Talk:Audism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ms3630, Etoppo. Peer reviewers: Elizabeebe, Selenah, Easmith5, Djmully.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV / Colonization
Is there any reason this is still considered NPOV? It looks like references to Colonization and racism have been removed. Jcurious (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really convince me. Sounds more like a martyr complex going on. Colonization sounds like there was some vast land of deaf persons that the hearing persons landed on in 1606 and took their land or some such.

One can hardly compare the potential marginalization of disabled persons within a culture to colonization. In fact, I don't really buy the whole thing that there's a separate culture within a given society for "deaf culture". If we buy that there are differen cultures in a nation based on ethnicity/race/shared social history (German culture, African-American culture, Goth culture, Jewish culture), are we supposed to then buy that there's a separate culture shared by all deaf persons, regardless of their superset of society?

Are all deaf persons in this culture regardless of nationality, ethnicity, etc.?

I'm sorry, but the 'colonization' argument is silly, because to buy that, you have to buy that deaf persons were separate from hearing persons to begin with, and had their own culture somewhere else, before hearing persons came along. That's silly, because deaf persons were not *separate*, they're disabled/sense-impaired individuals who occured within other groups.Taniwha 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your arguement utilizes some very egocentric views and is obviously based on an ignorance for the subject. First of all, you are assuming that deaf and hearing people inhabit the same social space. For the most part, this is not true.


 * Hearing people are indeed the majority, with a rough estimate of 5% of the world populace being cosidered deaf or hard of hearing, with a great number of that percentage made up of the elderly who have experienced a degeneration of hearing.


 * As a result of being the minority, the deaf population is often left without any means of engaging fully in the social experience you and I take for granted (I am hearing but I am fluent in sign language). In most social settings such as the workplace, school, or university, deaf individuals are assisted by an interpreter who is hearing but fluent in sign. They relay the spoken words around them to the deaf person through sign. However, it is impossible to have an interpreter at all times, and it is impossible for the interpreter to interpret everything said in the vicinity of the deaf individual. Think back to any minor social situation you have been in, think to any friend you might have gained through constant, casual, and above all spontaneous social contact. These social settings involve rapid and spontaneous exchanges of verbal information. Deaf people are almost entirely excluded from sharing in this banter with hearing individuals. Because the hearing people often feel that repeating every word said to a deaf colleague or peer is tiresome, and because deaf people are often too self-conscious to ask for constant repitition, the deaf person is left out of social contact with her hearing peers (for the most part).


 * As a result, the deaf populace develops a tendency of gathering into social groups that allow for the same ease of communication experienced in hearing society. When applied on a larger scale, there is an actual and observable deaf culture. There are numerous deaf events at notable locations, such as Gallaudet university in DC, where conventions are held to discuss changes or important issues for the deaf community. Many of these issues relate to the institution of ASL (American Sign Language) as an L1 (Primary language) for deaf children.


 * This issue of the ASL L1 relates to the practice of oralism used in mainstream schools a while back. Schools prohibited the use of sign language as a mode of communication, and forced deaf students to speak using their voices, and to lip read. Students were actually punished when attempting to use sign language, and were often encouraged or forced to socialize with hearing students at the expense of spending time with deaf students. This would constitute a form of colonization. Or, as it might be better understood, forced social conformity.


 * There is a verifiable Deaf Culture generated by the deaf inability to fully join the hearing social group in a satisfying way (no one likes to be the outsider if they're forced to be), and it is often met with Audism, a form of discrimiation based on ability to hear.

Robotichivemind 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unconvincing. Accusing hearing persons of "colonization" does not make sense. Colonization is (from article at colonization) "the act where life forms move into a distant area where their kind is sparse or not yet existing at all and set up new settlements in the area."


 * Are you saying that hearing folks came in and moved in, took land from the vast nation where deaf folks lived peacefully by themselves before the hearing folk moved in? no?


 * A disabled or sense-impaired person may be limited by their ability to participate in the culture in which they are raised, but they are not automatically some sort of other "culture". They are affected by the cultural norms of the culture into which they are born. The argument you seem to be making is for deaf separatism.


 * What you seem to miss is there's not a separate Deaf Nation. "punishing" students for socializing only with other deaf students, "punishing" them for falling back on ASL instead of attempting to communicate with the larger social structure around them? Whether you like it or not, there is a larger culture outside a deaf individual - the society they live in. If that means they need to be able to communicate in some way with the non-signlanguage-speaking hearing oppressor types, so be it.


 * I'm not arguing the concept of hearing-based discrimination, but this nativist argument about colonization is silly. Do you understand now? If you want to call it "forced social conformity", call it such. Colonization is a stupid term to use, and it's obvious it's only used because of the negative implications. It's loaded, being used inappropriately, inflammatory, and intentionally hostile.


 * Deaf subculture? Maybe. Unless you can prove that all deaf persons share the same 'deaf culture' regardless of whether they're raised in Europe, Japan, America, Australia, wherever, your argument fails.


 * I'll put the NPOV back. Taniwha 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a very valid point being discussed here--this "colonization" business borders on the ridiculous. However, it's not only incorrect and naive, but offensive, to imply that American Deaf Culture doesn't exist, especially if you claim that all Deaf cultures must be universally homogenous.  Are you arguing that Spanish-speakers all over the world share the same culture?  (Even that comparison isn't up to the task, however: American Deaf people speak an entirely different language from Deaf in Britain or Spain or Japan. [British Sign Language and American Sign Language are as mutually exclusive as, say, English and Protugese; interestingly, though, French Sign Language (LSF) and ASL are cousins, much like Portugese and Spanish, for example.])


