text:
Visible Speech

Visible Speech is a system of phonetic symbols developed by British linguist Alexander Melville Bell in 1867 to represent the position of the speech organs in articulating sounds. Bell was known internationally as a teacher of speech and proper elocution and an author of books on the subject. The system is composed of symbols that show the position and movement of the throat, tongue, and lips as they produce the sounds of language, and it is a type of phonetic notation. The system was used to aid the deaf in learning to speak.

In 1864, Melville promoted his first works on Visible Speech, in order to help the deaf both learn and improve upon their speech (since the profoundly deaf could not hear their own pronunciation). To help promote the system, Bell created two written short forms using his system of 29 modifiers and tones, 52 consonants, 36 vowels and a dozen diphthongs: they were named World English, which was similar to the International Phonetic Alphabet, and also Line Writing, used as a shorthand form for stenographers.

Melville's works on Visible Speech became highly notable, and were described by Édouard Séguin as being "...a greater invention than the telephone by his son, Alexander Graham Bell". Melville saw numerous applications for his invention, including its worldwide use as a universal language. However, although heavily promoted at the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf in Milan, Italy in 1880, after a period of a dozen years or so in which it was applied to the education of the deaf, Visible Speech was found to be more cumbersome, and thus a hindrance, to the teaching of speech to the deaf, compared to other methods, and eventually faded from use.

Bell's son Alexander Graham Bell learned the symbols, assisted his father in giving public demonstrations of the system and mastered it to the point that he later improved upon his father's work. Eventually, Alexander Graham Bell became a powerful advocate of Visible Speech and oralism in the United States. The money he earned from his patent of the telephone and the sale of his Volta Laboratory patents helped him to pursue this mission.

The early years
In 1867, Alexander Melville Bell published the book Visible Speech: The Science of Universal Alphabetics. This book contains information about the system of symbols he created that, when used to write words, indicated pronunciation so accurately, that it could even reflect regional accents. A person reading a piece of text handwritten in Melville Bell's system of characters could accurately reproduce a sentence the way it would be spoken by someone with a foreign or regional accent. In his demonstrations, Melville Bell employed his son, Alexander Graham Bell to read from the visible speech transcript of the volunteer's spoken words and would astound the audience by saying it back exactly as the volunteer had spoken it.

A few samples of the writing system invented by Melville Bell may be seen in the images on this page. These images depict Melville Bell's intention of creating a script in which the characters actually look like the position of the mouth when speaking them out loud. The system is useful not only because its visual representation mimicks the physical act of speaking, but because it does so, these symbols may be used to write words in any language, hence the name "Universal Alphabetics".

Melville Bell's system was effective at helping deaf people improve their pronunciation, but his son Graham Bell decided to improve upon his father's invention by creating a system of writing that was even more accurate and employed the most advanced technology of the time.

A fresh take on pronunciation for the deaf
Alexander Graham Bell later devised another system of visual cues that also came to be known as visible speech, yet this system did not use symbols written on paper to teach deaf people how to pronounce words. Instead, Graham Bell's system, developed at his Volta Laboratory in Washington, D.C., involved the use of a spectrogram, a device that makes "visible records of the frequency, intensity, and time analysis of short samples of speech". The spectrogram translated sounds into readable patterns via a photographic process. This system was based on the idea that the eye should be able to read patterns of vocalizations in much the same way that the ear translates these vocalizations into meaning. Modern implementations of Bell's idea display sound spectra in real time and are used in phonology, speech therapy and computer speech recognition.

Method
The idea of the use of a spectrograph to translate speech into a visual representation (a spectrogram) was created in the hopes of enabling the deaf to use a telephone. If the sounds could be translated into something readable, then a deaf person at the receiving end could then read out the pattern of speech to determine its meaning without having to hear what was said. The spectrograph readings could also be used to teach pronunciation by having a person speak into the spectrograph and watch a small television-like screen to monitor the precision of their utterances.

title: Visible Speech


text:
Nowhere Fast (Fire Inc. song)

"Nowhere Fast" is a song, performed by Fire Inc. in 1984 for the rock movie Streets of Fire. An alternate version of the song was recorded by Meat Loaf the same year. The song was written by Jim Steinman.

Fire Inc. single
The "Nowhere Fast" single contains an edit (edited down to 4:11 from the 6:02 album version) and is backed with the Marilyn Martin track "Sorcerer", also from the Streets of Fire soundtrack. Laurie Sargent performed the lead vocals. Holly Sherwood and Rory Dodd performed the background vocals.

Personnel

 * Music and Lyrics: Jim Steinman
 * Lead Vocals: Laurie Sargent
 * Background Vocals: Rory Dodd, Holly Sherwood and Eric Troyer
 * Piano: Roy Bittan
 * Guitars: Dave Johnstone and Mike Landau
 * Bass: Steve Buslowe
 * Synthesizer: Larry Fast
 * Drums: Max Weinberg and Jim Bralower
 * Drum Programming: Jim Bralower
 * Additional Keyboards: Jim Steinman

Meat Loaf single
Meat Loaf's more rock-oriented version has an almost entirely different set of lyrics, with only the chorus being the same as the Fire Inc. version. Meat Loaf's version also has a more prominent guitar being played by Bob Kulick. Meat Loaf performed it live during the Bad Attitude tour along with his touring band, The Neverland Express. At the time of its release, it was only a minor hit, but remains a fan favourite.

The single was also released as a limited edition motorcycle-shaped vinyl. A music video was also produced.

Critical reception
Upon the British release Biba Kopf (pseudonym of journalist Chris Bohn) of New Musical Express left ironic review of 8 December 1984. He took the singer's attempt as another self-repetition of his early works by saying "The tone, as always, is that of the teenager who never quite got over the shock and disappointment of making it into his 20s."

Single versions

 * 12" maxi single
 * "Nowhere Fast" (6:05) (Jim Steinman)
 * "Stand by Me" (3:45) (Ben E. King)
 * "Clap Your Hands" (2:23) (Richard Hartley/Brian Thompson)

 * 7" single
 * "Nowhere Fast" (4:00) (Jim Steinman)
 * "Clap Your Hands" (2:23) (Richard Hartley/Brian Thompson)

Both B-sides were recorded during Meat Loaf's sessions for The Rocky Horror Picture Show soundtrack, and remained unreleased until this single.

