Talk:Australian deaf community

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacktuj21794. Peer reviewers: Macygalante.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Citations Issues

Almost this entire article is plagiarized from the citations mentioned. Some sentences are nearly verbatim from the sources. Some sources are inappropriately biased/skewed for Wikipedia's goals of objectiveness, although the information is not necessarily incorrect. Major changes should be made to remove and avoid this. --Tuj21794 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Broadening of Information Required

Remember that you aren't just here to speak on sign language itself, but of the state of DHH people within your region of choice! What you have is excellent for the areas that you have it in, but I would love to see components be added on culture, education, and medical conditions if such resources exist! Some of these things can be talked about in depth, and I bet that you can find ways to trace connections based on what you already have. - Dylan Mitchell (Tuk04932), Oct. 16, 2021.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitchellpsych (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2025

Australian deaf community → Australian Deaf community – We use uppercase D's for the Deaf communities. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• support per nom—blindlynx 19:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Counter-proposal to move to Deaf culture in Australia (this move target might require an admin to move it for technical reasons but I'm not sure without trying to move the page myself). The article used to be at that title but was moved without discussion in 2015 to this name because it was "more succinct" (which it is and isn't--it's one less word but is about the same amount of characters, and neither option is particularly verbose anyhow). I think this title may be more fitting because in my opinion it's less likely to become the subject of dispute over the validity of its capitalization (i.e. people will be less likely to open new move discussions or potentially try to move it back without discussion under the assumption it's an uncontroversial move); that's because the capital letter in this example is at the start of the article title where it would be capitalized either way by the software. I also think it would bring the article title in line with its parent category, Category:Deaf culture in Australia, and perhaps make clearer it's potentially a main article for said category. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Purplewowies eBay and maia arson crimew have a lower case title, it uses a special tag at the top of the page to set the lower title. But in a way you are correct because the URL (site link) is still upercase. What I'm saying is its pointless to force something to be upercase but puting it at the start because its easy to change. Anyway Deaf culture in Australia might be better I'm not sure. Anthony2106 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, in the software the titles are still uppercase (this is the case on most MediaWiki sites, though some like Wiktionary allow lowercase titles). Titles like those just use the displaytitle magic word (or a template that calls it) to change how it displays, yes--some italicized page titles do the same thing. I don't personally have an issue with the original proposal of just changing the capitalization of "deaf to "Deaf". I just thought that the counter-proposal might be a "neater" rename, so to speak. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe ill ask again after this move is done to see if your name Deaf culture in Australia is better. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Fine to capitalise the word. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disability, Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and WikiProject Deaf have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment most articles are at "Deafness in X", like Deafness in Iceland, Deafness in Thailand, Deafness in France etc. The only exceptions I can see are this article and Deaf culture in the United States (there's no Deafness in the United States or Deafness in Australia)

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 should we ask Wikiproject Deaf if these should be consistent? Maybe like a rfc or something Anthony2106 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Procedure would be to make a WP:Requested move for the two outliers to conform and then notify WP:WikiProject Deaf (WP:APPNOTE). If we take that route, this should probably be closed. Pinging @Blindlynx, Purplewowies, and Raymond3023: for their thoughts Kowal2701 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand I'm not against a RM. (Or rather, I have no strong feelings.) On the other, I could see such a move for the US article in particular causing its scope to potentially change--right now it's very focused on Deaf culture, but if it were moved to a broader "Deafness in" then it's possible the article would end up broadening in scope as a result. (I'm just tired enough right now that I have no thoughts or opinions on whether this is a desirable outcome.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The premise of the nom is We use uppercase D's for the Deaf communities. This is a statement made without evidence to substantiate the assertion and with no reference to the prevailing P&G. Capitalising deaf would clearly be a case of capitalising for emphasis, or significance. We don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, which is invoked by WP:NCCAPS, which is in turn invoked by WP:LOWERCASE at WP:AT. Per NCCAPS: However, these cases are typically examples of buzzwords, which by capitalization are (improperly) given special emphasis. While I don't agree with the use of the term buzzwords to characterise such uses, the fuller context of that paragraph at NCCAPS is referring to the same uses of capitalisation at SIGNIFCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It could hypothetically fall under MOS:PEOPLANG. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be too much of a stretch. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a stretch, because the move proposer is likely referring to a specific cultural more and PEOPLANG specifically notes cultures are capitalized. The proposer's reasoning is probably rooted in the fact that "big D" Deaf in relation to Deaf culture is frequently (perhaps usually) capitalized, and the phrasing of "deaf community" (or "Deaf community") is a phrasing that usually is connected to Deaf culture rather than deafness more broadly as the condition of not hearing (which makes sense--this article's title was originally "Deaf culture in Australia" before it was moved without discussion ten years ago). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