 * If you are interested in speaking from an educated perspective on Deaf Culture, might I recommend Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) or A Journey into the Deaf-World by Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan (San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996)? Until you have more to bring to the table than a bigoted view of a culture you don't understand, perhaps it would be wiser to keep your opinion to yourself.


 * Granted, the colonization argument is a flop. But don't go claiming something doesn't exist simply because you know nothing about it. --Cathryn 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Deaf Culture is not limited to North America and users of American Sign Language. It is everywhere, as there exist many commonalities among Deaf people in different parts of the world, despite their mutually exclusive sign languages. Deaf people are often able to recognize a deaf person in a foreign country, not by his wearing a hearing aid but by different sets of certain behaviors, for example by a particular way of looking at a person. Differences within the Deaf Culture in terms of behavioral patterns indeed exist, thus there is a North American Deaf Culture as opposed to several ones in Central and South America as well as in Europe, Africa, and Asia. One example of such differences is the naming convention for persons.


 * I wonder if there is a difference in what 'colonization' and 'colonialization' mean. A semantic differentiation should be created when speaking of subjugating weak countries and their people for economic and cultural gains of a powerful nation. A geographical territory is perhaps one criterium for this. The other is more of a social and cultural nature, based on some exercise of some kind of power. Exploitation may also come into play in this, especially in the world of work and education. No geographical territory is involved in this. That is why some authors writing on deafness use 'colonization', because there exist many parallels of practices and attitudes of the colonizers toward the colonized as exercised toward deaf and hearing people by a certain group of hearing persons. They may have used it in the extended sense of the word. ---Hartmut, 8 Nov.2008


 * We appear to be agreeing more than you think. (Also, I'm neither bigoted nor ignorant of the 'culture' in question.) I'm not arguing that there is not an American Deaf Culture, but that it is a subset of American Culture and cannot be said to be a universal Deaf Culture; that it cannot be said to be universal across borders or larger cultures, as you said. There is not one Deaf Culture that matches up from American Deaf Culture to Japanese Deaf Culture, etc.


 * Existence of a deaf culture within a culture (i.e., American Deaf Culture), does not prove the 'colonization' argument. Taniwha 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is pointless to argue that the Deaf Culture in North America is part of the greater American Culture. A person can be a member of different cultures. Very few are indeed monocultural. An American Deaf person can practice several elements of the American Culture in terms of clothing, cooking, holidays, participation in the work culture, recreational sport, national and local politics, religion, etc. He even speaks, read and writes English. They are on the superficial level. But on the deeper level, especially as they relate to attitude, world view, some unconscious behavioral patterns emerge among Deaf persons that are not used by hearing persons and those patterns used by hearing persons are not used by Deaf persons. These differences are on top of linguistic and pragmatic differences between English and ASL. That is why, we cannot speak of 'wheel chair culture', 'blind culture', etc. What differences these people have from the mainstream are too negligible to be named a distinct culture. Most that can be said about those differences may be termed as a 'subculture', in the same way as one speaks of 'youth culture', 'drug culture', 'professional culture', etc. ---Hartmut, 8 Nov.2008


 * Wow, I just reread that...sorry. A lot. I didn't mean to be so grouchy. Wow. I apologize. --Cathryn 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let us get some things straight. Deaf culture is very distinct from American if you were to look into what forms a culture (Lisa Godfrey and Savita Adams, Deaf Studies Department, Tennessee Temple University; Tennessee Association of the Deaf; Tennessee Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf). Culture is formed by people with at least two of the following things: A common history, language, goal and/or physical trait. Deaf people have all three. Nobody has denied African Americans their own culture, or Chinese Americans their culture. Christians have their own culture. Shoot, even people who are related to victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome have their own international culture (Laura Reno, Chairman of the Board, Florida First Candle/SIDS Alliance). Culture is simply:

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture. 6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. (culture. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved December 16, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture)

The group? The Deaf people. The behaviours: well, those take a while to explain, but they are vastly different from American. For one, while hearing people will usually leave a place within 15-20 minutes of the end of the event, Deaf people can often be found there an hour and a half after the end (if you don't believe me, go to Harvest Baptist Church for the Deaf in Ringgold Georgia, or a church for the Deaf. The beliefs? ASL should be the main language of Deaf people in America, Deaf people should be allowed to do anything a hearing person can, etc. Characteristics? Deafness, ASL, etc. This is the DEAF Culture. Let them have something, as if we haven't already oppressed them enough. They don't want to become like us, so why try? Bringing it back full circle to why say we colonized them? We did the same thing to the Deaf that we did to the Indians, only more subtly. We didn't kill them. We quietly put them away as if they had some defect.

Want to know if there is a Deaf culture? Go participate in some Deaf events. Talk to the people at your local RID or NAD branch. They will be more than happy to let you know of the next upcoming Deaf events.

I also disagree with you saying they are just impaired people. A Deaf person is no more impaired than you or I. An impairment, by definition, would impair their ability to participate in daily life. Their culture is seperate from hearing society. Why are they seperate? WE (the hearing society) seperated them. They do have a seperate culture. Maybe I can get a Deaf person to post the truth in full, until then, do some actual research, please. It is insulting to say that a community and culture that I am connected to is nonexistent. All Deaf people in all nations have the same or similar ideals to the American Deaf community. In fact, the decision to force them to learn orally was decided by all us hearing people in 1917 without consulting the Deaf people and asking how THEY want to learn. Correction, we did so IN SPITE of what they said. The president of the time of Gallaudet University, with the support of the students there, protested it. But we hearing people, who thought they would not understand, chose for them. (The Deaf Tennessean Expo, History workshop, October 14, 2006 ---72.154.101.185 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Your local interpreter-in-training, William Sculley.