There were four different versions of the 7" single, including a shaped picture disc, a pop-up cover and a gatefold sleeve.

Personnel

 * Lead Vocals: Meat Loaf
 * Guitars: Bob Kulick
 * Bass: John Siegler
 * Piano & Keyboards, Background Vocals: Paul Jacobs
 * Drums, Background Vocals: Wells Kelly
 * Percussion: Frank Ricotti
 * Background Vocals: Clare Torry, Stephanie de Sykes
 * Produced by Meat Loaf, Paul Jacobs and Mack

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Nowhere Fast (Fire Inc. song)


text:
Talk:List of Swedish military commanders

Untitled
The criteria for this list and the corresponding category (Category:Swedish military commanders) are not well-defined from the start by User:Mic who created it, but it is quite clear that the intention has been to include field marshals and generals who commanded entire armies. A few minor and non-notable Swedish military officers have recently been added to the list: Joachim Von Rohr (whose name should correctly be written with a lowercase v: von Rohr), Hans Christoffer Von Rohr (likewise) and Anders Örbom. Including these on the list makes it all-inclusive and meaningless. Commanding a minor fortress like Dalarö skans, as Joachim von Rohr supposedly did, does not make him the equal in rank to Johan Banér or the various kings in the list. I don't really think Joachim Von Rohr and Anders Örbom are notable enough for Wikipedia articles in the first place (unless some additional indication of notability is given) and will remove these and the red link Hans Christoffer Von Rohr from the list. / up land 10:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Radius (bone)

Function of the radius in the forearm
The article currently states "The purpose of the radius is to connect the elbow to the forearm" and the citation is to a blog called http://boneandspine.com. I would in fact argue that the radius is a very minor player in the elbow joint, and that its major purpose is to connectthe forearm to the hand and particpate in pronation/supination of the hand at the proximal and distal radioulnar joints. I intend to edit this section if there are no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.29.162 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
what is the main function of the radius bone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.166.96.238 (talk • contribs).
 * Move and support the arm (at least in humans), I should think. I'm not sure there is a real answer to your question without further specifing the context. Incidentally, the                     best place to ask questions is probably Questions (specifically, Reference desk).  In general, talk pages are mostly used for discussing how to improve the article, etc.  Cheers, --TeaDrinker 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

size of the radius
24.62.171.61 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)How thick is an average radius, and how thick are the radius's parts (marrow, spongy bone, compact bone, and periosteum.)24.62.171.61 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Convexity of radius
Can be readily merged as a single sentence. Does not need a separate page. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Not enough content for separate article. --XXN, 08:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Upper extremity of radius
Needlessly fragmented, these short articles can be readily merged Tom (LT) (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Other Animals
Functionality for humans is superficially described in this article, with minimal text about the significance of being able to rotate the wrist and thereby turn knobs, etc. I'm curious to know if any other animals have this rotational ability, which I suspect is related to bipedalism, as hinted in this section's brief comment on horses. This section should be expanded to clarify. Martindo (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

History
I think the two paragraphs of the History section could be combined in order to remove the repetition. John Link (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Botany
Theory 2409:4043:50D:5D00:A070:AB05:7F64:6AE3 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Zoology
Theory 2409:4043:50D:5D00:A070:AB05:7F64:6AE3 (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Radial bone
Open main menu Wikipedia Search

Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win! Learn more Radius (bone) Article Talk Language Download PDF Watch Edit The radius or radial bone is one of the two large bones of the forearm, the other being the ulna. It extends from the lateral side of the elbow to the thumb side of the wrist and runs parallel to the ulna. The ulna is usually slightly longer than the radius, but the radius is thicker. Therefore the radius is considered to be the larger of the two. It is a long bone, prism-shaped and slightly curved longitudinally.

Radius Radius - anterior view2.png The radius (shown in red) is a bone in the forearm. Details Identifiers Latin Radius MeSH D011884 TA98 A02.4.05.001 TA2 1210 FMA 23463 Anatomical terms of bone [edit on Wikidata] The radius is part of two joints: the elbow and the wrist. At the elbow, it joins with the capitulum of the humerus, and in a separate region, with the ulna at the radial notch. At the wrist, the radius forms a joint with the ulna bone.

The corresponding bone in the lower leg is the fibula.

Structure Function Clinical significance History Animals Gallery References Last edited 1 month ago by Pabsoluterince Wikipedia Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop 37.111.136.156 (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radius (bone)


text:
Śuddhodana

Śuddhodana (शुद्धोदन; Pali: Suddhodana), meaning "he who grows pure rice," was the father of Siddhartha Gautama, better known as the Buddha. He was a leader of the Shakya, who lived in an oligarchic republic, with their capital at Kapilavastu.

In later renditions of the life of the Buddha, Śuddhodana was often referred to as a king, though that status cannot be established with confidence and is in fact disputed by modern scholars.

Family
Sudhdhodhana king's earliest predecessor was King Maha Sammatha(or the first king of the Kalpa). Śuddhodana's father was Sihahanu and his mother was Kaccanā. Suddhodana's chief consort was Maha Maya, with whom he had Siddhartha Gautama (who later became known as Shakyamuni, the "Sage of the Shakyas", or the Buddha). Maya died shortly after Siddhartha was born. Suddhodana next elevated to chief consort Maya's sister Mahapajapati Gotami, with whom he had a second son Nanda and a daughter Sundarī Nandā. Both children became Buddhist monastics.

At the age of 16, Siddhartha married his cousin Yasodharā, the niece of Maha Maya and Mahapajapati. Yasodhara's father was traditionally said to be Suppabuddha, but by some accounts it was Dandapani.

Questions of royal status
Though frequently depicted and referenced as a king, most recent scholarship on the matter refutes the notion that Śuddhodana was a monarch. Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was not a monarchy but rather an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council of the warrior and ministerial class that chose its leader or rājā. While the rājā may have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the governing council and decisions were made by consensus. Furthermore, by the time of Siddharta's birth, the Shakya republic had become a vassal state of the larger Kingdom of Kosala. The head of Shakya's oligarchic council, the rājā, would only assume and stay in office with the approval of the King of Kosala.

