Talk:Deaf-mute

It is FACT that the term "deaf-mute" some users tend to use in wikipedia, is an offensive term for us in our world. We have language and culture. Have you ever considered someone as "hearing-mute" in your world, huh? Do you know what is the synonym of deaf-mute? It is "deaf-and-dumb", which is pretty self-explanatory. We will be very appreciative if you refrain from using that term from now on. Please use "Deaf" with D as capital letter instead to describe or to refer us.

It will make us proud and it will give the idea that it is nothing wrong with being Deaf.

While I understand your point, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Furthermore, 'deaf' should not be capitalized as it is an adjective, not a proper noun. If we capitalize Deaf just because it is an important identifier in deaf culture, then we might as well capitalize Gay and Liberal and any other number of adjectives that people think are important. Joey 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Deaf can be a proper noun, just as Irish and Rastafarian. Deaf with a capital D refers to the "culturally deaf" and deaf with a small d refers to the "audologically deaf." The "culturally deaf" have chosen to be referred to as Deaf; please respect their wishes. Mike.lifeguard 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not going to be reinventing the rules to the English language. Irish is captialized because it is a nationality adjective. Rastafarian is capitalized because it refers to a religion. Medical conditions and self-identified cultures are not capitalized in English. E.g., People in Star Trek culture are "trekkies", not "Trekkies". Star Trek itself, however, is capitalized because it's a proper name.  You could form an organization called "Deaf", and then it would be capitalized. -- Rei (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems simplest to use 'Deaf' when referring to deaf culture, 'deaf' when referring to those who are deaf but who might elect not to speak, and 'mute' when referring to those who literally cannot speak. Chasuk (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Chasuk

C&P from Deaf mute
A deaf mute is someone who has both deafness and the inability to speak. In some cases the muteness is due to lack of attempting language (since language is more difficult to master when deaf), or due to a separate disorder.

The phrase is used in The Catcher in the Rye to indicate someone who does not speak their mind, and hears nothing, in effect becoming isolated from the world. It is also a key statement reiterated by Laughing Man in the anime Ghost in the Shell.


 * An article titled Deaf mute was accidentally created as no redirect existed between these two terms. Above is the text from that article, redirect now exists. Dina 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Sorry if this sounds obtuse, but I am still unclear as to why exactly this is a derogatory term. I get why 'deaf and dumb' is insulting in today's speech, the primary meaning associated with 'dumb' now is synonymous with 'stupid', but 'deaf-mute' seems like an accurate description of someone who is deaf and cannot speak. As far as I know, neither 'deaf' nor 'mute' has any sort of negative stereotype associated with it. Stella luna 06:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your inqury isn't obtuse; I'm pleased that you are concerned enough to ask the question rather than just dismiss the issue as trivial. Part of the reason "deaf-mute" is offensive has to do with the connotations that words acquire through the years. For example, at one time the words "idiot" and "moron" were acceptable terms to describe what today might be referred to as "mentally disabled," and were even used by professionals to describe degrees of impairment. Today they are offensive because they slipped into the vernacular as a means of insulting someone.  "Deaf-mute" at one time was more acceptable to deaf people, but it goes back to a time when deaf people were patronized by hearing people, even their educators, because of misperceptions.  Today the term has acquired the pejorative meaning similar to "deaf and dumb."


 * Additionally, the term "deaf-mute" is inaccurate by many intepretations, implying that deaf people are incapable of speech, which is almost never the case. Some deaf people choose not speak for various reasons, but they do not have impaired vocal chords.


 * Actually use of the word "mute" to describe (non-deaf) people who do not speak is being used less by the professional community. Such people sometimes are simply described with phrases such as "does not speak."