"Bringing it back full circle to why say we colonized them? We did the same thing to the Deaf that we did to the Indians, only more subtly. We didn't kill them. We quietly put them away as if they had some defect."

Colonialism is the wrong word. And what happened to the Indians was 1)Small Pox & Co-which had their effects long before the blanket incident 2) Genocide in many cases (through armies and sterilization) 3) Reservations and Residential schools. Deaf people may have been ostracized to a certain degree. True. But they were never/have not been colonized. They were never victims of genocide specifically targeting them. They were never sterilized by force. And while your local public school is probably poorly trained to deal with deaf students, the schools for the deaf help them develop sign language and deal with the larger society they live in. And Sign Language has never been the sole province of deaf people. It was developed in conjunction with hearing people, and many hearing people speak it. So no, not quite (in fact not even near) the same experience as Natives put in residential schools where they were sterilized and forbidden to speak their wholly independent language, after centuries of disease and genocide...

There is no doubt that deaf people have their own culture and social experience that those outside cannot comprehend. There is no doubt that because of their differences, they face discrimination.

But that is not colonization. That isn't genocide. That isn't what happened to the First Nations. That isn't what happened to Africans, Arabs or Indians (India). It isn't that it's not in the same ballpark, it's not the same sport.

Use the right word.


 * William again. I don't know who made that last post, but it looks like somebody made a significant amount of change on the topic that needs now to be re-researched and reposted, because all that we have here is a basic definition and a short blurb of introduction without any supporting evidence. It's saddening to know that an article that has been approved by both the TAD and CCTRID has lost all of what was on here. However, in reply to the above post, there is a distinct difference between genocide and colonialism, at least in my dictionary. Colonialism is where people have their rights, land, or other valuable things taken from them and they are pushed to the side by the new culture, people, or country to come. Genocide, on the other hand, is the complete and total eradication of a people group. In neither of the two cultures did the last one happen. There are still fragments of all the tribes remaining in the reservation camps across the US. The Deaf had their rights to work as equals taken from them. Their rights to have a life of their own or use their own language was taken from them and still today in my generation, parents punished their children for using sign language. When I edit the page, I won't use that, but I will use published and credible sources for BOTH sides of the colonialism section. The section belongs there, as it is one of the main things discussed as part of this subject. With all of the -isms, there is some sort of colonialism going on.


 * It is seen when a hearing family gives birth to a Deaf child. They are told by the doctor about hearing aids but not ASL, of speech classes but not residential schools, of coping mechanisms but not the Deaf community (Mirrored to us removing African Americans from African communities as slaves prior to the Civil War). That is exhibit one for colonialism, when we cut a person off from their community. Then as young children, Deaf kids develop their own signs for their emotions, a lot of the time getting punished if caught, as has happened to many now college age Deaf people in their lifetimes. There are Deaf kids in my generation (I can't remember if it is X, Y or Z) who were punished for using signs to try to communicate. So now they are not only cut off from their community, they are cut off from communication (mirrored with whites not allowing black to read prior to and shortly after the Civil War. Then they are cut off from money and employment rights after they leave home. It is improved now, but it is still difficult to get a job as a Deaf person anywhere beyond Walmart or burger flipping, because companies don't want to invest the time or money in ASL classes for the workers or an interpreter ($30/hr minimum) to aid in communication. Walmart is one of the few that have interpreters the whole way through the training process. That cuts them off from currency. These three are in common with all three attributes of colonialism.


 * Hello, Matt here... William, when a child is born with, say, a deformed lung, the parents are going to be given information on how that can be fixed or managed, as this impairment would affect their daily life in a negative way (reducing health, reducing certain opportunities for activities/recreation/employment/etc) - unless there is nothing the doctor(s) can do to improve the situation, the parents would not be counselled regarding 'one lung culture' or 'controlled breathing 101'..  Another example might be if a child is born with webbed feet and toes (this is not uncommon - digits are often fused until late in a baby's in-utero development so it does occur); in this case the chances of complete recovery from surgery with little to no scarring are good, due to the properties of a newborn's dermatology, assuming no fusing of bones, etc has occurred.  Since it is usually a simple procedure with minimal risk to the infant, and aids them physically and socially in a big way compared to being 'different' and with less physical dexterity than the norm, there is no reason (other than religious or pseudocultural) for the parents refusing such a procedure.


 * I went to school with some deaf kids (even had a crush on one!), and I agree fully that they should be supported and given whatever opportunities are reasonable, but it's the same as with any disability which affects communication. It would be unreasonable for a seriously hearing-impaired person to expect equal treatment when applying for a customer service position, or anything similar where regular consultation with the public is a core job requirement (except perhaps in a facility or region where deaf customers will be more than say 10% of the clientele); likewise, almost all jobs require constant efficient communication with co-workers, so where this communication cannot reasonably be handled via textual intercourse of some sort, a hearing impaired individual MUST accept that they will never be the first choice for such a position, just as it would be unreasonable for a blind person to expect a job as an interior designer or (traditional) art critic.


 * I will probably be deaf in a decade or so, and I only hope that before that happens our technology advances far enough that I can use an add-on which doesn't even require surgery to work, to maintain access to all that is aurally beautiful or interesting (most music, the voices of my girlfriend, friends and family, and all the other things that both nature and man can come up with).