The earliest Buddhist texts available to us do not identify Śuddhodana or his family as royals. In later texts, there may have been a misinterpretation of the Pali word rājā, which can mean alternatively a king, prince, ruler, or governor. Or as noted in the related article on Buddhism, "Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."

Siddhartha's birth and Great Renunciation
Siddhartha Gautama was born in Lumbini and raised in the Shakya capital of Kapilavastu. According to legend, Śuddhodana went to great lengths to prevent Siddhartha from becoming a śramaṇa, including banning him from leaving the home and surrounding him by women and other sensual pleasures. But at the age of 29, after experiencing the Four Sights, Siddhartha left his home in search of spiritual answers to the unsatisfactory nature of life, leaving behind his wife Yasodharā and infant son Rāhula. The story of Siddhartha's departure is traditionally called The Great Renunciation (Mahābhiniṣkramaṇa).

Later life
Śuddhodana lamented his son's departure and spent considerable effort attempting to locate him. Seven years later, after word of his enlightenment reached Suddhodana, he sent nine emissaries to invite Siddhartha back to the Shakya land. The Buddha preached to the emissaries and their entourage, who joined the Sangha.

Śuddhodana then sent a close friend of Siddhartha, Kaludayi, to invite him to return. Kaludayi also chose to become a monk, but kept his word to invite the Buddha back to his home. The Buddha accepted his father's invitation and returned to visit his home. During this visit, he preached the dharma to Suddhodana.

Four years later, when the Buddha heard of Suddhodana's impending death, he once again returned to his home and preached further to Śuddhodana at his deathbed. Finally he gained Arahantship.

title: Śuddhodana


text:
Talk:New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy

Untitled
A glaring omission is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that the legislation was a) a confiscation, b) a violation of the treaty and c) a violation of international law.

In my view the total silence about the Tribunal's findings in the official media and from the leaders and followers of the pro-confiscation parties is one of the most outstanding features of the Foreshore and Seabed controversy.

--  Could somebody who has some knowledge of the Ngati Apa decision (as opposed to those who simply "think" they know) please add some detail to the first section. The current discussion of the case is overly simplistic Tobit 00:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done and done - KiwiMal.

Picture...
I added the picture of the hikoi that I took to the appropriate section. Hope it helps a bit... Spawn Man 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

belief / assertion
I have changed the wording slightly in this article. I don't beleive that it is possible to ascribe 'belief' to the motives of the Government as they is a considerable body of opinion that takes the view that the appraoch taken by the Crown was not made in good faith. It is however accurate to state that this is what the Crown was asserting as its belief. Tashkop 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What opinion poll
I cannot find which opinion poll taken after the Orewa speech showed the jump?
 * I can't find a link to the original Colmar Brunton poll, but here's the result of a poll taken about one week after it: .- gadfium 04:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
This is a good article, especially given its contentiousness, and it looks like we have some genuine experts contributing. It needs more, however, about the non-parliamentary response from Maori, though - Te Ope o Mana a Tai get a mention, but no explanation of how they formed and what they say. I'd add it myself but don't really know, and I'm not much the wiser having glanced at their website. The content looks nice and NPOV but there's few references to speak of - a citation of the early academic work referred to would add a lot of weight to claims it was "not unexpected" (which I've replaced with the vaguer "foreshadowed" for the mean time). The Rapporteur's report must be somewhere online too. --Tirana 02:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gave ownership versus 'confirmed'
I have changed the wording back to what it originally said. The State had no ownership. That was found by the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The new Law did not 'confirm' ownership, it took it. The language of 'confirm' is used by apologists to present a picture that the foreshore was not taken but somewhow thew government was merely 'clarifying' the issue (Their own propaganda). The Crown itself admits to that fact that the foreshore and seabed was indeed taken, but justifies it on the grounds of the public interest (See maragret Wilson's statement and also statements fromn the Crown law office on which Ms Wilson's statement was based.)Tashkop 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Hang on, the Court of Appeal said that the law didn't preclude the Maori Land Court from inquiring as to whether customary title still existed. It was a matter of doubt as to whether customary title still existed anywhere, rather than unquestionably Crown ownership as the Crown had previously assumed (and the Ninety Mile Beach case found) and it was the Maori Land Court's job to sort it out.  From the ministry of Justice page: "The Court of Appeal did not find that Maori customary rights or title existed in any particular case, but it did leave it open for the Maori Land Court to make such findings." Happy to reconsider if you provide quotes from your described sources.  --Tirana 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Just correcting this inaccurate statement by Tirana. The finding of the court of appeal was very simply that the Crown did not own the foreshore and seabed. It made that finding because that was what the case was about. The case was not about whether or not maori could then claim ownership, and it is for that reason that the court of appeal referred Maori to the appropriate forum to determine that.  Let's be clear on the salient point though. The Crown was found absolutely and unequivocably not to have ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

You are both right. The Court of Appeal did not find that title was held by any group. Nor did it hold that it was held by the Crown. The position was left unresolved by the Court of Appeal's judgment. The term "confirmed" is certainly misleading for the reasons Tashkop mentioned, but "gave" is also misleading as it assumes that the title was clearly held by Maori at the time (please note, this is a statement of the legal position, not a normative statement as to who rightfully owned the land). I have changed it so that it is hopefully more neutral and reflective of what definitely happened (i.e. declared that the land was in Crown ownership, and foreclosed the possibility of any judicial enquiry into the true position). KiwiMal 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)KiwiMal
 * Sorry Kiwimal - you are wrong. The Court of Appeal did not determine on whether or not title was held by any group. It purely determined on the question of ownership by the crown, and ruled that the crown did not have ownership. That was all it could rule on, because that was all that the case was about.