 * I hope this sheds some light on the issue for you, and I invite others, especially in the Deaf community, to comment. Ward3001 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem today is ignorance. Many stupid and/or ignorant people believe "dumb" means stupid, when of course it means silent. I believe "deaf and dumb" is still a perfectly acceptable term.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Mute
So this article goes in length to talk about that you shouldn't call deaf-mutes by that name, but it doesn't say what you should call them. Also, it goes into how the name is offensive, but it doesn't talk about, well anything else really. How it can happen, what treatments there are, famous people that were deaf-mutes... none of that. Only talk of why you shouldn't call them deaf-mutes JayKeaton 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JayKeaton, I think it is clear by several uses of simply the term "deaf" in the the article that the preferred term is "deaf". For more detail about "what to call them" see the article Deafness. In regard to the article "doesn't talk about, well anything else really", please note that this is not the article on deafness, and I refer you again to that article for much more detail about causes, treatments, and much more; and to the article List of deaf people for informaton about famous deaf people.  The deaf-mute article is only a discussion of the historical but outdated term, not a comprehensive discussion of deafness. Ward3001 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A polite rebuttal
I disagree with the above comment from Ward3001. It is not clear from the article that preferred term is deaf. I had the same question as JayKeaton after reading the article. If "deaf" is preferred to "deaf-mute," then please make this preference explicit, not implicit. For a useful contrast, consider that the article notes that the term "colored people" is no longer considered neutral or polite, and helpfully suggests the term "African Americans" to use instead. Don't assume people can figure it out. What's the point of an encyclopedia if it doesn't TELL you things?

Further, I think that simply "deaf" should not be preferred over "deaf-mute." The latter term denotes both deafness and muteness, right? Those are two separate, physically different conditions, right? If a person is both deaf and mute, why is it impolite to say so? I simply cannot understand why it is wrong or rude to notice if a person is mute.

I understand that many deaf people do not want to be called deaf-mutes. So tell me what to say when I want to specifically refer to deaf people who are not capable of speaking out loud (acknowledging of course that sign language is really a language, even though it is not spoken out loud)? Because, let me tell you, "deaf people who are not capable of speaking out loud (although of course sign language really a language, even though it is not spoken out loud)," is way too long for me to ever repeat again.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or be rude, I just think that it's never a good idea to replace a specific term with one that is less accurate. When I mean all deaf people, I will say "deaf." But when I want to refer to people who are both deaf and mute, it seems much more reasonable to me to say "deaf-mute" than simply "deaf." Jpayne1138 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)jpayne1138


 * Although I disagree with jpayne1138 that it is not clear that the preferred term is "deaf", I acknowledge that is a matter of opinion and thus have added a statement to the article for clarification.
 * Regarding jpayne1138's statement I think that simply "deaf" should not be preferred over "deaf-mute.": Your opinion is acknowledged, but that does not change the opinion of the vast majority of deaf people. Unless you are deaf, their opinions are more important on this issue (in my opinion), just like the opinions of African-Americans were more important than others' opinions when they were advocating against use of the word "colored".
 * Regarding jpayne1138's statement that "deaf" and "mute" "are two separate, physically different conditions, right? If a person is both deaf and mute, why is it impolite to say so?": Medically you are correct that they are separate conditions. From the standpoint of Deaf culture, however, the issue is immensely more complex. First of all, if I have not made it perfectly clear from previous statements, almost NO deaf people are literally mute. Medically, deafness does not necessitate muteness.  Many deaf people do not speak for various reasons, or only speak in certain circumstances. They are not mute. They are capable of using their voices. They choose not to do so. Historically, the explanation for that is long and complicated, but if you need additional information I can refer you to other sources. But, again, it is almost never the case that a deaf person is incapable of speech. I know many thousands of deaf people and have never met a deaf person who is mute. As for "what to say when I want to specifically refer to deaf people who are not capable of speaking out loud", as noted above you are referring to a category of people that are almost nonexistent. It is generally sufficient to just say "deaf", but if you absolutely must refer to someone that you know for a fact to be deaf and literally mute, you can say "deaf and does not speak" or, if you must, "deaf and mute" to avoid the pejorative term "deaf-mute". But please be cautious and courteous; don't assume a deaf person cannot speak simply because he or she does not speak in your presence.
 * Thank you for raising the issue. I hope this adds some clarity. Ward3001 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making a change to the article, Ward3001. And thank you for your response.  Both add some clarity.  I suppose you are right that in the end the thing that matters the most is "the opinion of the vast majority of deaf people."  If they hate the term, then I suppose I should probably try to avoid it.