 * I agree that Audism (as undue bias or mistreatment against the deaf) is a bad thing, but this article seems to ignore the fact that being deaf is an impairment - anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. From the Wiktionary: "Impairment: ... a deterioration or weakening; a disability or handicap; an inefficient part or factor".  If instead of losing the use of a sensory organ altogether, people were able to hear a different frequency, then a lot of the senseless pride of the Deaf community might make some sense - but since there is only a loss, nothing gained, it simply makes it sad.  I could go on, but I know I probably won't change anyone's mind on this, since it's what you would call a 'religious' idea... I guess I had to say something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.17.75 (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * William again, I finally get back on. Two problems with the assumption that Deaf people are unable to perform in the capacity of customer service. Now, maybe that is true on the phone, but I have plenty of Deaf friends that work in customer service jobs, and the actual reason they were placed in those positions is because of the fact that they were Deaf. As representatives of another culture, Deaf people have the unique position of knowing already how to be multi-culturally aware. This is just one example. There are fully Deaf people working in nursing, medical jobs, and in office administration, the three most communication-intensive careers in the civilian communities. Many of them use no assistive devices whatsoever to aid hearing. There is a profoundly Deaf girl going into her master's degree in the medical field like that.


 * As for the belief that Deaf pride is misplaced, that is assuming that hearing loss is a tragedy. It really isn't. Working and studying in the health care field, I have run into many things which are true tragedies. A person having a stroke, a 14 year old girl dying last weekend of Leukemia at Mission Hospital. That girl was my teacher's goddaughter. Those are true tragedies. I'm going to lose my hearing most likely due to a congenital defect in my inner ear that the doc says is also the cause of my migraines. Being a hearing person by birth, I would miss those sounds that I love, but it won't be a tragedy. A tragedy is something that happens suddenly that requires a tremendous amount of time to cope with. Hearing loss is not a tragedy to a Deaf person. It is a fact of life, something that can be dealt with and becomes a part of the person. Deaf people have been colonized culturally for many years. Instead of boats and lands, hearing people have colonized the Deaf person's culture, overriding decisions that Deaf people have made for the sake of what hearing people call "their best interests". Well, here is a wake up call, Deaf people know what their best interests are and we should allow them to choose for themselves. This includes in taking drastic measures of surgery that poses the risk of, among others, meningitis, implant rejection, and other miscellaneous infections, on children who are not yet old enough to understand what it might mean for them socially, physically, or emotionally to spend the rest of their life as an implantee. If the child is not old enough to understand what it means, they should not have holes drilled into their heads. Let a person decide later in life if they want an implant. The cochlear implant is not a life saving operation, and it never will be. I cannot fathom of a reason that a CI would be required to save a person's life like a heart transplant would or the implanting of a pace maker. It is not necessary for a person to be implanted to learn english. In fact, some of the best writers I have ever met can't speak a lick of english because they don't have the ability to speak. the argument that Deaf people need to have hearing hinges on the idea that hearing makes us better than them. That is a radically audism-inspired idea. Should children too young to understand the risks of a surgery be put into a surgery that won't save their life? no. A CI operation is not necessary for life, just like getting a boob job isn't necessary for life. There will never be a device like a CI that won't require surgery, at least not in my life time. They will rely on nerve interface, which means surgery to connect the electrode.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.163.81 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Deafness presents no medical or health challenges. The only functional issue influenced by deafness is communication. This issue is efficiently bridged when using visual communication. Many deaf people, including those who lost their hearing later in life, would say that deafness can be a gain. Deaf people create sign languages, a semiotic rich aspect of humanity. They also experience a unique sensory experience that is different in perception but equal in intensity to hearing individuals.


 * Merriam-Webster offers one definition of a colony as a group of individuals with common characteristics or interests situated in close association. The definition originates from the Latin word colere, to cultivate. It also defines colonizing as establishing a colony in or on or of. From this linguistic stance, one might argue that oral communication has been cultivated freely and become a colonizer, while sign language users have faced more social barriers as a minority within this cultivated system and become the colonized.  (Julia 2010)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.182.97 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes as of February 20
I incorporated a new section on the practice of audism, including a distinction between the person who is actively and knowingly pursuing the goals of audism, and the person who just does what he does because of ignorance. I am basing it, for now on the Deaf Expo in Nashville, TN, as referenced below. I am getting my citations that can be accessed online, and they will be posted in a week. If someone wants to add or edit, please do. --68.60.17.78 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This section refers to a "description given above by Lane", which is not found in the current version of the article, possibly because it was deleted. If anyone knows what that referred to, could you please fix it? --Distinguisher (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to share something that is relevant to a comment on here, some factual information if you will. The comment I am commenting on is;

"Deaf people may have been ostracized to a certain degree. True. But they were never/have not been colonized. They were never victims of genocide specifically targeting them. They were never sterilized by force."

I agree with everyone on here who states that you should do your research before you make a comment about something you know nothing about, if you knew anything about this statement, then you wouldn't have made this comment. Please go get the book titled "Deaf People in Hitler's Europe" by Donna F. Ryan and John S. Schuchman. This book was "Published in Association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum." In this book you will find that Deaf people were in fact sterilized by force. They WERE victims of ATTEMPTED genocide specifically targeting them. During the Holocaust, even though the Jews were the main group that was targeted, deaf people, along with anyone who had what the Germans considered a "disability" that they felt prevented a "pure" race from total domination, were targeted and euthanized. In fact, if you read this book, deaf people were lied to by the Germans and told that they could go to a hospital and get a shot that would "cure" deafness...need I expand on the fact that upon entering into that hospital, the deaf people didn't know they wouldn't be coming back out?

Signs2me (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Interpreter

Natech's Work-over
Very nice. I like it. Cathryn 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just finished re-phrasing some things & shuffling the format some more. How are we doing as far as NPOV goes now, do you think?
 * Oh, and do we need complete sources for the quotes under "Definitions"? ---Cathryn 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---Natech 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC):
 * Thanks. You did a great job too. Now it looks really nice and professional. I think NPOV is not necessary anymore because I removed the colonization argument from the contents and clarified Audism more.  As for citing complete sources, well, there are sources to the end of paragraphs and I posted links below where I got them from.  If you feel we need to cite them more explicitly, feel free to do so. Thanks for your contribution!