KiwiMal - Given the contentiousness of the matter I am content to support your wording on it. I am currently pursuing proceedings through the HRC and the OHCP. The sources I mention are part of the Crown Law's reponse to my complaint in those fora, although Margaret Wilson's comments, which are cognate, are on the public record (No surprise since she was just parroting what Crown law told her - or more likely - the other way around) if anyone would like copies of Crown Law's response to my complaint, where they admit to the discriminatory confisication of the Seabed and Foreshore, but claim it is justified in the Public interest, please contact me via email tashkop@yahoo.com. I might also point out that the language of the FSB (I dont have a copy of the act in front of me but suspect it cannot have changed) specifically uses the word 'Vest'. It does not declare or confirm - it vests (i.e. takes). Although in debate we might resort to euphermism the law thankfully is required to be explicit. (I mean no offence by that statement). Tashkop 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Clear versus explicit
I have removed the wording “crystal clear” and replaced it with 'explicit' for the following reason.
 * 1. The use of the words “crystal clear” implies that legislation existed which vested the Foreshore and Seabed in the Crown b ut it was unclear. No such legislation existed.  The Crown had relied since 1877 on implications based on a legal opinion from Crown Law deriving from the Lawsuit Parata Versus Bishop of Wellington.
 * 2. It is my belief that the choice of the words “crystal clear” implies a pre-existing position where the Crown already owned the Foreshore and Seabed prior to the passing of the FSA. no such position existed, that was the finding of the COA and that is why the Govt were required to be pass the Act if they wished to obtain ownership.  On that basis the words “crystal clear” are in my view revisionist; hence removed.

Tashkop 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ACT party position
It is quite inaccurate to state that the Act party position was in support of national's view that the FSA gave too much control to maori. ACT actually 100% supported Tariana Turia's view and produced a minority select committee report in that respect. Here is their release on that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.19.226 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Court Decision
I have added in quotes from the Court decision. This has required considerable editing of the section. I appreciate any comments you might have. Te Karere —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160214155449/http://www.beehive.govt.nz/foreshore/ to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/foreshore/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120910152604/http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana to http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. 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/20061025103914/http://www.teope.co.nz:80/ to http://www.teope.co.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


text: Category:Communes of Loire-Atlantique

title: Category:Communes of Loire-Atlantique


text:
Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas

Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas (1549 – 28 March 1626 or 27 March 1625) was a chronicler, historian, and writer of the Spanish Golden Age, author of Historia general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del mar Océano que llaman Indias Occidentales ("General History of the Deeds of the Castilians on the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea Known As the West Indies"), better known in Spanish as Décadas and considered one of the best works written on the conquest of the Americas. It is worth noting that Herrera never visited or lived in any part of the Americas. Therefore his work was largely conjectural.

He was Chief Chronicler of Castile and the Americas during the reigns of Philip II and Philip III. Cristóbal Pérez Pastor called him the "prince of the historians of the Americas". He is considered the most prolific historian of his era, and his works also include a general history of the world, a history of Portugal, and a description of the Americas. His output also features translations of works from Italian and Latin into Spanish, and a translation of his own Descripción de las Indias Occidentales ("Description of the West Indies") into Dutch.

Herrera is not given much value by modern historians. A standard Spanish reference work describes him as "an official historian, who was not impartial....[He was] an opportunist, a schemer, and greedy.... He plagiarized entire works which were unpublished at the time.... He had no interest in Native American civilization and therefore never dealt with it."

Biography
He was born in Cuéllar, Province of Segovia, into a well-to-do noble family, the son of Rodrigo de Tordesillas (the son of another Rodrigo de Tordesillas who died at the hands of the comuneros) and Inés de Herrera. He himself placed his mother's surname before his father's in opposition to modern Spanish naming customs.

He undertook his earliest studies in the [Latin] grammar school of his hometown, developing a notable facility for getting to know people and an inexhaustible capacity for work, which would later be confirmed. His education (especially in Latin), perhaps pursued at the University of Salamanca, reached its pinnacle in Italy. In 1570 he traveled to Italy in the service of Prince Vespasiano I Gonzaga, one of the most distinguished personages of his era in Italy. His knowledge of Latin increased as he learned Italian.

In 1572 Gonzaga was named Viceroy of Navarre. Herrera accompanied him and established a residence in Pamplona. He continued to enjoy the viceroy's confidence when he took up the analogous post in Valencia in 1575, although Herrera moved his residence to Court as Gonzaga's most trusted aide, resolving issues on his behalf before the King and the Court. Meanwhile, Herrera expanded his circle of friends and established contact with influential people as, little by little, he amassed a small fortune.

In the last years of Gonzaga's life, he introduced Herrera to King Philip II as one learned in historical matters. It was the starting point of a relationship which Herrera was able to maintain, beginning by doing the self-interested courtesy of dedicating his historical works (which he had already started) to important people. To get his acquaintance with the King started on the right foot, he translated from the Italian Giovanni Tommaso Minadoi's Historia della guerra fra turchi et persiani.

While living in Pamplona he met the woman who would become his first wife, Juana de Esparza y Artieda. They married in 1581 and the union afforded him a social standing of a certain distinction, despite his not yet having secured significant capital or equity, although he was on his way to achieving it. Their only child, Juana, died in 1587 at a young age, three years after her mother.

After a decade of widowerhood, he married secondly a woman from Cuéllar, María de Torres Hinestrosa, a descendant on one side of the Lords of Henestrosa, and on the other, via an illegitimate child, of King Alfonso IX of León. They had no children.

Chronicler
During the years after the death of his first wife, Herrera dedicated himself to strengthening his position at Court, investing in real estate in Madrid, and of course, writing constantly, until he secured the post of Chief Chronicler of the Americas in 1596, and of Castile in 1598, with an attractive salary. In 1601 he moved to Valladolid with the Court, and there pursued his tireless historiographical activity, along with that related to Court and the inevitable tasks of a financial nature.

In 1607 he returned to Madrid, living in a house on the Puerta del Sol and devoted to his literary tasks, where he enjoyed a comfortable and stately lifestyle. However, the economic intrigues in which he was involved led to his being placed under house arrest from 1609 to 1611. He continued his historiographical and literary activity until his death.

