Category talk:Schools of deaf education in the United States

Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States
You suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning. The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies).

If your suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the area of deaf education', which would not be our goal.

The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized Category:Schools of Deaf Education in the United States as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same. -- Egberts (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

in Category content page?
Attempts to insert in the talk page resulted in the following message should not be placed on talk pages. Please remove it and place it on the content page. So, as instructed, I put it back in the content page of Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States -- Egberts (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States

 * Proposed renaming Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States to Category:Schools of deaf education in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Assumed by User:Egberts that Good Ol’factory (talk) states this as speedy criteria C2A (mispelling?) -- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Schools of Deaf education in the United States to Category:Schools of deaf education in the United States — C2A Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, oppose the renaming. It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning.   The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies).
 * If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the desired area of deaf education', which would not be our goal.
 * The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized Category:Schools of Deaf Education in the United States as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same.
 * -- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't really explained why changing the capitalization changes the meaning. It's not a proper noun like "African-American" is; it seems to be jargon if anything, with "schools of deaf education" being deemed to be something different than "deaf schools" or "schools for the deaf". But I don't see how changing it from "Deaf education" to "deaf education" makes any difference in meaning at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you'd asked. It's a matter of identity.  One wouldn't called themselves african, nor asian. But that's not the issue here (but it's a start).  At the education institutions, they issue B.A., M.S, Ph.D. degrees out for 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', and 'Deaf Studies' (note all capitalized), also for 'Deaf Education' for bon-fide educator for the deaf.  Naming it to 'communication studies', 'special education', 'deaf studies' and 'deaf education' loses its proper noun befitting of degree'd academic titls.  Problem is world-view (Deaf education) vs. US-view (Deaf Education).  It is not worthy of a speedy rename toward lower case.  Perhaps the WP:DEAF should tackle this? --Egberts (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to objection section --Egberts (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Attempted to do WP:CfD, not sure if self-nomination is permitted. --Egberts (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Brought up for a full nomination.--Egberts (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the renaming.
 * It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning.   The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies).
 * If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the desired area of deaf education', which would not be our goal.
 * The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized Category:Schools of Deaf Education in the United States as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same. -- Egberts (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, educational institution issues degrees in 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', 'Deaf Studies' and... 'Deaf Education'. Problem is that of US-centric view is 'Deaf Education' vs. world-view 'Deaf education'.   Renaming it to 'deaf education' would be like renaming 'African studies' to 'african studies', 'communication studies', 'special education' of which they are not proper nouns to reflect the degree'd academic studies. I proposed that we keep it, capitalized it to US-centric 'Deaf Education' or shuffle it back to WP:DEAF for internal resolution. --Egberts (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename as a simple capitalization fix. In categories, we don't treat academic subjects as capitalized proper nouns unless the word is otherwise derived from a proper noun, as with "African". A quick perusal of indicates that this is the case. "Deaf" is not derived from a proper noun, not is "deaf education". The first letters in Deaf education and  are capitalized only because they are first letter in the article/category name! When the term appears in the middle of an article or category name, it is properly written without the capital-"D". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are the citations that treats this (arguably largest) ethnocentric society in the world, the "Deaf people".[See collapsed text below: A] One example from Chicago Manual of Style is given here.[See collapsed text below: B] Please see my additional response to BrownHairedGirl below. --Egberts (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per Good Olfactory as a simple capitalization fix. We don't capitalise academic disciplines, and the evidence is that this term is not routinely categorised. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. on the routinely not capitalising academic disciplines. Since the proposed category was serving two original purposes: 1. pronoun capitalisation as in Society of the Deaf and 2. titular title of degree'd subjects: Deaf Education.  Since #2 no longer applys within Wikipedia categorisation, we're left with #1.  The remaining issue is pronoun of a culture.  Do these peer-reviewed citations suffice enough in justification for capitalisation of a specific subset of a society?  I am not aware of any writing styles that treats such culture in a non-pronoun manner.  (Society of africans, Society of asian doesn't quite read easy on Wikipedian eyes.)  Citations:[See collapsed text below: C] --Egberts (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename In fact, most cultural groups are not capitalized, only those which have as their basis a geographic location which is a proper noun, e.g. Asia for Asians, Latin America for Latinos but gay not Gay, women's studies not Women's Studies or Women's studies, Christian evangelicalism not Christian Evangelicalism.- choster (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, re-stating your words that Wikipedia guideline is using ethnics as the primary criteria for its capitalisation requirement? Looks to me that Deaf is an ethnics/ethnos/society as often cited. Are we saying they are not? --Egberts (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the mere fact that a group is an ethnicity that leads to the capitalization. It's because the ethnic adjectives derive from a proper noun. "Asia", "Africa", and "Latin America" are always capitalized because they are proper nouns. Therefore, adjectives that are derived from these terms—Asian, African, and Latino—are also capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Changed to rename: Those are excellent points which I trust is only used to guide the determination for WikiCategories. These justification will proved to be useful next time I have to arbitrate over future categories from within WikiProjectDeaf members.  Thank you all.  Please go ahead with the rename'. --Egberts (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the citations linked by Egberts out of tags and to this collapsed section. tags and reflist do not work well on discussion pages.
 * A
 * , URL: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38664/deaf_or_deaf_can_a_capital_letter_make.html?cat=5
 * , URL: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38664/deaf_or_deaf_can_a_capital_letter_make.html?cat=5


 * B


 * C
 * , URL: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38664/deaf_or_deaf_can_a_capital_letter_make.html?cat=5
 * , URL: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38664/deaf_or_deaf_can_a_capital_letter_make.html?cat=5