Maybe instead of removing something editing it to make it more encompassing of the matter. Get all the views. Now I am going to research both sides using written and spoken authorities to put it in more of a full bodied view and, following the rules of NPOV as I have read them, put both sides of the argument out. If you mind me doing that, maybe you can tell me after I post it what needs to be changed, because as yet, everything about it needs to be added in, and not taken away.---Sculleywr 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Audism vs Audiphobia
Reality of audism.

Audism seems to be a perceived belief that hearing and non-cultured Deaf people treats cultured Deaf people differently. This describes a person as an audist, one who is perceived as practicing a generalized sense of superiority over cultured Deaf individual. What about a perceived belief by cultured Deaf people toward hearing and non-cultured Deaf people? Audiphobia would be a good description about cultured Deaf people’s perceived attitude and inferiority – a sense of mis-guided fear about hearing and non-cultured Deaf people.

If there is a perception that hearing and non-cultured Deaf exhibits audism does this imply that audiphoia exists? Is a cultured Deaf person audiphobic? If one is audist then the opposing person is audiphobic. ---Peter [rebeldevlin@cox.net]


 * Peter, are you saying that deaf people have been cultured in a Petri dish?
 * Audismus is not just perception, but reality. I can give you numerous examples, too many to give here. ---Hartmut, 1.08.2007

What you describe as Audiphobia, I would describe as the results of long term and institutionalized audism. You oppress people long enough, and they get, yeah-- paranoid. I submit that many of the problems of the African American community today could be termed caucasophobia and are the result of long term institutionalized racism. ---cwterp168.9.24.58 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Audist Prejudice

 * "Deaf people who can speak well are more successful or smarter than those who can't or don't speak."

Well, within a very limited context, it is true that Deaf people who can speak are in fact more successful than those who cannot. They are more successful at speaking. (Presuming, of course, that the ones who can't speak have at some point actually tried to do so, which may not be the case. I imagine, though, that most Deaf have tried to speak, though perhaps many couldn't really be bothered and haven't tried very hard.)

The bit about the speaking ones being smarter, though, is of course completely wrong, as the article suggests. ---TRiG 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Such sentence like the one above has actually been spoken to deaf children. What "more successful" in the sentence always meant is "more successful in life". Implied is here that speaking deaf people will be more respected, so racism is implied here and internalized by deaf people. Audismus is just another form of racism, directed against deaf people. ---Hartmut, 1.08.2007

The term Audism was originally phrased by Tom Humphries "The Making of a Word : Audism" (1975) Humphries’ definition of audism is “The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears.” The term has been defined differently by so many deaf and hard of hearing people, including those within the deaf culture. www.deafvideo.tv showcases many videos where people are accusing other deaf/hoh people of being Audist when there are opposing views of any topics that involves in the many ways a deaf person lives their lives from opting for ASL to spoken language or opting a device such as a cochlear implant. The end result is a great divide among the deaf community over the word "audism". Question is, should Audism even be an official word when Oppression or Discrimination or perhaps Disablism or Ablism would do sufficiently. A thought to ponder: Why should deaf/hoh people have their own oppressive term when they are considered disabled by definition. Special treatment for the deaf/hoh would defy the purpose of equality. The difference of opposing views, differences in opinions, and different personalities should not be construed as "Audism". GinaAS (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the word "audism" was not invented by Tom Humphries. It was originally defined by Sir Alexander G. Ewing, who first coined the word in 1964, synonymizing it with a pro-oralist definition that contained no references to signing, negative or positive, and that specifically wished to elevate or emphasize the role of audition in teaching deaf children to speak. Refer to the book: "Teaching the Deaf Child To Talk", written by Sir Alexander G. Ewing and Lady Ethel C. Ewing, (Manchester University press, 1964). Just as the recent declaration rescinding the 1880 Milan statements misinterpreted the originally-worded pro-oralist stances and claimed it was worded as a ban on signing; the NAD current claim to ownership of the term(s) audism or audist, or the suggestion that it is to mean what they want it to mean and become codified in a dictionary definition, is similarly erroneous. This wiki page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.192.249 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It matters not how the rules were worded. The point is the teachers in our schools for the Deaf MISINTERPRETED (or possibly correctly interpreted it) as meaning that the use of Sign Language was banned from our schools. Therefore, the teachers and administrators made the rule in their schools that the use of sign language was to be "discouraged". Now, the deaf people who were raised in those times can tell you, if you would have the courtesy to ask them, that they were discouraged, or even punished for the use of sign language. The use of a word is what defines it. If the public uses the word to mean "discrimination against Deaf people based on their lack of hearing," or anything similar, then no matter what Sir Ewing says, that is what it means. Definitions in the dictionary should not be based on just one thing, they should be based on the public use of the word. Otherwise, we would still be defining the word "bowels" as "the seat of emotions and self" (cited from The Defined King James Bible, a Bible that gives the old time definitions of the words in the KJV that we don't understand in this day and age.). The public defines words. Languages change. This should stay up and be further researched because the fact remains that there are still audists today. One of my teachers in high school was one also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.89.218 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Alexander Graham Bell Line
If Alexander Grahm Bell wanted to "sterilyze all deaf people" why on earth was he friends with Helen Keller? --The Fading Light 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a rather hyperbolic and indeed, ignorant description of Bell's ideas. From pg. 83 of Richard Winefield's Never The Twain Shall Meet: The Communications Debate (Gallaudet University Press, 1996, ISBN 1-56368-056-4):
 * "Bell saw the encouragement of good marriages as a positive approach to race improvement, and he contrasted it with the negative approach espoused by some others. He did not generally support enactment of laws prohibiting marrages with or between undesirables. After carefully studying the problem, he had concluded that undesirables were not the products of undesirable parents, but most often were the offspring of normal parents."
 * --maru  (talk)  contribs 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He was friends with Helen Keller because Keller was into speaking in a big way and Bell figured she was a good role model for Deaf people in the rest of the country. I don't think it's hyperbolic; his "memoir upon the foundation of a deaf variety of the human race" clearly lays out his connections to and philosophical endorsement of eugenics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephrainmound (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Big D deaf vs. little d deaf
I have a deaf friend who explained this crazy stuff to me. There are deaf people who see being deaf as the centerpiece of their existance. The slang term (used among the deaf themselves) for these folks is Big D deaf, as in 'I am Deaf!' There are other deaf folks who see themselves as being folks who just happen to be deaf. The slang term for these folks (once again, used among the deaf themselves) is little d deaf, as in 'yeah, I'm deaf.'