Death
Herrera died in Madrid on 28 March 1626 or 27 March 1625. He ordered in his will that his body be buried "in the parish church of Santa Marina in the town of Cuéllar, at the altar there with the arch in the main chapel on the epistle side, to which end it will be prepared by order and will of my heir, placing upon it a sign in Castilian roman letters which will be found among my papers and, conforming to what is found written in Latin, will be placed on my grave", and his terms were fulfilled. Herrera set out a maximum time frame of two years for burial Cuéllar, taking into account possible obstacles in doing so immediately, and proposed as a provisional burial place the Monastery of San Hermenegildo, in the chapel of Captain Juan Bautista Anotonelli, whose patron he was, and this provision was carried out.

In the 19th century, during the ecclesiastical confiscations, the church was sold and the new owner used the tombstone as a stair, so that the gilding of the inscription was lost, while the mortal remains were moved in 1886 to the nearby Church of San Pedro, and when this was secularized in 1890, they were moved to one of the rooms of the Cuéllar Town Hall, where they remain today with those of his wife and the tombstone, which at the urgings of the Real Academia de la Historia was donated in 1952 by the owner of the church. The tombstone bears the following inscription:

Descripción de las Indias Occidentales
Herrera's historiography of the Americas began with his Descripción de las Indias, published in 1601, in which he included various maps and foldout pages. In spite of its being considered an independent work, as that is how it was published, it serves as the introduction to his Décadas, establishing a pattern often imitated by twentieth century writers: he treats the geographical matters in the strictest sense of the word, such that it serves as a helpful tool for understanding the history he would publish subsequently, describing the locations of significant places and the lay of the land as the setting in which the history played out.

The tradition which began with Columbus's first voyage culminated with Herrera's Descripción. It is composed of several chronicles, nautical treatises, and other manuals, akin to the work of Martín Fernández de Enciso, Alonso de Chaves, Alonso de Santa Cruz, and Juan López de Velasco, as well as extensive cartography. Herrera drew upon all these sources to compose the text of his Descripción and its fourteen maps of the Americas and the Far East. It was common in later editions of his Décadas to include his Descripción as a supplement, although on occasion it was published separately. It was translated into English, by Captain John Stevens in 1725, as well as German, French, and Latin.

Herrera used four main sources for his Descripción: the geographical works of Juan López de Velasco (Chapters I, II, III, V, and XI-XXVII); Codex J-15 of the Biblioteca Nacional de España (I, III, V and VIII-X); the history written by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (VII), and archival documents (II, IV, VI-VII, XI-XV, XVIII-XXVII y XXVIII-XXXII).

Décadas
Herrera is most widely recognized for his Historia general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del mar Océano que llaman Indias Occidentales, known as Décadas, which was published by Juan Flamenco and Juan de la Cuesta between 1601 and 1615, in four volumes. It is the most complete written history of the Americas, and as its title indicates, the work focuses on telling the events experienced by the conquistadors, passing over the natural environment, which he had already covered in his Descripción, and the indigenous world, which he considered had been covered by Bartolomé de las Casas, Bernardino de Sahagún, Andrés de Olmos, and Gerónimo de Mendieta, hence it is a history of events rather than of things. Nor is it a history whose underlying objective was to understand and evaluate events, rather it is fundamentally descriptive, leaving personal judgments to the side, retelling the events in which the Castilians were the main actors.

The engraved title page engravings made allusion to temples, caciques, and other aspects of the Americas, as well as portraits of some of the Spanish conquistadors, including his fellow cuellaranos Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Juan de Grijalva, and Captain Gabriel de Rojas y Córdova. These portraits constitute an accurate collection of the most famous of the conquistadors, and many of them are unique, which makes them especially exceptional. The Décadas are considered a work not subject to influence, since the author did not live through the experiences he describes, attempting to acquaint the reader with them through the chronicles of his predecessors in his post and other learned men of letters, and through all the official documents which, due to his position, he had within reach, coming from books of the Cámara de Castilla and the papers from the archive of the Council of the Indies, so that it was the first history of the Americas which used all the available historical sources and so was the first general history of the Americas.

The work was so monumental that Antonio de Solís, who succeeded Herrera as chronicler, did not feel up to the task of continuing it. The only person who made an attempt, without much success, was another chronicler, Pedro Fernández del Pulgar, who, despite his good will and tenacity, yielded a disappointing result, such that his manuscript remains unpublished to this day.

Décadas was greatly successful at the time of publication, and within a few years it was translated into Latin, French, and German, and later into Dutch and English. It eventually went into twenty editions, the last in 1991 under the auspices of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, supplanting an earlier one by the Real Academia de la Historia.

Historia general del mundo
He also published Historia general del Mundo, written in the time of Philip II and divided into three parts, each of which is divided into books, and each book into chapters. The first part covers the years from 1559 to 1574 (although it begins with the marriage of Philip II, before his accession, to Mary I of England in 1554) and was published in Madrid in 1601 and in Valladolid in 1606, after which an improved second edition appeared. The second part covers the period from 1575 to 1585 and was published at the same time as the first, also appearing in a later second edition. Finally, the third part was published in Madrid in 1612, and covers the period from 1585 to 1598, ending with the death of the king. In it the author relates the "tumult, rebellions, acts of sedition and treason, uprisings, wars between peoples, captures of cities and castles, sackings, fires, truces, accords, broken treaties, massacres, deaths of princes, and other events from 1554 to 1598." He does not limit himself to the history of Spain, but makes reference to Africa, Asia, the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, the Pacific Ocean, and the Americas.

