterized by authoritative groups from the majority culture (straight psychiatrists; hearing audiologists/ENTs) with labels (mentally disordered; physically disabled) without being consulted, and which may have repercussions on their daily lives. "They're mentally disordered; print it in DSM2 as a 'sexual deviation' ." "They're disabled; _______ " – you fill in the blank, regarding the question I haven't answered. And I didn't say I wanted to exclude it. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I think that we're talking past each other. I'm not asking you to explain to me what the controversy is within the Deaf/deaf community about the label. I have a pretty good understanding of the what the controversial around calling someone in the Deaf community disabled. However, what I am trying to understand is why do you consider the inclusion of a project tag to be controversial. I think that this page is within the scope of the disability project mission. You say that the d/Deaf community would consider this controversial. But you haven't answered my question about why you want to exclude another wikiproject from helping keep an eye on the page. Mason (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, which probably agrees with most med/law sources (I haven't checked). I just think it would be best to check with those who are most involved with the topic, and most informed. Despite involvement with the Deaf community in an earlier life, I cannot claim to speak for them, but I could hazard a guess that they might say something like: it's analogous to the APA classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder since its inception, and only removing it completely from the DSM in 1994; and that the Deaf community is about 30+ years behind that, insofar as the views of the medical establishment towards them. The word "deafness" encompasses valid medical ocncepts which can certainly have good-faith academic studies done about it (just like they can about homosexuality); but the social meaning of the term "disability" (despite medical and legal meanings on their own turf) has changed over time and is now a loaded term undergoing further evolution. Deaf people were once called "deaf and dumb" and "deaf mute", both deprecated and seen now as extremely pejorative. The term "disability" in connection with Deaf people is in the crosshairs now, in my opinion, and one would do well to air this first at a proper venue, before placing a disability project unilaterally on this page. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing up where your perspective is coming from. I am aware of the deaf/Deaf debate. What I was more trying to understand was why adding an additional wikiproject to support the community is controversial. I personally don't see the harm in providing additional support with a project tag. That's what I'm trying to understand here. Mason (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I recommend asking on WP:DEAF and/or WP:DISABILITY like Mathglot suggested to get more perspectives involved. (side note: Somebody remind me to go take a photo of this place when it's not the middle of January.) Apocheir (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for chiming in @Apocheir. Honestly, I'm not trying to debate @Mathglot here or get the disability project re-added. It's pretty clear that @Mathglot has really strong feelings about the label disability. My goal was to try to understand their reasoning on removing a project that I thought was a good fit. It's pretty clear that we're going to talk past each other. My intent wasn't to get embroiled here, debate the medical/social model, or come off as someone unsupportive of the d/Deaf community, as I view them as just that -- a community. You both are welcome to seek consensus, more broadly. (Frankly, I'm also not even sure how to formulate a broader call for outside opinions.) Mason (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)