Members of the first group are into 'deaf culture' for its own sake, usually avoid any unnecessary contact with hearing folks, and have a strong desire to remain deaf (and have their children remain deaf) regardless of any medical break throughs which might prevent, cure, or mitigate deafness. They also are frequently involved in activist politics intended to force society in general to 'recognize' and 'value' deaf culture, and castigate (and if they can, prevent) research into cures for deafness, and the practical implementation of the fruits of such research. They are also the ones who cook up ideas like the 'colonization of deaf space by the hearing', and terms like 'audist', and 'audism'. Members of the second group are not into deaf culture for its own sake, mingle freely with hearing folks, and have no desire to remain deaf if there is a reasonable chance to be able to hear. Virtually all of the first group are people who were born totally deaf. The second group is comprised of people who have lost their hearing, who are partially deaf, and who were born deaf. My deaf friend is an example of someone born deaf who falls into the second group.

It is interesting that there is no corresponding division in the ranks of the blind. I wonder why?

--Horatius HoratiusAtTheBridge 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not about centerpiece of one's existence. It's about a culture with its own history, its own customs, its own language, its own community, its own values. If you call yourself British or African-American or Jewish, all these words are capitalized. It's the same concept. They see deafness not as some sort of disease to be cured, but as just the way they are, and they accept themselves as belonging to a culture. They don't want to change and try to be somebody they're not. I think the language issue alone is probably the biggest factor (and why you don't see blind people following this kind of pattern). If English (which btw is capitalized) is a foreign language to you, and ASL (or whatver local signed lagauge) is the dominant language in your community and the language that you are most comfortable in, then that alone is enough to create a sense of culture. --Sonjaaa 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't think your capitalisation argument stands up. Each people or language you mention as capitalised is so simply because it derives from a place name (Britain, Africa and America, Judah, England). This is not an attack on your thoughts, but on this specific line of reasoning (which I take to be capitalisation ↔ cultural identification). Great point about the divisiveness of language. Christian Campbell 05:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are plenty of religions out there that are capitalized yet have no official land of their own and have culture/strong sense of identity. ---JoeSmack Talk 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Helen Keller once said "Blindness cuts you off from things, Deafness cuts you off from people" (or something close to that...) Deaf people share a language and a culture--- its about identity.  Blind people do not share a language, do not share a culture. They are members of the mainstream culture who happen to be sensory impaired. I have a very good friend who is blind. Through her, I know a couple other blind people. They would all be very happy if they became sighted people. I am an interpreter, I know many Deaf people. The vast majority of them are happy with who they are, with their identity as members of the Deaf Community, and would not change it if they could. That is why there is not corresponding division within the ranks of the blind. The big factor in the 'division' among Deaf/deaf is identity. Deaf people do not see themselves as big walking broken ears that need to be fixed, regardless of their level of hearing loss. ---cwterp168.9.24.58 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Helen Keller did not think further enough and knew deaf people enough. Deaf people are very egregious and social. They have developed a myriad of groupings and formal associations among themselves, even a great many of them on the international level that only few hearing people can say for themselves! They are more adept in communicating across language barriers as attested by their international events (World Congress of the Deaf, Deaflympics, Deaf Way congresses, several multinational cultural events, etc.) It is different languages that really seperate people, not deafness.


 * Not all blind persons want to be sighted. I do know of a few who do not care to see the sunsets, Grand Canyon and flowers. The division among the deaf and hard of hearing people is induced from the outside and motivated by audism, as they evaluate the worth of hearing for themselves. ---Hartmut, 8 Nov. 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.218.115 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This article seems like it could use some refining to point out the fact that this is a view of those who consider themselves to be part of the american "Deaf culture", and not people who are deaf in general (people who are deaf are a very diverse group, especially most people who become deaf later in life do not view themselves as different from their own ethnic groups and culture). Also this part: "Audism takes another form concerning interactions between the deaf: deaf people who will not use sign language and who will not identify with the Deaf community may consider themselves to be "better" than others who use sign language and are part of Deaf culture." This is not audism. Audism is about discrimination towards any people who have bad hearing. It has nothing to do with the particular views of the targeted deaf indivdual. It's like saying "black men racist towards blacks". In my limited experience it goes the other way around, people who are not born deaf, who seek to improve their hearing, who try to integrate themselves into society and communicate/work with non-deaf people, in effect those who work to overcome the audism stereotype are those mocked and marginilised by those who style themselves "big D Deaf". --Helixdq 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Audism indeed includes behavior that some victims have internalised from the audistic environs and function as co-oppressors, not just discriminating toward people with bad hearing. Audismus also includes attitudes, and they are the mother of different discriminatory practices. A few Black people do practice racism who think themselves superior than their fellow black persons, because they have internalized the values and attitudes of the White Man. When some big D deaf persons mock the wannabe-hearing persons is comparable to when black people call other black people Uncle Toms or Oreo Cookies. Their self-examination of internalized audism may be viewed as part of a battle for self-liberation. ---Hartmut, 8 Nov.2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.218.115 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are still lingering questions about whether or not there is such a thing as Deaf culture, I urge you to read this mans blog. He's articulate, amazingly well spoken and is an excellent representation of American Deaf culture that so many here seem to think nonexistent. In fact, DeafDC.com is Deaf culture, see for yourself. http://www.deafdc.com/blog/chris-heuer/2008-02-03/my-response-to-karen-youdelmans-and-alexander-t-grahams-pepsico-letter/#comments