Other works

 * Historia de Portugal y conquista de las islas Azores (1582), first edition. A second edition was published at the press of Pedro Madrigal, in Madrid in 1591, in five volumes.
 * Historia de María Estuardo, whose full title is Historia de lo sucedido en Escocia, è Inglaterra, en quarenta y quatro años que biuio Maria Estuarda, Reyna de Escocia, escrita por Antonio de Herrera..., is devoted to the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. It was published in Madrid in 1589 and the next year in Lisbon under the same title. It was published in Madrid again in 1859, as a bibliographic curiosity.
 * Crónica de los Turcos (1598).
 * Sucesos de Francia or Historia de Antonio de Herrera, criado de su Majestad, y su Coronista mayor de las Indias, de los sucessos de Francia, desde el año de 1585 que començò la liga Catolica, hasta fin del año 1594 (Madrid, 1598).
 * Sucesos de Milán or Informacion en hecho, y relacion de lo que passo en Milan, en las competencias entre las jurisdicciones Eclesiastica y Seglar, desde el año de 1595 hasta el de 1598, escrita por Antonio de Herrera... (1599 and 1609), two editions.
 * Tratado de los movimientos de Aragón or Tratado, relacion y discurso historico de los mouimientos de Aragon sucedidos en los años de mil y quinientos y nouenta y vno, y de mil y quinientos y nouenta y dos: y de su origen y principio hasta que... Filipe II... compuso y quieto las cosas de aquel Reyno (Madrid, 1612).
 * Comentarios de los hechos de los españoles, franceses y venecianos en Italia, y de otras Repúblicas, Potentados, Príncipes y Capitanes famosos italianos, desde el año 1281 hasta el de 1559 (Madrid, 1624).
 * Discursos morales, políticos e históricos inéditos de don Antonio de Herrera, Cronista del Rey don Felipe Segundo, autor de las Décadas de Indias y de otras muchas obras (Madrid, 1804), a work published many years after Herrera's death.

Further works of Herrera are known to us, some of them no longer extant but whose existence is recorded:
 * Elogio a Don Baltasar de Zúñiga, Comendador mayor de León, del Consejo de Estado y Presidente del supremo de Italia, de Antonio de Herrera.
 * Elogio de Antonio de Herrera, Coronista del Rey... a Don Iuan de Zúñiga.
 * Elogio de Vaca de Castro, por Antonio de Herrera.
 * Exequias de la Reina Doña Margarita de Austria, muerta el 3 de octubre de 1611, por Antonio de Herrera, impresa por orden y a costa de la ciudad de Segovia.

Translations
Herrera also undertook translations, including the following:
 * Historia de la guerra entre turcos y persianos, escrita por Iuan Tomas de Minadoy... (Madrid, 1588), by Giovanni Tomaso Minadoi da Rovigo. From Italian to Spanish, in four volumes.
 * Diez libros de la razón de Estado; con tres libros de las causas de la grandeza, y magnificencia de las ciudades de Iuan Botero (Madrid, 1592), by Giovanni Botero. From Italian to Spanish. It was republished two more times: in Barcelona (1599) and in Burgos (1603).
 * Advertencias que los catholicos de Inglaterra embiaron a los de Francia en el cerco de París (1592). From French to Spanish.
 * Batalla espiritual y arte de seruir a Dios, con la Corona y Ledania de la Virgen Maria, compuesto por el Cardenal de Fermo... (Madrid, 1607), by Serafino da Fermo. From Italian to Spanish.
 * Los cinco libros primeros de los Annales de Cornelio Tacito: que comienzan desde el fin del Imperio de Agusto hasta la muerte de Tiberio... (Madrid, 1615), by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus. From Latin to Spanish.
 * Descripción de las Indias Occidentales (1622), his own work, translated into Latin for publication in the Netherlands.

Manuscripts
About fifteen of his manuscripts are collected in the Biblioteca Nacional de España, including a draft of the Crónica de los Turcos, an essay inspired by the death of the queen of France and other writings on French history, writings on the history of Portugal, 23 essays on the laws and customs of the Canary Islands, and various letters, encomiums, and treatises.

title: Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Mars Ship

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russian Mars Ship
This article seems to meet the unverifiability criteria. At best we have a hearsay claim reported in a Western media source which by its nature is given to hyping future technological advances which may or may not come to pass.

Although secrecy marked the Soviet space program, since the breakup of the USSR its history has been well documented by Russians and Western observers alike. An extensive look at this topic on the Russian Space Web shows only a history of models and proposals, no completed vehicles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an article based solely upon a single journalist being told by tour guides about a ship that no-one else has ever shown to exist and that the journalist is (of course) not allowed to see. Unverifiable.  This is no Lieutenant Kije.  Delete unless the article can be wholly rewritten so that it is verifiable. Uncle G 14:07, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless some verification of the information is forthcoming. --BM 14:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. Only reason for having an article was if this was notable as a rumor or a hoax, which doesn't seem to be the case. JoaoRicardo 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, needs cleanup - have done a little. Thought i was a space junkie .. i never knew about this or Polyus spacecraft. Which actually seems to have existed. Could get lodged under proposed russian spacecraft along with Polypus and Buran or a 'failed space projects' section or at Category:Soviet_space_program. Please excuse my sad enthusiasm .. soviet space tech is/was astonishing! max rspct 20:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Sadly, the information in this article would do better as a subsection of a broader topic, as per Max rspct's suggestion.variable 21:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is clearly worthy of expansion and maybe a little sprucing up Cooter08865
 * Delete, unencyclopedic rumour about a trivial hoax. Wyss 10:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Oralism

Oralism is the education of deaf students through oral language by using lip reading, speech, and mimicking the mouth shapes and breathing patterns of speech. Oralism came into popular use in the United States around the late 1860s. In 1867, the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts, was the first school to start teaching in this manner. Oralism and its contrast, manualism, manifest differently in deaf education and are a source of controversy for involved communities. Listening and Spoken Language, a technique for teaching deaf children that emphasizes the child's perception of auditory signals from hearing aids or cochlear implants, is how oralism continues on in the current day.

16th and 17th century
Fray Pedro Ponce de León (1520-1584) is often credited as the inventor of deaf education. Later, Juan Pablo Bonet (c. 1579–1633) will publish Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos, which circulated widely as a foundation method for teaching. Bonet was an oralist that defended the use of words to communicate, but also incorporated the use of sign language.

Early 18th century
Since the beginning of formal deaf education in the 18th century in the United States, manualism and oralism have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day. Oralism as the systematic education of deaf people began in Spain in the mid-1500s and was the byproduct of socioeconomic motives. The church barred deaf people from Holy Communion because they could not confess aloud. Deaf people were also prohibited from inheriting their family's wealth; therefore, to preserve the family wealth, deaf heirs in Spain were sent to Pedro Ponce de Leon after hearing that he taught a deaf man to talk in San Salvador Monastery in Oña. Oralism provided members of the privileged classes with deaf children a way to channel their children's education and an opportunity to keep them away from the deaf community. Speaking has been associated with the higher classes and higher intellect, and the perception of signing has been the opposite.