PEOPLANG would apply to ethnological groupings in which race or religion is inherently a proper name as opposed to being descriptive, though it does touch on [e]thno-racial "color labels" [that] may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white) [emphasis added]. So yes, I think this is a stretch to claim PEOPLANG applies. When one sees a statement like: The proposer's reasoning is probably rooted in the fact that "big D" Deaf in relation to Deaf culture is frequently (perhaps usually) capitalized ... is a clear signal that capitalisation is being used for significance or distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources capitalise the "D", which they do, we should follow that Kowal2701 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead of MOS:CAPS states: There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below, of which SIGNIFCAPS is such a case - ie it is an exception to the general source-based guidance in the lead. However, the general guidance also tells us that sources must be independent and consider how capitalisation is treated by those writing at arms-length from the subject rather than those closely associated with the subject (per WP:SSF). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

...I am confused about what you are trying to say, because SIGNIFCAPS doesn't to my understanding appear to apply here. I said what I meant to be understood as "Deaf culture is capitalized in regards to culture because it's a culture, and PEOPLANG says that's a reasonable thing to do". Meanwhile, SIGNIFCAPS seems to be about when you capitalize things TO GIVE THEM EMPHASIS Like This... which doesn't seem relevant to the reasons Deaf when referring to culture is typically capitalized. When "Deaf culture" is capitalized by reliable sources, it's because it's a culture, not because it's Being Emphasized as a matter of Making It Seem More Important. (Feels worth noting that this kind of back-and-forth is part of why I provided a counter-suggestion that places "Deaf" at the beginning of the title. Then the points for or against capitalizing Deaf would be moot because that particular word would be capitalized either way by the software.) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be a case of MOS:ALLCAPS. SIGNIFCAPS applies to first letter capitalisation of words and phrases. Words capitalised as a term of art are an example. SMcCandlish is saying essentially the same thing that I am but in a slightly different way. As for an alternative title that places deaf as the first word, that might resolve the issue of capitalisation for the title but the same rules apply to the body of the article and capitalisation therein (as SMcC indicates). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with SMcCandlish's reading of the situation, personally, but at that point it is more of a disagreement on my part regarding validity/reliability of sources regarding cultural vs medical views on the topic rather than my not thinking the guideline being cited is relevant. (I believe my disconnect with SMcCandlish has to do with them viewing the D/d difference as more neologistic among non-Deaf sources than I believe it to be.) SIGNIFCAPS covers both ALL CAPS and First Letter Caps when used as a form of emphasis, though--THAT was why I used both For Demonstration Purposes before. (ALLCAPS, on the other hand, is more for stylistic capitalizations not used for emphasis, like BABYMETAL.) If you're suggesting people capitalize Deaf to emphasize it, that's where I disagree. That's why I don't think SIGNIFCAPS applies here. I think PEOPLANG fits just fine, but I also think the nuance described in PEOPLANG (specifically in regard to things like black or white being capitalized situationally/based on context) is something that makes it still worth discussing.

I think that this capitalization difference regarding Deaf culture vs deafness the medical condition has existed for long enough in reliable sources that it's not a neologism (so not like Brown), but I think when and how it's appropriate to make it capped is situational (i.e. what things are being discussed, whether sources regarding the specific group capitalize it (because the US Deaf community, where it's consistently capitalized, is not necessarily the same as the Australian or Japanese or South African or French communities, etc. etc.). That's something I don't personally have a strong idea of what to do here specifically because I'm actually not very familiar with the community in Australia or sources discussing it. That was why my initial !vote had more to do with trying to sidestep the uppercase/lowercase situation entirely, at least in regards to the title. Because I do think the nuance is there and worth discussing. I guess my TL;DR here is I do think the application of Deaf vs deaf in this article is worth discussing. I just think that PEOPLANG covers why it's worth discussing but SIGNIFCAPS doesn't. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I will stand corrected re ALLCAPS and SIGNIFCAPS. SIGNIFCAPS covers use of caps for emphasis, significance, importance or distinction, including capitalisation to denote or distinguish a term of art. A term of art is a normal noun phrase that is given a particular meaning in the context being used, usually narrower than what the term might usually mean if there was no context to establish the meaning. If we capitalise Iranian Revolution to mean this particular revolution or Kumanovo Agreement when this is not the actual title of the agreement (or just Agreement to indicate we are talking about this particular agreement) or Big Four B|banks to mean the four major banking institutions in Australia or Three Offices of Joseon because we are referring to three particular offices of Joeon even though they are not all called offices - in each case, we are using capitalisation to accentuate a word or phrase in a way that falls to SIGNIFCAPS and not because they are inherently proper names, where a true proper name is not descriptive. So, if we say we are using Deaf to distinguish it from the medical condition, that is falling to SIGNIFCAPS. Paraphrasing a comment above We're not talking about little 'd' deaf but bid 'D' Deaf, also falls to SIGNIFCAPS - because the latter is meant to denote a slightly different meaning that is establised by context or has been previously established within the group that makes such a distinction. Call it a term of art perhaps (as I indicated) but it is using capitalisation to make a distinction. SMcC's comment about mainstream sources is also significant. I referred to sources at arms length from the subject. A term of art is a type of jargon, where jargon is language particular to any group - professional or social/societal, where a particular word or phrase has a more specific meaning than in general usage - eg legalese. I have no doubt that Deaf is accepted with those closely associated with the deaf community. It is even appropriate to note this but that is not the standard we apply to determine capitalisation of article titles or in prose on WP. You might also see WP:SSF. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm saying is that I have encountered in my adult life--that is, after I attended college, where I focused on the subject--a number of reliable secondary sources (mainstream sources reliable by Wikipedia's standards) going back decades discussing Deaf culture that capitalize it, but they're highly US-focused--I think that kind of thing is why PEOPLANG applies but also that the places where PEOPLANG discusses cultures not always being capitalized provide the necessary nuance to discuss this (but that I don't think this capitalization is a neologism or a particularly in-group term, so I don't think I agree with that reasoning for not capitalizing it, even if there may be some other reasoning I would agree with). Anyhow, this is straying further and further from the original question of moving this article, so I'm just going to reiterate (and then step away) that I think moving the page to a title that starts with "deaf" (either the original "Deaf culture in Australia" name it used to be at or the alternate suggestion in this section of "Deafness in Australia) is the neatest way to handle the title (i.e. lowers the chance of disputes over Deaf/deaf, the whole reason I counter-proposed in the first place) but that I do not have strong feelings about "Deaf" vs "deaf" in prose at this article. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

