Talk:Deafblindness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] moving the page from deafblindness to deaf-blind

This page was moved from deafblindness to deaf-blind, and marked as a Minor edit. I don't believe moving a page is ever 'minor'. This is from Wikipedia:How to edit a page: "Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text. ... Marking a significant change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior."

I don't have a strong preference for either name but i'm curious why the change was made? It goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions which states that "adjectives (such as democratic) should redirect to nouns (in this case, democracy)". ntennis 05:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, page seems to have been moved back now (marked as minor again). This has created a few double redirects. ntennis 06:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: Sorry, my mistake. The move was not marked as minor. ntennis 16:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info in "See also" section

Ntennis reverted my edit, which removed a note about white canes with red stripes indicating deafblindness and replaced it with a generalized note about what a white cane is. I've reverted this because a see also section is not the place to be introducing new information, i.e. the info should be elsewhere. I'd have removed the note altogether, but left it for those unfamiliar with blindness/deafblindness. Moulder 05:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) ntennis 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intervenor vs. Interpreter

People who are deaf-blind do not use the services of interpreters - they use the services of intervenors. Refer to http://www.cnib.ca/eng/about-us/careers/current/intervenor-toronto-072806.htm for a job description for an intervenor position with CNIB office in Toronto. Refer to http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2006/06/01/c9097.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html for a press release including a description of intervenors and interpreters:

"Interpreters act as a language and cultural bridge between a deaf person and a hearing person and make it possible for deaf and hard-of-hearing people to use essential services such as legal, health and social services. Intervenors make it possible for deafblind people to participate in community activities through a variety of communication methods."

Clearly these occupations are similar, but also disctinct.

Refer also to http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:OQFSPuiNh-4J:www.chkc.org/main/media_press/6_Ontario.doc+intervenor+services&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

"In order to communicate with each other and any other member of our society, people with deafblindness need intervenors, not to be confused with interpreters. These George Brown College-trained professionals are skilled in guiding techniques and in all communication systems used by people who are deafblind, including Adapted Sign Language, Tactile Communication, finger spelling and Braille, to name a few. If you consider that for a deafblind person without an intervenor, their world is the span of their arm, an intervenor brings the rest of the world to them and is their vital link, their only link to the outside." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.26 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you have a restrictive definition of interpreting which explicitly excludes anyone who works with deafblind people. This is a peculiar definition! It is also not backed up by the sources you provide, which describe "interpreting" as one of the services an intervenor may provide. In addition, the intervenor may act as a guide and even instruct the client on 'personal grooming'! The word "interpreting" that you have changed to "intervening" in the article is actually part of a list. This list is introduced with the phrase "methods of communication involve:". So unless you are suggesting that deafblind people can only communicate if someone intervenes or makes decisions for them, then I suggest we leave it as "interpreting services such as sign language interpreters and other communication aides." The phrase "other communication aides" should cover those instances when the worker is not strictly working between two languages, such as relay interpreters and transliterators. If you would like to add a separate section about "intervening services", then please do so, but I don't feel it belongs under "communication". By the way, please remember that wikipedia is global, and different places use different terminology. ntennis 07:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Intervenors certainly deserve a place in this article, but they must not be confused with interpreters. In fact, an interpreter cannot perform the services of an intervenor without special training, although an intervenor may also be trained as an interpreter. I am also highly opposed to any suggestion that deafblind people need intervenors to communicate with everyone including each other. That is absolute nonsense...I have seen deafblind people talking just fine to each other through tactile sign, and I have talked with deafblind people myself, also in tactile sign, without the need for an intervenor. I agree with ntennis that intervenors should not be placed under communication; in fact only an intervenor who is also an interpreter is responsible for communication at all, and certainly not all intervenors are interpreters. -Etoile 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad name links

It seems that there's a problem with one of the name links. Mary Bradley links to an irish politician born in 1942. Since the comment after this link states that time and place of birth is unknown and the year of death is 1866 and assuming people are just not able to die years before their birth there must be something wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.127.19 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to fix. Added an attribute to the link, "deafblind girl" may not be the best attribute, feel free to change it. Also added a link at the bottom referring to her story; will try to expand this to an article so the link isn't red anymore! -Etoile 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

[This comment copied from user talk page]

I think [Ntennis's] recent edit reduced the accuracy of the sentence. Every deaf-blind person I have known who uses sign will express themselves in the same way that other signers do. It's only when others are signing to them that it becomes tactile. Thus, I think the description "supplemented by a tactile version of Sign used by others to communicate with the deafblind person" is more accurate. I wanted to know your thought before I revert. Thanks. Ward3001 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not strongly attached to the second version and I am very open to rephrasing. However, I'm not particularly keen on the first version myself. Here are the two sentences:
"For example, someone who grew up deaf and experienced vision loss later in life is likely to use a sign language..."
  • "supplemented by a tactile version of Sign used by others to communicate with the deafblind person."
  • "(in a visually-modified or tactual form)."
I disagree that the first is more accurate. Why "supplemented"? What about visual modifications? Why say Sign with a capital S? The first sentence also implies to me that the other person is not deafblind himself or herself.
For me, use of a language is not only expressive, but receptive. The form of sign language used in communication where one or both parties is deafblind is usually different to the form used by two normally-sighted signers. I think the second version expresses this.
I also think the first version is too long, and obscures the point of the paragraph - that the type of communication used will depend on "the nature of their condition, the age of onset, and what resources are available to them." Or in other words, that a late deafened person's main language is usually a spoken one, while an early deafened person's main language is usually a signed one - at least for those who had access to a signing community. To be honest i think we could do away with the qualification altogether to make the comparison stronger. Or add a sentence afterwards, something like "The form of the spoken or signed language used is usually modified." I welcome your thoughts and others'. ntennis 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My original comment to you was sparked because I felt that it was important to distinguish between the expressive and receptive methods. I have pondered alternate ways to say it, but it always seem to make the sentence too long, as you said. Right now I am inclined to leave your version as it is. I may change my mind after more thought, in which case I'll let you know on your talk page before making any changes. Ward3001 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
P.s while we're on the topic, I don't think the sentence starting with "Multisensory methods" is very illuminating. What I could glean from the Tacpac article and the links there is that they use touch and hearing (for those who have residual hearing). It's doesn't seem that multisensory to me. ;) Is this paragraph really referring to methods other than Tacpac? What are they? ntennis 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I had never heard of Tacpac before reading about it here. I get the impression that "multisensory methods" that go beyond the tactile methods described earlier in the paragraph are mainly for deaf-blind children. I can't claim any expertise. Looking at the edit histories for both articles, it looks like the information in Deafblindness and most of the article on Tacpac may have been added by someone affiliated with Tacpac. That editor has no additional edits. Ward3001 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)