Talk:Colorado Center for the Blind

Colorado Center for the Blind is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

United States: Colorado

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

[Untitled]

This article is created as a project of the Colorado Center for the Blind. We hope anyone will make corrections as needed or contact us if you need factual information for this article.Leidseplein (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Tag and Sources Tag

Insofar as the tag for sources, I will update with reputable cites from published news sources.

As for the notability tag, this is an example of gross bias made by an overzealous sighted editor. In the blind world, this is one of only 3 such centers in America and is as notable to the blind as any major university is to those with sight. The blind have extreme difficulty using the internet in general and Wikipedia in particular. They suffer from roadblocks to the creation of articles in terms of process as well as a bias from sighted editors that effectively excludes their participation on the basis of "lack of notability" to those with sight.

The Colorado Center for the Blind is as notable as any local high school to the Denver community. To the global blind community, it is much more notable than most every school for the sighted and is one of the very rare resources available to their culture. There is a real problem in Wikipedia in that it is edited by proud males of nearly identical social, economic, racial and political background; but less known is how discriminatory Wikipedia is to those with disabilities such as loss of sight. Leidseplein (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of aggressive attack language, and assumption of malicious intention, is not warranted. If anything, both my job and my editing efforts focus on fixing WP:Systematic bias on Wikipedia. Remember, we should assume that every editor is participating in good faith

On Wikipedia Notability is created through demonstrating multiple Reliable sources independent of the topic. These sources could be newspapers, specialist periodicals, or anything else with an editorial control. This might be a different assumption than in other publications, but we use this to. If I had seriously doubted that this was an encyclopedic topic, I would have Nominated the article for deletion. The tag, is designed to give advice, for how to maintain the content, so others don't question the inclusion of the topic in the Encyclopedia. Sadads (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leidseplein: Fixing ping, Sadads (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and this talk page are not forums for virtue signaling and the advertising of your good intentions. There is no "aggressive attack language" nor is there any "assumption of malicious intention" in the words on this talk page. There is nothing about you personally, it is about the article's editing. This is an ACCUSATION OF BIASED EDITING based on the exclusive enforcement of values and assumptions typical of a white male with a non-disabled background. Remember, you effectively prohibit people without sight from participating in Wikipedia by questioning the notability of the articles that are important and notable in the blind community. Instead of adding to the value of Wikipedia by 'fixing' the article yourself, you take it as your highest duty to defend your intentions and motivations. Finally, you threaten other editors with your lawyering and frightfully quantify your intimidating power by reminding us just how generous you were for not recommending this article for deletion.

This article is not about you.

I'll fix the article when I have time but I ask you to disengage from this page as you are mainly concerned with promoting yourself and pedantic displays of your Wikipedia expertise. If you feel this article needs more review, let's get someone else who isn't caught up in themselves so much and who is less discriminatory to those with disabilities. Leidseplein (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

secondary sources added

I added a number of sources to address the tags placed on this article. Since I did not agree more sources were needed for such a small article of no controversial topic, I will leave it to some other editor to remove the tags or edit further. Leidseplein (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags, because the extra little bit of work you did, based on the feedback from the tags, has made sure that the article will endure through our community processes (especially the ones that lead to the deletion of content. Thank you for the extra bit of work, and I hope for future articles you write, you remember to include Independent reliable sources. Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]