While I am not intrinsically opposed to a title that puts "deaf" first (subject that is reasonably supported as a better title per WP:CRITERIA) it does not resolve the issue of capitalisation within the article. Per WP:SSF, specialist with a close association for a particular subject use a particular jargon and are more likely to capitalise terms as a term of art as part of this jargon. While such sources are reliable for content they are not so reliable in respect to capitalisation. That is why sources must be independent and it is much preferable that they are at arms length from the subject - reflecting how this is generally capitalised, rather than by a group with a special interest. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I've come around to a new view on this. Take a look at the article Deaf culture. We do capitalize self-identified groups of people and cultures. In this context Deaf is not an adjective referring to hearing impairment, but the proper noun name of a group. Last time an issue like this came up, I was not persuaded, but this time I am. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, we generally do the same for "Black/White", "Indigenous" etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support either moving to the more consistent Deafness in Australia or else sending it back to the previous title of Deaf culture in Australia (à la Deaf culture in the United States). I would save the capitalization issue for another day: the MOS:CAPS threshold is quite possibly cleared when it comes to Deaf culture (see [1]), but things get trickier the further you go into the borderlands, and even "deaf community" is pretty evenly mixed (see [2]). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Move back to the previous title Deaf culture in Australia. Frost 07:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cinderella157's detailed arguments, specifically the references to MOS:PEOPLANG and MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just absolutely not. "We use uppercase D's for the Deaf communities" simply is not correct. Maybe the nominator does that, but WP does not. (We have a problem in this regard at a particular article though; see below.) That is not normal English, but PoV-pushing identarianist language-"reform" advocacy by a narrow special-interest group that is not reflected in more than a tiny sliver of reliable sources that are actually independent of the subject [3]. This not only fails MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, WP has a firm rule to not capitalize theories or fields of scientific or other study (MOS:DOCTCAPS) nor scientific concepts of any kind (MOS:SCIMATH), other than of course where they contain a proper name like Asperger or Lewy or Down. That includes of course their adjectival variants. That also means that necessarily this proposal fails WP:CONSISTENT policy, since we are not otherwise capitalizing names of medical, psychological, and other conditions, aspects, or qualities, nor articles pertaining to populations of people with those conditions (nor references to them in running text; it's "people with albinism" not "people with Albinism"; it's "blind and visually impaired people" not "Blind and Visually Impaired people"). There is no basis for an exception in this case just because some people who are deaf, and some of their friends and relatives and medical advocates, like to capitalize this term as a form of "signification". WP is not written that way and never will be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  PS: We have an issue at Deaf culture, in which we properly observe in the lead that persons associated with this community/subculture have a "capital-D Deaf" usage that they promote (which is fine), but then in the rest of the article some of our editors have forced this neologistic and non-standard usage into Wikipedia's own voice (which is not at all fine). This is against WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, WP:NEO, MOS:CAPS (esp. MOS:ISMCAPS), etc., and needs to be fixed immediately. By the kind of circular reasoning employed at that article for the moment, we would also be rampantly over-capitalizing in thousands of other topics, from "trans" to "jazz", just on the basis that persons who are not independent of the subject promote its capitalization. (Cf. WP:SSF for more detailed analysis of why that is a very faulty idea, that the community has rejected again and again and again.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)