Schools
Before the Clarke School for the Deaf (now the Clarke School for Hearing and Speech) made its mark in deaf American education in the 1860s, there was a popular support of manualism. Manual language soon became a less popular choice for deaf education due to the new Darwinist perspective. Clarke School for the Deaf in 1867 became a "mainstream service" for deaf students through creating a "learn to listen" mentality. This was done through the proper training of educators in auditory/oral education. Since its start, Clarke School has expanded and provided support for oral communication within deaf education and policy.

It has been remarked that, in the United States, the better-funded northern schools switched to oralism while their poorer southern counterparts kept signing because it was difficult to hire new oralist teachers.

Policy
In relation to the early 16th-century oralism in Spain, 19th-century oralists viewed oral language as a superior form of communication. Gardiner Green Hubbard, Horace Mann, Samuel Gridley Howe and Alexander Graham Bell were popular supporters of oralism and its impact on deaf education and services. Until the end of the 19th century, many educators of deaf America were deaf themselves. However, oralists like Alexander Graham Bell began to wield increasing influence. Bell and others believed in deaf assimilation with the mainstream hearing world. Bell also believed that sign language was an instrument of imprisonment and that its use prevented the "gesturer" from being a "true American". Bell had no opinion regarding whether or whom deaf people should marry. By contrast, negative eugenicists sought to stop the spread of "bad genes" through invasive measures such as mandatory placement in institutions or sterilization. Bell believed oralism was "an attractive option to sterilization". To Bell, implementation of oralism meant the possibility of a mainstream and "normal" life for deaf individuals.

In 1878, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) met in Paris to discuss the use of sign language and other issues within deaf education. During the congregation, no Deaf members were allowed to testify. In 1880, the ICED met again in Milan with 164 educators attending with one of them being deaf. This meeting created the solely oralist classroom preventing any form of sign language from being used. After the Milan conference, the Deaf community referred to this time in history as "the dark ages for deaf education in America".

Classroom
Hearing educators who could not sign replaced deaf teachers and, by the mid-20th century, eighty percent of American secondary schools for the deaf used the oral method exclusively. Some strategies, such as Total Communication or SimCom, saw classes conducted in a mixture of spoken and signed English with the teacher signing along, in English word order as they delivered their lecture. For example, is, was and the, which are not used in sign, were spelled out by the teachers using the manual alphabet. Students were taught using the articulation method, which taught them how to speak and lip read. Oralists believed that signs were no more than gross holistic gestures, which stood for English words in a one-to-one correspondence. Sentences in sign were thought to have no grammar. The facial expressions, such as exaggerated movements of the mouth, tongue, eyes, and lips, suggesting grimacing or excessive emotional display, triggered horror in hearing people. Students were asked to stop moving their faces when they signed, which would later be described as equivalent to asking hearing people to speak in declarative sentences uttered in monotone.

Movement towards manualism
Even though students were not allowed to use manual signs within the classroom, many deaf students preferred manual signs and used them frequently in their dorm rooms at residential schools for the deaf. Some deaf children were considered "oral failures" because they could not pick up oral language. Others thought that the techniques of oralism actually limited them on what they were taught because they always had to concentrate on the way the words were formed, not what they meant.

Leaders of the manualist movement, including Edward M. Gallaudet, argued against the teaching of oralism because it restricted the ability of deaf students to communicate in what was considered their native language. Moreover, "attempts to eliminate sign language were tantamount to stripping them of their identity, their community, and their culture."

Policy change
The retraction of laws forbidding the use of sign language in the classroom occurred in 2010 with the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) in Vancouver. Deaf grassroots activists and the planning committee of ICED created a solution to provide proper education to the deaf globally.

Modern usage
Oralism is no longer used to teach language or communication in the United States. Parental use of the oral approach typically stems from a parental desire for their child to use a spoken language to communicate with the majority hearing population. They also feel the use of a spoken language will further their child's literacy and written language skills in the classroom. Some researchers believe that the success of the oral approach in a classroom setting had not been fully evaluated. Recent research has demonstrated that an oral education using Listening and Spoken Language can provide most deaf children with spoken language skills that are equivalent to those of their hearing peers if using a cochlear implant, which is a hotly debated device in the Deaf community.

Oral schools
Clarke Schools for Hearing and Speech: focus on helping deaf and hard of hearing children develop spoken English and listening skills. The school's goal is to prepare students for the mainstream setting.

Cleary School: focus on ASL and spoken English in its elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. Their Pre-K focuses on spoken English.

Memphis Oral School for the Deaf: teaching children to develop their spoken and written English skills by teaching children in spoken English.

Moog Center for Deaf Education: provides listening and spoken language services to children who are deaf or hard of hearing, ages birth to early elementary years, and their families.

Tucker Maxon School: a spoken-language early intervention and Pre-K through 5th grade educational institution based in Portland, Oregon. Enrollment includes children who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as children with typical hearing in an inclusive, co-enrolled, mutually beneficial classroom environment. The school's mission is to teach "deaf and hearing children to listen, talk, learn, and achieve excellence together".

Efficacy
There have been few quantitative evaluations regarding the long-term outcomes of oral programs for deaf individuals, but those that do exist tend to study this in relation to children with cochlear implants. One study compared the English development of deaf children with a cochlear implant versus what the English development might have been without the implant. English development was greater and more successful for the implanted deaf child than that of the non-implanted child based on the implementation of a predictive model. The predictive model employs age, residual hearing, and communication mode used by the child to predict the language development. Although deaf implanted children are already at a disadvantage for English development when compared to their hearing counterparts, the implant, on average, reduced what could have been an even larger deficit had the child not been implanted (based on the predictive model). The authors recommend implanting the child as early as possible.

The studies did not consider how a non-implanted child exposed to a signed language and a bilingual/bicultural education could develop English skills in relation to a hearing child's English development. Multiple studies find that by ensuring a deaf child has access to American Sign Language, their overall academic performance is better than those who are not.

