Talk:Immigration Voice

message: 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)
thread_title:  Immigration Voice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous NPOV War 

message: 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.OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines for editing article

message: Alex Nowrasteh, President Trump’s Immigration Plans, Cato Institute, Washington DC, 2016 
 
Claire Felter, Danielle Renwick, The U.S. Immigration Debate, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY, 2018
Laws, Immigration Voice, Immigration Voice , Santa Clara, CA, 2017  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maartaacruz (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Official domain is on English Wikipedia blacklist