Talk:Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf

Untitled
The article needs a rewrite to straighten out historical facts. For example in the Background section, Alexander Graham Bell and Edward Miner Gallaudet were mentioned before the Milan Congress, leaving an incorrect impression that discussions between the two leads to the vote at the Milan Congress. The thing between A.G.Bell and E.M.Gallaudet happened after 1880. Important precursors to this Congress happened in Paris, between the Abbees de l'Epee and Deschamps, Pereire. Also there was an exchange of letters, written in Latin, between de l'Epee and the German oralist Samuel Heinicke. The resolutions of Milan were only a culmination of what had been going on already in several countries, including the U.S.

What is the source of the info that there was one from Belgium? I don't know of anyone from Belgium being at the Congress. In two accounts, one Swede was mentioned, named Ekbohrn and in the report by the Briton, there is a woman from Norway also mentioned. So the table of participants seems to be incorrect.

It cannot also be said that countries voted for or against. Only individuals who voted for themselves, not as delegates of their countries. Also the number of votes opposing the Resolution 1 is contradictory: 4 or 6.

It should include some quotes from the congress participants, especially those from Father Guilo Tarra.

Has a proceedings with the papers accepted to be part of it ever been printed and distributed?

Hartmut1940, 31 July 2010

banned?
The header sections says "passed a resolution banning the use of sign language in school" which doesn't seem to accord with the quoted resolutions which instead promote oralism as the greater good. If one wished to be legalistic about it Res 8(b) contradicts the notion that sign was "banned". Taking a softer approach Res 1 as quoted here "declares that the oral method should be preferred to that of signs in education and the instruction of deaf-mutes". Now the result might be that schools chose to remove teaching of sign but that's different to the banning of sign. Also nothing is given on the jurisdiction of the conference. It appears that this was just a conference of educators with no particular power to create or indeed promote legislation. Pbhj (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah a lot of sources are way oversimplified this way

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627033027/http://www.nad.org/blogs/james-tucker/iced-2010-update to http://www.nad.org/blogs/james-tucker/iced-2010-update

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Second congress was the first congress
I'm confused about the article mentioning twice that the congress is called the second congress, but it was actually the first congress. Wasn't there the International Congress on Education of the Deaf in 1878 in Paris (Congrès universel pour l'amélioration du sort des avengles et des sourds-muets)?

--Falott (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)