Talk:National Federation of the Blind

Response to complete rewrite
I like the old version better than the completely rewritten version of the article. Although it was unreferenced, it was less POV. If no objections, I am reverting it back to the older version and marking it as unreferenced. Tuxide 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to combine the two versions. Academic Challenger 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

American Foundation for the Blind notation needs reference
Reference #10, the 2010 winners of the scholarship, the Fobes link is broken and should either be removed or fixed. BillMcVay (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The "See Also" section contains a reference to the "American Foundation for the Blind" which is otherwise unreferenced in the main article. The reference, however, includes the notation "formerly a rival organization controlled by agencies that were against the NFB" which seems entirely out of place and unsubstantiated. If this is to be included I think it needs to be addressed in the main body of the article perhaps in a "Relationships with other Blindness Organizations" section (which might also be a good place for some of the ACB related material) Bondolo 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article written like an advertisement?
It doesn't appear so to me. It seems fairly factual and objective in my opinion? 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing factual or objective in the article its bias and unsourced, it praises products and pulications by NFB and appears to be written by people with a stake in promoting the NFB. Gnangarra 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Please separate the issues of the need for secondary sources and the "advertising" issue. You have not done so, other than with your own opinion. I disagree with your opinion. Lots of articles make positive statements about their subjects. Saying something positive is not necessarily biased or "advertising". Please back it up with something factual. If you can't do that the deleted information needs to be restored pending a consensus to remove it. As I have time I will find secondary sources, but in the mean time you need to provide something more than your opinion as a basis for wholesale removal. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to include material the onus is on you to provide sourcing and write the text in accordance of our policies. Gnangarra 08:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally sources need to be independent of the subject see WP:RS the sources you have added are self references//primary sources except the Forbes one. Gnangarra 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On further investigation of the Forbes link about scholarships is to a Press release from NFB as such its also a primary source fails WP:RS Gnangarra 09:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You still have not provided evidence, other than your opinion, that the article is written like an advertisement. I assume you don't have any evidence. You also are making it very difficult to assume good faith in this matter, attempting to declare every source as unreliable. If Forbes obtains information from NFB and then publishes it, Forbes is still a secondary source. News organization frequently obtain information from primary sources, examine it for reliability, then publish it. It is a secondary source. I'm trying to cooperate with you here, but if you continue on this path of challenging anything and everything, I must assume that your motivations are not simply to improve the article. Have you focused this intensely on challenging other articles related to disability consumer organizations? Why have you singled out the NFB article for such special treatment? 71.77.20.119 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added an article from the New York Times as a secondary source. Does this meet your personal standards for a secondary source, or do I have to set up an RfC to declare it a secondary source simply because the NYT obtained some of its information directly from the NFB? If the NYT says something positive about the NFB or anyone else, will you object because it is "advertising"? 71.77.20.119 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT doesnt mention any controversial lawsuit, its assert the the second part about NFB saying it was discrimination so have moved the source to that but the controversy claim needs to be sourced. The Accessible world.org source doesnt support the text, additionally its a primary source because its a talk by the NFB National Sales rep. If Forbes writes about NFB then its a secondary, but this case Forbes it has posted the Press release from NFB and attributes NFB that makes it a primary source as it is not independent of the source. My assertion about advertising is that the article is written in a bias manor and makes positive assertions about the NFB products based solely on NFB sources(primary sources). You have yet to provide any sources that even remotely appear to meet the requirement of WP:NOTABILITY of substancial coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject I have been acting in WP:AGF during this whole process you have yet address Wikipedias pillars of NPOV, We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view and not an advertising platform. You can make what ever assumptions you like, I dont need to have edited or challenged any other article on disabilities to question this one, in my 5 years of editting here I asked questions about and investigated the suitability of many sources over many different articles. Where the article is about an apparantly notable subject my preference is to see the article improved through the addition of sources that meet the requirements as decided by the community through the policies WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. This article has been tagged since 2007 as requiring sources when I come upon articles that have been in such a state for a long period of time I make an assessment as to whether it should be deleted via WP:CSD, WP:AFD or whether it salvagable seeing as another editor was making a spoken version of this article I thought it more appropriate to highlight the seriousness of the problems. By doing so I can also identfy if there any editors(like you) that are interested in improving the aricle, you appear to have a relationship with the subject by the way you are editing. Such relationships are useful if the editor can be encouraged to follow policies because they have a better understanding of the subject. I'm happy to help and encourage your efforts in sourcing the article according to policies and rewriting it from a neutral perspective focusing on encyclopaedic material. Gnangarra 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the subject. I don't have a "relationship" with the subject. Since I am familiar with it, I thought it might be helpful if I could gradually improve the article despite a lot of other pressing issues in my professional and personal life. You have been anything except encouraging. So here's my plan. I'll chip away at this article, after which you can tear down everything I attempt to do. Then if/when it is deleted because you never gave it a chance, I can nominate for deletion about 15 more articles pertaining to organizations of and for disabled groups for the very same reasons that you have zeroed in on to destroy this article. Then when all the objections arise, I'll point the disgruntled editors in your direction. "I'm happy to help and encourage your efforts": If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Since attempting to discuss with you does nothing except make you more hellbent on destroying the article, I see no point in further "discussion" with you. If you wish to template me or report me at WP:ANI for assuming bad faith, go ahead. I fully admit it, with lots of reasons. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)