Communication in oral-deaf students without cochlear implants is typically less frequent and less complex than hearing peers of the same age. These expressed communications are less clear than that of their hearing peers. Linguistically, these communications are typical of the language skills seen much earlier in their hearing counterparts. Despite efforts to encourage the sole reliance on speech and spoken language in oral schools, some oral-deaf individuals developed sign systems among themselves in non-supervised settings. Additionally, oral-deaf children often used manual gestures/signs simultaneously or in addition to vocalizations during expressive communications at home.

Some studies have called into question the role of developing spoken language skills in relation to developing reading skills. One study in particular demonstrated that while individuals who became deaf before developing spoken language did show a decreased ability to differentiate between the phonological properties of a language, they showed equal capability of recognizing and understanding the orthographic properties of what they were reading. In fact, compared to their hearing counterparts, the deaf individuals showed an increased rate of written word processing skills as they increased in age. Altogether, this research provided evidence contrary to the belief that spoken skills are critical to the development of reading skills, and further proposes that educational approaches should include a stronger focus on building awareness of written language forms separate from the related aural aspects.

There is little existing research on the social, professional, and mental health of deaf individuals using oral methods in comparison to those using other methods of education and communication. However, some studies suggest that social-emotional outcomes for deaf children who use cochlear implants and spoken language are statistically significantly higher than those of their signing deaf counterparts in a world made for ableism.

There also was no accurate predictor of oralism's success in the classroom.

Social
It is reported by some that deaf children in an oral setting may feel depressed, anxious or experience aloneness and embarrassment.

Oralism in other countries

 * Argentina
 * Brazil
 * Italy
 * Mexico
 * Spain

Oralism in Argentina
Oralism in Argentina pertains to a pedagogical approach in the realm of deaf education. It underscores spoken language and lipreading as the principal modes of communication and instruction for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. This method has generated considerable discussion and disagreement within the Argentine deaf community. Proponents of oralism assert its efficacy in facilitating the integration of deaf individuals into the wider hearing society. Conversely, critics advocate for the use of sign language, viewing it as a naturally occurring and culturally significant form of communication. This educational debate continues to be a prominent issue among experts and stakeholders in Argentina's deaf education landscape.

History
The history of oralism in Argentina can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, marked by the introduction of European methods of oral education for the deaf within the country. Prior to the widespread acceptance of oralism, deaf education in Argentina was predominantly influenced by manualism, a pedagogical approach centered on the use of sign language as the primary mode of communication. A pivotal moment in this historical narrative occurred with the establishment of the Instituto Nacional de Sordomudos (National Institute for the Deaf) in Buenos Aires in 1882. This institution played a notable role in advocating for oralism as the preferred instructional method. Its stance was strongly influenced by the Milan Conference of 1880, which championed oralism over sign language as the superior approach in the education of the deaf. The Argentine Association for the Deaf (Asociación Argentina de Sordomudos), founded in 1887, also contributed significantly to the promotion of oralism in Argentina's deaf education landscape. Over time, educational institutions dedicated to deaf education in Argentina began adopting oralist methodologies. Oralist schools were established, and educators received training in these methods. This era witnessed a decline in the use of sign language as the primary instructional mode.

Escuela de Sordos in Hospital de Rehabilitación Manuel Rocca
This oralist school is situated in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It offers educational services that include both kindergarten and primary school levels. With an enrollment of 172 students, the institution maintains a low student-to-teacher ratio, averaging approximately six students per class. In addition to traditional academic programs, the school provides a range of workshops to enrich students' learning experiences. One feature of this educational institution is its flexibility, allowing students to concurrently attend regular mainstream schools while benefiting from the specialized services offered by the oralist school. This approach enables students to complement their education and develop a diverse skill set. The school operates with both morning and afternoon shifts. The establishment features the Assistance Pedagogy Service, staffed by an interdisciplinary team dedicated to providing comprehensive care to disabled children. This team conducts ongoing evaluations of each student's progress and needs, fostering a holistic and inclusive approach to education. The Escuela de Sordos in Buenos Aires, Argentina, plays a crucial role in offering specialized educational services to deaf and hard of hearing students, promoting inclusive and personalized learning experiences within the region.

Controversy and Opposition
One of the primary criticisms of oralism is that it can result in limited language acquisition for deaf individuals. Learning spoken language and lip-reading can be challenging, and some deaf individuals may struggle to develop language skills at the same level as their hearing peers. This can lead to difficulties in academic achievement and overall communication. Some critics argue that an exclusive focus on oralism can lead to social isolation for deaf individuals. Without a strong foundation in sign language, which may be more accessible and natural for many deaf individuals, they might struggle to communicate effectively within the deaf community. This can result in feelings of isolation and exclusion. The use of sign language has been shown to support cognitive development in deaf individuals, just as spoken language does for hearing individuals. Critics of oralism argue that by discouraging the use of sign language, cognitive development might be hindered, potentially affecting learning, problem-solving, and other cognitive abilities. Many within the deaf community view sign language as an integral part of their cultural identity. An exclusive focus on oralism can undermine the preservation and promotion of deaf culture and identity, as sign language is a crucial aspect of this culture. Emphasizing oralism may send the message that deaf individuals should strive to be more like hearing individuals rather than embracing their unique identity. Learning to speak and lip-read can be stressful and exhausting for some deaf individuals. The pressure to conform to oralist methods and expectations can lead to emotional and psychological stress, potentially impacting their overall well-being and mental health. While some individuals may thrive using oralist methods, others may struggle significantly. The effectiveness of oralism can vary widely based on factors such as the degree of hearing loss, individual communication preferences, and the availability of appropriate resources and support. With advancements in technology such as cochlear implants and hearing aids, the landscape of deaf education has evolved. While these technologies can facilitate oral communication for some, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some deaf individuals may not benefit from or have access to these technologies, and the push for exclusive oralism might overlook their needs. In some cases, the exclusive focus on oralism can lead to a phenomenon known as "language deprivation." This occurs when a deaf individual is not exposed to a full and rich linguistic environment, which can have long-lasting effects on their cognitive and language development.

title: Oralism


text: Category:Communes of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence