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

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)