Wheelchair culture
There being a "wheelchair culture", "blind culture", "amputee culture", "asthma culture", "diabetic culture" etc. makes just as much sense as having a "deaf culture". Sign language is just something that was created to adapt to the disability, not something that makes it a culture. Some people are just too (deaf and) dumb to see this. ---4.235.120.136 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ignorant, since history and science shows that signed languages were invented by indigenous deaf peoples, not invented by those who can hear to help others. In fact, invented signed languages called "superior" by their inventors, who hear, have been around since the seventeenth century - and all are incredible failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephrainmound (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's just ignore all of the studies proving sign languages to be an actual language! Then let's go even further and ignore the criteria for culture, which Deaf culture clearly has! Also, you know those studies that shows that Deaf culture is an actual culture? Doesn't exist! [/sarcasm]


 * Seems to me that some people need to do some research before spitting out bs. Or at least become educated. :) ---(EdwardBlake (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC))


 * As a hearing person (albeit a hearing person with a degree from Gallaudet), I understand the point of view that some assume Sign Language was "created to adapt to the disability." However, sign language evolved just as most languages evolved.  It has many things in common with other languages, and no one sat down and created the various Sign Languages of the world, just like no one sat down and created the various spoken languages of the world.  I understand where the assumption comes from, but it's wrong.  ASL (and other sign languages) are natural languages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.224.254 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Klingon is a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good response Edward. Notice that the requirements for culture are:

Boundaries, be them physical (Geological) or social (African American or black culture is bounded by skin color within America's geological boundary).

A distinct set of practices that are the norm of the culture (Such as the rushed culture of America regarding time as a limited thing while many Eastern cultures regard time as a fluid thing.

In most cases, either a language or an adaptation of a language that shows off the characteristics of the culture. (Americans regard freedom as fundamental, And English's 1 million plus words with a cornucopia of different ways to say the same thing, whereas Spanish, who regard separation of the male/female important use masculine and feminine forms of words.)

Deaf Culture has all three:

Boundaries social being the separation of the Deaf from the hearing majority, and physical being within American borders

They have many distinct practices you won't find in Americans who are not in the Deaf community. These include that while Hearing Americans are individualistic, Deaf Americans are highly collectivistic in practice. When some project needs to get done, they all band together to do it. There are usually groups of people on any one project, sometimes even on small tasks. This comes from the fact that for the longest time, and still today, hearing people are too engrossed in their lifes to do something with them. Another is that the sharing of information is more important. I don't mean intellectual information. The foremost of the questions in Deaf culture introductions involve your connection to the Deaf community (are you related to a Deaf person?) how you learned ASL if you are not related to any Deaf people, and if you are Deaf or hearing.

And finally, to top the iceberg off is that ASL and English are markedly different in grammar and syntax, as would be reflected if Deaf culture is distinct from hearing culture. The differences could be explained here, but wouldn't it be easier if you just went to the article on wiki?

En el amor interminable de Cristo, Sculleywr (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deafness is not a culture, it is a handicap. Blindness is not a culture, it is a handicap. Being in a wheelchair is not a culture, it is a handicap. 4.238.2.83 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeating an argument without supporting the logic is counterintuitive Sculleywr (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever thought it could be both? Yes to some people they see their deafness as a handicap. It clearly makes it more difficult for them in a society designed for the hearing. However, the other editor is correct as well. Deaf people, blind people and people in wheelchairs have created a culture. A culture that many outside these individual communities will not understand. At first people saw the LGBT community as a disability handicap because of their inability to have children however they are no longer considered so and btw also have a very booming culture. To an extent being part of ANY group of people has advantages and disadvantages (what you call handicaps) but almost all of them have some form of culture that has formed around that identity and I'm proud to name Blind culutre, Deaf culture and Wheelchair culture as included in that list of great cultures that have enriched our world.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Several issues with this article
Possible re-write This article is essentially unsourced—"citations" that simply read "(Pelka 1997: 33)" and "Nashville Deaf Expo Tennessee Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf 2006" do not constitute verifiability—and it appears to be written from the perspective of deaf identity politics. In addition, it is not clear if this is simply an ephemeral neologism. These issues need to be addressed and if the latter cannot be proven, this should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio as well Looking at one of the two external links, this is a copyvio as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, only Audism is plagiarized from Gallaudet. The rest looks clean; I suggest just deleting that whole section and letting the rest stay (with cleanup tags, of course). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the problem section, and the copyvio template, per WP:BOLD. I know it says not to remove it, but I think this was such a clear-cut case and the solution was so simple (remove the copyvio, leave the rest) that it doesn't need admin intervention, and since no specific copyright concerns were raised about other parts of the article (I checked the rest against the about.com page and saw no plagiarism) there's no need to hide the rest. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked around some more, the only other concern I had was this site, the last couple paragraphs of which are identical to the lede here. I can't tell for certain, but I think that site was copied from our article, rather than vice versa&mdash;partly because that language has been in our article for several years, whereas this other site was last updated in June 2007 (of course, the particular page I linked may have been written well before that), and mainly because half of the worrisome content was written in the first revision of the article, and another paragraph of it was added several months later; if it had been copied from that other site, you would expect that it all would have been pasted in at once.  So yeah, all in all, I think it's more likely that the other site scooped this article in June 2007, rather than vice versa. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Socially acceptible methods of communicating
When I worked at an auto insurance agency, at least one of our customers was either Deaf or deaf. Since I don't know ASL, we communicated by written English, each of us with a pen and paper. It seemed to work well. How have you seen other people communicate with deaf or Deaf people, and how well did it work? --97.119.134.184 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pen and paper is fine. So is text, AIM, MSN, ICQ, and Facebook. Myspace is rapidly falling out of style. Doctors sometimes type to patients who prefer not to use interpreters. People use glowing cell phones as memo pads in dark nightclubs (and sometimes neither person is deaf, depending on the music.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephrainmound (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

True Meaning Of Audism
Audism is not the discrimination of deaf or hard of hearing peoples. It is the idea that an oral/auditory language is superior to any other form of language, like a visual/gestural one. This is in direct relation to deaf people because ASL is a visual/gestural language and English is Oral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.112.17 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The language issue certainly can be a part of audism, but where did you get the idea that it is the only issue. Do you have several reliable sources that discuss and support your comments? Cresix (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
Based on the absence of sourcing for this article, I have nominated it for deletion. ...At least if a registered user would complete the process for me.

Please see Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Articles for deletion/Audism once the nomination process is complete.

98.204.116.99 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Darkside007

This page is a mess. There are significant problems with it. There are 33 places where citation is noted as being needed. That is a staggering number for such a small page. I would support this page either undergoing a complete rewrite or deletion. --RubberBallMorality (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it has been fixed, which is refreshing. It's got a pretty large amount of sourcing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.191.253 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed definition
It was originally


 * Audism describes a mentality which asserts that to be able to hear and speak is necessarily better and leads to a higher quality of life.

I changed this to


 * Audism is the notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears, or that life without hearing is futile and miserable, or an attitude based on pathological thinking which results in a negative stigma toward anyone who does not hear.

which I coped from the definitions given in the provided source. This is rather more verbose, but I think one can reasonably believe that "to be able to hear and speak is necessarily better and leads to a higher quality of life" without believing in superiority, or that deaf life is futile and miserable, or holding negative stigma. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the following-All these variations of audism, and many which have gone unmentioned, have their echoes in gender, racial, religious, cultural, social, and sexual discrimination, and, when found among the deaf community itself, bear resemblance to similar structures of self-loathing. It has no source and reads like an opinion. Also I chaged the word (dis) ability to disability. There is no such word as (dis) ability. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing Flawed Research
The very last bit citing research of superior outcomes for those Deaf and Hard of Hearing who use spoken language and eschew sign language was later debunked to be flawed and biased research with conflicts of interests in those who researched it (working for the cochlear implant companies, etc). There is also a growing body of research that actually supports the best outcomes are for those children who are bilingual in ASL and a spoken language. That last bit about the research needs to be removed, as it is not balanced research, and also has nothing to do with the topic of 'audism'. The very existence of that sentence in this article is. . audist. I also see a lot of discussion in this talk thread about the perception of audism. . are any of you Deaf? If no, you do not get to validate or invalidate a Deaf person's perception of audism because you speak from a place of hearing privilege. I would suggest more Deaf individuals contribute to this article to make sure it is balanced and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.75.82 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Operational Definition of Communication Looked up citation [19] on the web. The operational definition of "communication" as shown in the research cited in [19] is "speech communication" so "communication" as in the statement "research shows that deaf children who listen and speak to communicate, but do not use sign language have better communication outcomes[19] " is misleading and audist. comment added by J. 30 October 2017

David M's peer review
good start! i like it! I suggest you to add some deaf person's personal stories with audism.. we deaf people face it everyday, i think with personal stories would reach out more people. and explain to hearing people how to avoid audism or any advices to hearing people. It could reduce chance of audism deaf people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmully (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Internet Comments are not reliable sources
I removed material backed by a comment in a comments section because those are literally the least reliable of sources, and opinions expressed by and anonymous internet commenter are and possibly that of a troll or sarcastic, and using any citaion to them is very unscholarly as material is impossible to verify to be an exact person's opinion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Dan's Peer Review
Great start on this article! I would like to see more about how Audism affect Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing people. Are there layers in Audsim? How did the word popped up into our vocabulary? If I remember correctly, Tom Humphries proposed this word in 1970's. I think explanation of the history of Audism would make people "get" this word as it is not commonly used in hearing community. I would like to clarify on what I mean by "explanation of history" How did Tom Humphries come up with this word? I would think if is worth it to mention a movie called "Audism Unveiled"DPFoley1 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

History Section edits
"It was further expanded by H-Dirksen Bauman, in Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression, and again, by Richard Eckert and Amy Rowley, in Audism: A Theory and Practice of Audiocentric Privilege, and institutional audism is now described as, "a structural system of exploitative advantage that focuses on and perpetuates the subordination of Deaf Communities of origin, language, and culture." [10]

Providing quotes may be seen as plagiarism. Consider revising into your own words. Etoppo (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Advocates for Audist Ideology Section
This section is an appeal to emotion based on opinion or interpretation, and provides no evidence of truth. I recommend it be removed until a case can be made that these people did, in fact, have "audist" ideology and did advocate such. For example, there is no evidence that Alexander Graham Bell "condemned intermarriage between Deaf individuals" -- in fact, he wrote an essay published in Science specifically stating that he did not condemn intermarriage of deaf people. More information needs to be provided to support these assertions, or they should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.26 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)