 * I am not, in fact, totally unaware of the issues involved. My brother is deaf, but was mainstreamed in regular schools and so speaks English and reads lips.  (In one on one conversations, most people do not even realize that he is deaf.  It's a hell of an accomplishment and we're very proud of his work.)  Anyway, in college and afterwards, he began immersing himself in deaf culture and he found that some deaf people considered him not capital-d Deaf because he could communicate so well with hearing people.  Because he could speak, he was not, in their minds, deaf.  So, believe me, I know that "many deaf people do not speak for various reasons," and that this choice is important to them, culturally.  And because I know this, I don't assume that not speaking to me is an indication that a particular deaf person lacks the capacity for speech altogether.


 * But I'm not sure that I agree with you that "it is almost never the case that a deaf person is incapable of speech." This category of people may be "almost nonexistent" in 21st century America, but that's only a small slice of the human experience.  I've spent quite a bit of time in various South American countries, and been asked many times to give money to self-proclaimed "sordo-mudos" ("deaf-mutes") who write out their pleas on small slips of paper and distribute them in buses.  Perhaps they could speak if they had been taught as children.  Perhaps they could still learn.  But I think many of them at this point truly are incapable of speech-- whether expressed vocally or in any formal sign language.  My guess is the same is true almost everywhere in the developing world (China, India, Africa, the Middle East, etc.).  If so, the category of people who are both deaf and non-speaking is in fact quite large.


 * Anyway, just thought I should clarify my own position. Thanks again for the dialog.  It helps me sort these things out in my own mind.  Jpayne1138 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)jpayne1138

