Talk:Immigration Voice

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maartaacruz. Peer reviewers: Holbrook.alex98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Immigration Voice
The article is about what the organization does, and links to media articles about it.

The posters on this discussion seem to be expressing some inflammatory views in an anonymous manner.

The discussion comments here are heavily biased.

There is no section within the article that is specifically disputed by the posters.

Looks like one person dissatisfied with experience on web forums trying to defame the entire organization.

Looks like the people who created and polished this article are Immigration Voice members. They are trying, of course, to advocate their POV. They talked about green card equality. Yes, but why they use the word equality? What makes them feel inequality? Compared with what? Yeah, it is the per country head count green card policy, the intention of which is diversity and inclusion. Yeah, Indians feel unequal because they are the main source of green card applicants, so they try to lift the per country policy, so they can use up the head count that should belongs to other countries, and they call this equality for all green card applicants! The whole article is uncensored POV. Who can verify that this organization is fighting for green card equality for all? They are just trying to break the equality for themselves, the Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.178.5 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The intention of the per-country cap was NOT diversity. There is a separate Diversity Visa category for that purpose as intended by Congress. The high-skilled category i.e. Employment-based visas were NOT meant to discriminate or privilege anyone on basis of race, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. The cap, therefore, was and is, out of line with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punekar (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim Punekar? Here's what a Democratic Senator wrote me: "Further, the INA stipulates that no group of family-based or employment-based immigrants from a single country can receive more than seven percent of the total visas given in each preference category. The objective of this limitation is to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration flows.  This helps diversify the people who immigrate to our country." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodzillaAvenger (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mehr- What a Democratic senator may or may not have said to you anecdotally does not count as evidence. There is NO congressional record or legal basis to claim that Employment-based visa category should have diversity. In fact, the very fact that a Diversity Visa category exists triggers the legal principle of Expressio unius, exclusio alterius (here explicitly, so not there). The onus is on you to prove that there was ANY congressional intent for diversity in this category. Until you can provide such a reference, I will be reverting your changes. Also, IV works for ALL immigrants, not Indian immigrants alone. The national origin discrimination in the country caps affects Indian-origin immigrants disproportionately, as it does Chinese immigrants. IV has both Indian and Chinese immigrants who are members. Also, there are non-Indian and non-Chinese American members. These are details that can be verified simply by looking at IV's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punekar (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Punekar. As for your first comment, The Department of State's Operation of the Numerical Control Process Manual explicitly states that (page 3) "The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries." This has also been referenced in this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, so unless you are claiming that you understand immigration law better than both the DoS and CRS, I think it is clear that the purpose of the per-country caps in the 1990 INA has been diversity all along. Second, I could not find any information about who IV represents on their current website or the legacy one, so you have to be more specific, the same way you asked me to be. Besides, IV's website is not a reliable source. How is it that whatever I write is somehow POV, but whatever IV claims on their website is not? IV can claim whatever it wants on its website, it doesn't mean that it's true. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) "claims" to be a "pro-immigrant" organization, but the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated it as an "anti-immigrant" organization. In the same way, IV "claims" to be "pro-immigrant, pro-immigration, and pro-US worker" (which is such an oxymoron), yet its chief policy proposal, the "Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act", only benefits Indian EB applicants, to the detriment of everyone else. This is clear from this article by the Cato Institute, where it's shown that the policy proposal increases wait times for even Chinese EB applicants. To be fair, visiting IV's website had some benefits. For instance, I learned that Neil Patel sits on IV's board, the same guy who runs the extremist right-wing news website "The Daily Caller" that has published white supremacist articles in the past. I also found it quite funny that IV is so concerned with how people are treated by the H-1B system and yet none of its policy proposals address anything remotely related to the H-1B system and instead take aim at the EB immigration system. Good stuff!

Ridiculous NPOV War
I find it amusing someone finds a blog named 'ivsucks' to be having a neutral POV. It proves the whole NPOV dispute to be a sham deliberately perpetrated by certain disgruntled individuals. Providing a blog, not read by anyone besides it's anonymous author, as a third party makes one suspect this to be deliberate attempt to tarnish the organization based on hearsay.Trackkit itself has a long history of deleting posts sympathetic to IV from its forums. IVs interest in ending immigration backlog hurts the business interests of websites like Trackkit that thrive on backlogs and the misery of suffering immigrants.

I find it amusing someone keeps deleting and reverting my criticism for the organization out of the excuse that I am writing my uncensored POV. Yeah, the article talks about IV fights for green card equality. But I have to correct that it is only fighting green card "equality" for Indians. They are too many Indian green card applicants waiting due to the per country policy, so they try to lift this policy to expedite their process, which must slow down applicants from other countries for 6 years. Is this equality? Either way, Immigration Voice is not Immigration Voice but Indian Immigration Voice. This article hijacked immigration voice from other groups, especially minority groups, to fight for their so called equality, which is misleading. The gist of this article that it is fighting for green card equality is then uncensored POV. Please prove IV is fighting equality for all applicants. If they can't, please label this article as Indian immigration voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.178.5 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for editing article
The article as of this revision is a simple statement of what the organization does, and includes reliable sources that establish the organization's notability. There is room for expansion; material that can be sourced to any of the existing reliable sources on that page could be added, as well as additional material that is linked to new sources that meet guidelines. Forums and attack sites do not meet WP:Reliable sources policies.

Soapbox material has been removed from the article, as Wikipedia is not a complaint forum. Attempts are routinely made to do the same on other articles (i.e., disgruntled customers complaining about their experiences with their insurance companies) and those are routinely removed as well. If a reliable source (e.g., Washington Post, Times of India, etc.) published an article documenting complaints about an organization, that would be a different story, and in such a case it may be appropriate to add critical material derived from that source.OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section of this article needs a lot more work in order to meet Wikipedia standards. The linked reference doesn't actually criticize the subject of this article, and the entire section relies on a single source - Center for Immigration Studies - which is not a high-quality reliable source. SurpriseAndDelight (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Official domain is on English Wikipedia blacklist
The domain immigrationvoice.org, the official web domain of Immigration Voice (the subject of this Wikipedia article) is on the local blacklist (English Wikipedia blacklist). The domain appears to have been blacklisted in March 2017 along with 26 websites for immigration lawyers who offer legal services.

It is possible to have domains removed the blacklist. Searching the archives, I see two requests to remove the domain from the blacklist. The first request, made in 2018 by a student, was declined. Someone without a username made a particularly well-cited request in 2019 that was also declined. The suggestion from an administrator (Dirk Beetstra, who appears to live in Saudi Arabia and may not be well-versed in U.S. politics or the difference between lawyers and advocates) was to use the 'whitelist' to request an exemption for every single citation to the website (the entire domain would continue to remain blacklisted on English Wikipedia, but specific pages on that domain can be petitioned to be be allowed, on a case-by-case basis, for citation).

Given that state of play, I suggest hiding the blacklist tag on the article, and making whitelist requests for specific pages going forward. SurpriseAndDelight (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , just request whitelisting at WT:SWL and add the site. Note that in this case you will need to ask for whitelisting of an about page or other neutral landing page.  Top domain will not be whitelisted. Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Original Research
Could you identify only the texts that contain the original research and reach a consensus for the deletion? I reverted your revision because you basically reverted everything by saying they're original research, but in fact there are many texts closely related to the article with good sources (e.g. Immigration Voice's organization information and its advocation of Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act) There may be issues on the description for `Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act` in lede and I do see the same texts are copied in the History section, but that doesn't justify a full removal all other content - 2001:558:6045:27:501A:5E5:E7EA:C2A (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * None of the sources are sufficient for the article as it is currently written. The organization's tax returns and press releases are not secondary sources; at most, they could support statements about how the organization describes itself and its work.  The secondary sources that are present do not mention Immigration Voice; the mere fact that they talk about immigration proposals that the organization may be involved with is not sufficient to support statements in the article about the organization.  (See Coatrack articles.)
 * Since its creation over 16 years ago, this article has bounced back and forth as people add material biased either in favor of or against the organization. Nobody has actually written neutral content that is supported by secondary sources.  It seems like such sources might exist, so I haven't proposed that the article be deleted, but almost nothing in the article can stay as it is, which is why I reduced it to a stub.
 * With all the junk removed from the article, interested editors can build it up properly, instead of twisting it one way or the other. A blank canvas attracts paint. —Emufarmers(T/C) 05:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The pre-existing content in article provided good information about what Immigration Voice does (e.g. advocate Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act and address government delays on immigrants), and the secondary sources provided enough information to support most of them. They're good reference and not Coatrack articles, but your removal of all of them is just Unexplained content removal.
 * For the Coatrack articles, you have to give explicit explanation on which text is indeed coatracks rather than deleting everything with such a vague explanation. (Originally, you claimed the reason to be original research and now the coatrack and still simply removed everything as before, and I don't think it's justifiable to remove everything when many existing texts are there that's still informative and relevant to the subject).
 * By checking the points you made (NPOV/OR/Coatrack), I do see there's content indeed problematic and updated the 2 parts below
 * 1. Claiming IV lobbies "Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act" but to the detriment of employment-based applicants of every other nationality  - I don't see any reference directly claimed both the lobbying and the detrimental to other countries, so removing this as it's synthesis of published material and possibly also breaching NPOV/coatrack
 * 2. the description of advisory board and extreme right-wing news website The Daily Caller - This sounds coatrack to emphasize "extreme right-wing" and cherrypicking one of the 2 boards members, I rephrased and added more information with reference.
 * Let's work on improving the article rather than the removal of all texts without explicit reasons. It would be helpful if you can point the exact texts/paragraph that's problematic or violating the policies so we can decide how to improve -2001:558:6045:27:501A:5E5:E7EA:C2A (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, sorry for the delay. I determined that every paragraph was problematic, so I removed every paragraph.  I did not provide a sentence-by-sentence analysis, because it's the same basic problem with every sentence (lack of support for the text from secondary sources), and because it's the inclusion, not the removal, of each sentence that needs justification.  But since you've asked:
 * The first paragraph makes claims about what the organization says it does and what it actually does, with sources that do not support those claims. The CRS source does at least mention the organization in footnote 57; the other two sources do not mention the organization at all.
 * The first sentence in the paragraph in the "History" section makes the same claims, with the same sources. The second sentence is cited to (and is a close paraphrase of) a press release from the organization, which is not a secondary source. (Subsequent edits have added additional uncited material here and throughout the article.)
 * The next paragraph is cited to a press release.
 * The next paragraph is cited to a source which does not mention the organization.
 * The next paragraph is cited to a press release.
 * As is typical for a poorly referenced article about a contentious topic, the article also suffers from neutrality problems in every sentence. Removing biased language, as you did, is good, but it does not fix the fundamental problem that nothing in the article is properly cited.  Adding a secondary source, and conforming the text to that source, as you also did, does help fix that problem.  If you plan to do that for every sentence in the article, then that would go a long way toward getting the article into better shape.
 * I certainly want the article to say more about the subject, rather than less! But it needs to say things in a way that's minimally compliant with our policies, or it shouldn't say them at all, and it has sat like this for long enough&mdash;and is contentious and BLP-adjacent enough&mdash;that I'm not inclined to just put a bunch of tags on the article and hope somebody fixes it someday.  Since the previous material is accessible in the edit history, it will always be available for anyone to use if they find it more helpful than starting from scratch. —Emufarmers(T/C) 09:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I got really busy recently and didn't check the comment. If you can point the text that's still problematic, I'm happy to remove if I can't find a good reference. The thing is that many of the texts are technically correct and informative but got deleted in your past edit. I hope the current text is much better after some deletions and consolidations - the same IP user 03:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:27:E55C:A9F6:2CE8:FAAE (talk)