Possession of language
Hi. I'm deaf/hard-of-hearing and an anglophone (well, more of an angloscribe than an anglophone, but since English is my only fluent language - spoken and written, not signed - "anglophone" will have to do), and I'm wondering. Was there a time when most deaf people couldn't communicate via a language (signed, spoken, or written)? If so, when? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * w00t, I used a rare word! Practically coined it! (Well, the word was tossed around before by other people, but a Google search doesn't reveal very many examples, although one has cropped up on Wikipedia.) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Number of examples of "angloscribe" on Google: 20. Not exactly crying out for a Wikipedia article any time soon. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In reply to your query it is thought that sign languages or manual communication arose before vocalizations see . From what I've read, in the days of strict oralism, kids in schools for the Deaf many times invented their own languages out of gestures.  Humans have a need to communicate and I really doubt anything will keep us from communicating.Eclarep 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who determines what is offensive?
It is being suggested that the deaf community should be the ultimate arbiter of how other people refer to them, or what terms are "offensive". While to a degree I agree: I wouldn't call someone a deaf-mute to his face if I knew that he found it offensive, in the larger sense, I don't agree that the deaf community has the right to declare a term "offensive". It takes two to make an offense: if no offense is intended by the speaker, the offensiveness is only in the mind of the subject. Perhaps his preferences should be respected when speaking to him, but not necessarily when speaking of him. To take a different example, some ultra-feminists, imagining that the "-man" in "woman" somehow denigrates their sex, might prefer to be referred to as "womyn". I, who disagree with that position, have no problem with using the word "woman". User: JudahH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.162.147 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So with your kind of reasoning, using the "N-word" to describe a black person in a Wikipedia article is not offensive because you're not saying it to his face. So I could use that word to describe Barack Obama as long as I don't say it to him directly and I don't "intend" to offend. 100 years ago use of the "N-word" was common, and those who used the word would have claimed that they did not "intend" any offense. But that changed because black people were offended and objected. If a group of people are offended by a term that is used to describe them, that deserves more than a little consideration in the practices of editing on Wikipedia. It's easy for you to assume that your opinion should apply to everyone else, because you're not the one being offended. If we turned the tables and began throwing insulting terms at you, all the while claiming that we don't "intend" any offense, I think you might look at it a little differently (you'll deny that, of course, because it's easy to deny when you're not the target of the prejudice). You clearly have little, if any, understanding of Deaf culture, but fortunately for the rest of us, it takes more than your opinion to change Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigger is an offensive word because the people who have historically used it used it as a term of contempt. You say, If we turned the tables and began throwing insulting terms at you, all the while claiming that we don't "intend" any offense, but you've filled that with loaded words. Claiming and the quotation marks around intend both imply that offense is actually intended; the speaker is just denying it. Again, target of the prejudice implies that people who use the word "deaf-mute" are passing some kind of judgement on those deaf people who can't speak--but generally, they are not--it's simply a way to describe something more specific than "deaf". So to answer the question you should have asked, if you called me something that was not inherently insulting, and that you genuinely did not mean as an insult, I don't think I would have the right to be offended, or at least, I would not have the right to insist that others take my idiosyncrasy into account if they were not talking to me.
 * Ironically, of the two of us, you are the one who has taken a somewhat personal tone, with the last sentence of your comment.
 * What about my example? There are those who find "woman" objectionable. Do you insist on writing "womyn" to spare their sensibilities? JudahH (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could say that you're "stupid" and claim that I did not "intend" any offense and that the offense is only in your mind because you don't know what I'm thinking when I use the word. Does that make it OK to say it? As I have said, 100 years ago the people who used the "N-word" would have claimed that they did not intend offense. In the United States, many white people paternalistically claimed that they loved their slaves, that they did not have contempt for them, that it was just the natural order for whites to be the masters and blacks to be subservient; and they would have been taken aback if you had objected to their use of the "N-word" because everyone used it, even the slaves. Do you think black people weren't the "target of prejudice" despite these claims? Prejudice does not always require intent. And you could argue that the "N-word" is not "inherently insulting" because it's just a word and the meaning of the word is in the mind of the user. That is an absurd argument. Regardless of the meaning of the word in the mind of the user, it was the people at whom the word was directed who took offense, and eventually they gained enough support to force the word into the offensive portion of the lexicon. The use of "deaf-mute" is an identical situation with only one difference that you don't seem to have the foresight to grasp: Black people are a larger minority than deaf people. As black people gained more political power, they were able to raise enough awareness to put the derogatory word in its proper perspective. Until recently deaf people have not had enough political power to do so, but they are getting there. Most people who understand anything about deafness grasp the offensiveness of the word regardless of the intent of the user. You don't grasp it, but you are among a minority that is quickly becoming smaller. "Deaf-and-dumb" was similarly accepted widely among hearing people in the past; now most people have enough insight not to use it. It's your choice to hang on to a long outdated term in your mind while hiding behind the argument that you don't "intend" offense. Just don't use it in a Wikipedia article. Those of us in tune with the Deaf community have fought this battle already on Wikipedia, which is why every article that I am aware of that used the term "deaf-mute" (except in an historical context) has had it changed to "deaf", by consensus'. For that reason I don't intend to go back and forth with you on this matter; I (and others) have already moved Wikipedia far beyond your way of thinking on use of the word. Arguing with you about it is a waste of time that can be used to improve Wikipedia rather than fighting an ancient prejudice.


 * As for my tone, if someone open-mindedly inquires about why "deaf-mute" is offensive, I go out of my way to respond in as neutral a tone as possible. For example, see my response to Stella luna above. But when an editor disregards the feelings and opinions of an entire group of people who have the courage to stand up against words that are offensive to them, I have little patience.


 * This is my last word about the matter unless other editors besides you decide to weigh in. Ward3001 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

64.131.162.147 is realy scary. How can he think that respect is only when facing? Is he a dumb? (He don't have to be offensed, i'm talking to everyone else.) I slide this to the gay case. Actually a large part of the world have a bad idea of homosexuality. ALL the words that deals with the topic are potentially offensive because everywhere you can find out someone to use it with hate. And calling someone "gay" is more offensive when the one is an hetero or an homo? Equal, it's the idea that is offensive! And being offensed when called "gay" is also offensive! Gay and gayfriends just don't care. If you're hetero and think that homo is just a normal sexuality like other, being called gay is just a lie, not an offense. I could go on while hours… Connotations… Lost words… Lacrymocéphale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All of this is endless. The offensive thoughts will always be there. There is words that have a clear offensive usage but for most this is only a question of connotations on a period. Offensive people will always use words to tell their offensive ideas; Increasing the paranoya of the offensed who will start to hear offensive words everywhere. Now, a question: How do we call talking deaf? "talking-deaf"? Ridicoulous (the matter of being a minority in the minority). This is minds that we must fight, not words. Changing words gives the hint to one who have offensive ideas how to avoid being offensive while keeping their offensive thougths, that's all. Richness of the vocabulary is the main victim.


 * 217.195.19.145's edit is at times incomprehensible, but I'll try to respond to the part that is at least expressed fairly clearly.
 * "Ridiculous": Your opinion. Others, including me and most deaf people, think your ideas are ridiculous.
 * "How do we call talking deaf? "talking-deaf"?": If you ask a deaf person, most would reply with something similar to "a deaf person who talks". No brainer.
 * "This is minds that we must fight, not words": How else do you fight a "mind"? People communicate, understand, and even feel with words. Words are a part of thought, which leads to attitudes and behavior. It is the insensitivity of thoughtless use of words that leads to prejudice. See the discussion above about the "N-word". This part of your argument is pointless.
 * "I could go on while hours": Please spare us.
 * The rest of your edit seems to be a rant about sexuality that has no connection to the term "deaf-mute". Ward3001 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm french so my english is bad. But. I only mean that changing words is a no-end race because if minds are not changed you can use other common words to mean bad ideas and this words will become offensive, so forbidden, so other words will be used for the very same ideas. What I was wanting to protect were equaly deaf and vocabulary. The rest have no connection with deaf but connection with words that became unusuable because of some usage. You have understood nothing, I said that "talking-deaf" is ridiculous too. "No brainer" is offensive, right? (watch you language too!). To fight minds with words but without fighting the words themselves, you're right, sounds difficult for words that have already gain a offensive meaning. Too late, they have to be bannished. And we have to bannish it for the whole planet, even in countries when it haven't become offensive. I'm bored by hates. Some time I discover a word is offensive although I never use it offensively. If we would be able to teach open-minding, no word would ever been offensive. That what I just want to say. And it's fully utopic. I wasn't expecting such a violent answer. I'm sorry for that. And offensed. Lacrymocéphale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So the Deaf, those who cannot speak as well as those who do and those who won't, have come to the decision that deaf-mute is offensive. Fine, I won't use it, not that I ever have, and if I need to I'll use the term Deaf who cannot speak. That's not really the issue I think that's confusing people but rather the reasoning behind it's offense. Ward3001 claims that deaf-mute is a pejorative yet provides, a term used to denote disdain on the part of the speaker onto the subject, but there has been no evidence that deaf-mute has been used a pejorative only that the Deaf perceive it as such (conflating deaf-mute and deaf-dumb doesn't suffice as the pairing is archaic and the word dumb is widely known as a pejorative while mute remains generally not value-laden). Could deaf-mute be used as a pejorative? Possibly but you'd have to know that it's insulting first. So if I'd called someone who was deaf and didn't speak a deaf-mute 15 minutes ago I would not have meant offense but now that I know that it is offensive I would not have ignorance as a n excuse for using it. It is this question of whether or not a word can have offense or is by definition laden with insult that brings the discussion of both the word gay and nigger into the discussion. Neither of them seem to fit the same pattern. Whereas Jews would never refer to themselves as kikes, some black men refer to each other as niggers, creating a political double standard: when a non-black uses the term it is a perjorative but otherwise not (for the most part). Gay is also interesting as most homosexuals use the term to describe themselves (or use other potential pejoratives like queer, fruit, and queen) and are willing to be described as such by non-gays. However, it can also be used by non-gays as a perjorative towards gays and by both groups as a pejorative unrelated to sexual orientation to denote something as dumb. Which brings us back full circle as dumb has almost completely lost it's original meaning instead coming to mean stupid, which as far as I know only ever meant stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong. I find this aspect of linguistics pretty interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.242.143 (talk • contribs)


 * You have oversimplied a complex matter. This has very little to do with "linguistics". It is a sociocultural issue. Do you think that use of the word "nigger" is a "linguistic" matter? 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago
Was there not a character in Doctor Zhivago who was a deaf mute? He had taught himself to speak fluently, and was frequently spoken of at one point in the novel. Page 160 something, I think. Would it be worth mentioning in the 'art and literature' section? 90.242.78.225 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, except, as you point out, he could speak, so he was simply deaf. I think Dr. Zh shares a train compartment with him on his way home from the German front, and that is possibly the only time he makes an appearance. Page 160-something, right, in the only edition that was ever printed... Anyway, does not belong in this article, but somewhere else it would be nice. 98.210.235.191 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

POV rephrasing
I have read all of the above and rephrased the article to reflect the relevant concerns. In the process I was able to remove the POV tag that has existed since 2009. I declare a possible COI - born profoundly deaf 1962; never been taught to use a signed language. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman sultans and use of term deaf mute
The source does not make it unequivocally clear that these people were literally mute, meaning unable to speak even if they tried. It just uses the term "deaf-mute" to describe deaf people. Not many years ago deaf people who were not literally mute were invariably called "deaf-mute" or "deaf and dumb" even though they were neither mute nor dumb. Many deaf people choose not to speak; almost none of them is actually unable to speak. The source (almost 25 years old) states a widely held but inaccurate term. The term "deaf-mute" is both inaccurate and offensive to most deaf people. Read all of the above comments on this talk page. Thank you.


 * The problem here is that you are making assumptions about what the source "means", based on a common misconception, but without any actual evidence that this is the case here. To me, the source reads pretty clear-cut; it mentions nothing of these people speaking, but of them using a sign language and being able to write. And if you stop to think about it a bit, the Sultans would certainly not employ people who could speak in their most private affairs, such as to murder political opponents. Barring evidence to the contrary about Ottoman usage, or any indication that a scholar of Lewis' calibre might be mistaken, a reference like this is more than enough. Constantine  ✍  15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So with your way of thinking, it would be acceptable to use the term "deaf and dumb" to describe them just because a 25 year old source did so. Or if they were black, it would be appropriate here to use the n-word to describe them if a 50 year old source did so. I don't think so, not with a term that is so offensive. Those terms were widely used and widely accepted years ago, even by scholars with "calibre". Again, read all of the above arguments on this talk page. This needs a source that clearly identifies them as mute, or consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing apples and oranges when you bring the n-word into play; and whether the source is 25 years old or 5 years old is beside the point. We have a high-calibre source on the one hand, and your personal suggestions, hunches, doubts, whatever, on the other. The doubts may be plausible, but they essentially are WP:OR. The weight of evidence is therefore on you to prove a respected source wrong (or at any rate imprecise) by using equally reliable sources or primary evidence, not the other way round. Constantine  ✍  15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, come to think of it, in Turkish, the term dilsiz actually means "mute", "without tongue", so I consider your concerns addressed. Constantine  ✍  15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, we are not dealing here with characterising a modern phenomenon, where modern sensitivities apply; it is a reference to historical usage. Just as "barbarian" may be regarded inaccurate, biased, etc. today, but it still has its uses within the proper context, if the sources refer to these people as "deaf-mutes", then that is it. Retroactive political correctness is not a good idea. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not apples and oranges; that's a convenient argument that invariably is used when a prejudice that was fought many years ago is used as a basis for a more recent battle against another prejudice (women's rights; sexual orientation; disability). The issues are exactly the same except for the specific perjorative term that is used and the characteristics of a disenfranchised minority (race or hearing status). And the offensiveness of the term "deaf-mute" is not simply my suggestion. If you read a bit about Deaf culture you will find that many of the pejorative terms from the past, including "deaf-mute", are highly offensive. And if someone used the n-word to describe black people based on a very old source that was viewed as acceptable at the time, I seriously doubt that you would be insisting that the "weight of evidence" is on the person who reverted it. In other words, it's OK to revert an offensive term widely used 100 years ago without "weight of evidence", but a term that was not as offensive 25 years ago requires "weight of evidence." If you think these are just my ideas and not widely held among deaf people or hearing people who are sensitive to the issue, let me suggest that you try out some of your ideas at WikiProject Deaf. If you can get a lot of support there, I'll reconsider. Retroactive political correctness? Again, try that argument with the n-word. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I freely admit that I don't know enough about deaf culture and am a stranger to its sensibilities. My concern is accuracy, and I have no reason to challenge the accuracy of the source; all the more so since, offensive or not today, "deaf-mute" is in this case rather a technical term to describe a category of people with a specific background and role in a specific context, rather than with any intent to prejudice. At any rate, I have found and added a specialized publication precisely on the topic, which makes clear that they were actually mutes. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  16:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to admit your level of knowledge of the offensiveness of this term. Whether it's you or me, the process of opening our minds begins with admitting what we don't know or may not know. I tweaked the wording of your last edit a bit to make it clear that the terms deaf, mute, or deaf-mute are used in the sources regardless of their accuracy. That is what is done with other examples in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What to call a person who can't speak! (As added by an actual person who can't speak)::::

Above, someone wrote "Actually use of the word "mute" to describe (non-deaf) people who do not speak is being used less by the professional community. Such people sometimes are simply described with phrases such as "does not speak.""

Well, I actually can't speak. I can't stand the phrase "does not speak" as it implies that I just don't want to. "can't speak" is clunky, and rather negative. Please, just refer to me as "mute". I am mute. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.208.182.8 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Words of choice
I have noticed that most of the "DEAF-MUTE" page has a lot of error word choice as "deafness," "inability to speak," and "deaf-mute." These words are harmful, and not all deaf people can't speak, some of them can talk with some devices. It's essential to research and to give out the right information. Not all deaf people like the words "deaf-mute" and "deafness." Most of them d prefer to be called DEAF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillarypatricia (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the article should answer your question. This article is about the historical use of the phrase "deaf-mute", and not about the present situation, or about the condition of hearing loss. There is a separate article about that. We need an article like this, to explain historical usage, so that readers of 19th century British documents, for example, can understand that "deaf-mute" and "deaf and dumb" in those documents did not originally have an offensive meaning. In Queen Victoria's era, "dumb" was not an offensive word. In England at that time, it meant only "non-speaking." Please see Hearing loss for the information that you are looking for. Storye book (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Large amount of discussion in Jewish Law
It's worth noting that in Jewish law, the exact definition of a Cheresh (especially as per whether it's only a question of lacking hearing, or of deficient intelligence - for example, if some forms of ASD are considered being a Cheresh) is a discussion in Jewish law and could be expanded.

A note though is that the should include discussions made by major Acharonic sources, which are often written in Hebrew. I've noticed a lot of articles on Wikipedia quote only the couple of sources available in English for Jewish topics, many of which are fine, but not mainstream understandings. Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)