Talk:Immigration Equality (organization)

Possible sources

• New gay immigration bill introduced, Philadelphia Gay News

Notability

I did some source checking and it doesn't appear that the article has met the notability criteria as of yet. WP:NOTABLE. Some issues with the sources:

• 1 Burda: trivial mention, basically a Yellow Page listing
• 2 Green: trivial mention relating to Pena case
• 3 HIVPlus: trivial mention... A single quote regarding the travel ban. They also printed the organizations' mission statement from a press release. Article may have a reliability issue since it is unsigned, and is HIVPlus a reliable 3rd party source with robust editorial review?
• 4 Their website is self-published. It's OK as a primary source, but does not establish notability under any circumstances
• 5 Carroll: trivial mention of a stat (36K)
• 6 Sullivan: self published blog - this source is unacceptable in WP should be deleted
• 7 Their website again
• 8 Mangaliman: trivial mention of 55 cases adjudicated
• 9 Roberts: trivial mention of stat (this time 36K)
• 10 Hendricks: trivial mention: the quote, this time 37K, and a comment from the org
• 11 Taxin: trivial mention of the stat again, 35K, and a comment from the org
• 12 Roehr: trivial mention regarding bill

Right now, this seems to be the challenge in getting this article to notability:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... WP:GNG

The non-SPS sources do not discuss the organization itself, and even when they do it is to attribute a stat or a quote from a representative and are trivial in nature. I'm going to tag the article as appropriate. Lionelt (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Note:archived as RfC opened in next section about this same issue, please keep discussion in one place.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sourced criticism is repeatedly being deleted. One source in particular, the interview with Tevin, is the article creator's own inclusion! Ironic to say the least. Lionelt (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the article creator first off and secondly no, that is not well-sourced criticism. Is is Bill O'Reilly, a notable pundit, arguing with the executive director and a NPOV statement that she appeared on the show is trivial but included anyway. What isn't included is a cherry-picked O'Reilly opinion that the legislation, which the group is supporting can be used for fraud, nor do we include statements that his opinion is refuted in that same interview and elsewhere.
The other content as well as the source removed as unreliable sourcing and likely soapaboxing after a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The New_American reliable source and is this appropriate for Immigration Equality .28organization.29 confirmed that content was not suitable.
Indeed if you have any notable criticism about this organization from reliable sources then please present them here and I'm happy to look into adding those. As for the legislation itself? It wasn't written by this group, as far as I can tell, and any notable criticism of that legislation should come from folks who are considered more authoritative on immigration legislation, especially in regards to LGBT issues.
The {{POV}} tag is not a weapon to register disgust - it is used to denote articles with rather intractable POV problems which does not seem evident here. I am not keeping any notable information off this article and welcome reliable sourcing to help more fully understand this organization. That is different than keeping problematic content and unreliable sources from degrading an article. FWIW, I would feel the same if this were an anti-LGBT group and poor content and sources were used. It makes us all look bad and all articles should strive to be well-written as well as NPOV. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The organizations's major efforts are part and parcel of who they are. It improves the article to identify who their opponents are. It provides context to show the reader how powerful their opponents are.

This org is embroiled in 3 of the most contentious issues in the public forum: AIDS, gay marriage, illegal immigration. Most of the sources note this, however, you would never know this by reading the article. Lionelt (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When an article devotes an entire section to a subject, namely Uniting American Families Act, it is fair to add criticism based on that subject. The criticism in the Tavin interview, considering she is the ED, is relevant and should be included.Lionelt (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoping I'm not talking past you as i really do understand what your stating but ... really ... you have a mistaken concept of what this article should have. We do not help by identifying the "enemies" of a group. If a reliable source states an opposition group exists or that group X disagrees with group Y's methods, agenda, etc. then look to finding a NPOV of presenting that. Instead we have some political pundits, who seem to comment on everything likely because that's their job, who have commented on teh subject area that this group works. That is not the measure for inclusion. If those pundits talk about this group in particular or it's leadership then we can go into it. A good example is PETA, they work to upset people and thus get talked about for their tactics, as a group. In contrast we don't go to every group that works on animal testing and lob in content under the umbrella of criticism unless it actually criticizes that group.
This group is not "embroiled" per se but simply doing the drudgery work of trying to enact legislation. It's generally boring work - these aren't AIDS activists by any stretch of the imagination although AIDS activists are likely to applaud their work. We give a bit of background to what the issues are but no, we do not list all those who like them or oppose them; nor do we drill down to offer up pro and con quotes about the issues in which they work. That's WP:Coatracking.
And finally no, even though we have a whole paragraph about Uniting American Families Act we don't offer up pro and con arguments about the legislation itself. If there is notable criticism or praise for the group for working on the act then include that praise or criticism of the group's work. If there is notable criticism of how the group worked on the act then include the criticism of their work. If we have proof they wrote the legislation and how they wrote it was excellent or poor then we could address that. But no, criticism of the legislation, especially WP:Cherry:cherry-picked bits presented POV are never going to work. In the long-term we look to writing NPOV with reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Dispute tags. There is hardly a consensus on RS/N regarding The New American, or even adding WP:CRITICISM to this article. Until these issues are addressed, the tag is necessary to let editors know there is discussion. Lionelt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

I presume their legal activities are a means to achieving their ultimate goal: imm. equality, which has some controversial elements, one being potential marriage fraud in the case of UAFA. Please explain how criticism in this case is different than in say, PFOX, which devotes 2 paragraphs to criticism of conv. therapy? Lionelt (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The RS/N is "No consensus": RS: Squid, Not RS: Who Then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of criticism

Attempts to add sourced criticism regarding very controversial, and primary goals of IE , such as immigration of HIV persons, and opposition of UAFA have been deleted. Lionelt (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful if you linked to a relevant diff. --FormerIP (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Lionelt first tried to delete this article then when expanded and submitted to DYK, attempted to derail that process. Now they are doing everything they can to disparage this group by injecting "criticism" with no evidence whatsoever this group has actually ever been criticized. When the John Birch Society's The New American was thrown out as a non-reliable source they looked at digging up any thing else and have tried to use "controversy" as some sort of slur against this group. Thing is, I would welcome anything reliably sourced that did show they were actually involved in any controversy - it would help round out the article and bolster their notability. Just because this group works to enact legislation that would benefit people who are living with HIV/AIDS and LGBT people hardly makes them controversial, at all.
  This latest round was to inject criticism against the Uniting American Families Act without any evidence this group wrote the legislation - likely the legislation has changed, as most legislation does - or is the chief architect. Lionelt WP:Cherry-picked an inflamatory statement from Bill O'Reilly about the legislation as criticism about this group. Sorry, we don't go onto every article and inject criticisms of subject in which they work in such a manner. That would seem to be WP:Soapboxing. If there is any actual criticism of teh group them please share it - I'm afraid they seem a bit too boring as I have yet to see any. If it's relaibly sourced then bring it on. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the points I wish to discuss:

1. This "group led the effort to change the HIV travel and immigration," according to the article. Vinson directly addresses this Ban, a major effort of IE, and his criticism should be included. [1] Vinson should be included.
2. Benjiboi's assertion that the Vinson quote [2] in The New American source "was thrown" out is patently false. Here are the results on RS/N: [3]

• User Who Then: Not RS
• User Squid: Is RS
• User Will B: MSNBC source is RS

Based on neutral opinion at RS/N, Vinson should be included provided the MSNBC source is used, as it was here [4].
3. This group "has been the principal advocate for the Uniting American Families Act." (From the article.) In fact, an entire section is devoted to IE's efforts to pass UAFA. The Executive Director appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show regarding UAFA on national TV. This was the most important appearance and greatest exposure of this group to date. It is noteworthy. Some substance of the interview should be included, for example [5], because (1) It is a milestone for IE (2) UAFA is the major goal of IE (3) It is so important an entire section is devoted to it. O'Reilly's criticism should be included in some form.
4. UAFA is controversial because groups which traditionally lobby on behalf of undocumented immigrants rights oppose UAFA because they believe UAFA will nullify the Defense of Marriage Act and confer de facto marriage on same sex couples. The controversy with similar groups is important and should be included. [6]

I think what the neutral reviewer Squidfryerchev on RS/N wrote can provide some guidance,

If we don't have an article on that law and/or if it's a primary mission of IE to change it, it could go in the article on IE.

POV is crucial to WP. If the quotes I included are inflammatory, let's work together to add sourced criticism so we can improve the article. Let's not be uncivil and edit war. Lionelt (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These points have all been addressed repeatedly. If there is any reliably sourced criticism about this group then we certainly look to includiing it, none has been presented thus far. Criticism of the legislation in which they are one of many people and groups looking to enact is misplaced on this article. Nor should it be placed on any group or individual's article unless you can prove they are the principal author. Valid criticism of this group would be along the lines of criticizing what the group does, not against one of the bits of legislation they are working on. The RSN was quite clear that the original source was not reliable and the "Vinson" quote from the unearthed more reliable source actually had nothing to do with this group. The second source doesn't even mention this group. The O'Reilly appearance discussed the legislation, not the group, and you likely also have no proof it was the most important anything - that's original research. It's also a red herring as they weren't discussion the group at all. Repeating for the umpteenth time if you actually have any reliably sourced criticism about this group it would be welcomed warmly, you have yet to show any exists. Case closed. -- Banjeboi 10:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag

Schrandit (talk · contribs), has re-added the tag, apparently at Lionelt's request. I have asked them to also present any reliably sourced criticism but will remove the POV tag if that is not quickly forthcoming and no one else removes the tag and beats me to it. -- Banjeboi 22:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: A POV tag was added again last year: in what way is this article biased? Jarble (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It is written in a highly promotional manner and resembles an advertisement for the organization. For example, the lede says "It wins 99% of its cases." There is no source for this information. Text like "Immigration Equality advocates for client-driven policy priorities such as creating comprehensive immigration reform, implementing LGBTQ-inclusive legislation and policy, and asking for accountability from decision-makers in Washington, D.C." There are too many citations to the group's own publications. Stuff like this is unsourced and promotional: "In 2015, Immigration Equality provided more than 32,704 hours of free legal service by their legal team and partners." This article could use a large overhaul to be brought up to date, up to sourcing standards, and to use a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Marquardtika (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

{{unbalanced}} tag

If the {{unbalanced}}, please explain why here. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Nathan

• Melanie Nathan, writing in LezGetReal, laments Immigration Equality's reallocation of resources in order to lobby for the Reuniting Families Act (RFA). She feels UAFA should be the primary objective and focusing on RFA to be a "lack of effective leadership." [30]
  • Nathan, Melanie (2009-07-19). "D.C. Intelligence vs. Grassroots Desperation = UAFA and Fate of Bi-Nationals". LezGetReal. Retrieved on 2009-07-24. [7]

Melanie Nathan appears to be a non-notable person writing in a blog. If so, why are we including her comment?   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:SPS --FormerIP (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was hopeful though, even the Bay Area Reporter article linked on this blog didn't pan out. Thank you you for finding it! -- Banjeboi 01:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Controversal}} tag

The topic IE may not be controversial, in your opinion. But that is not what the tag means: "A controversial issue is one where its related articles are constantly being re-edited in a circular manner, or is otherwise the focus of edit warring." WP:CONT When the {{Controversy}} tag itself is being reverted, that's when you know you're in an edit war. I think the RfC might also contribute to this being a controversial article. Lionelt (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag reads, "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them." Please discuss the major addtions you have made in the past 24 hours here. --Dr.enh (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, the tag was added after I edited the article. (Please don't suggest the sequence was intentional: I had no way of knowing you would raise this issue.) In any event, the edits were generally discussed in RfC above, and Martinez was discussed in detail (See #4). I don't know if you're aware, but you deleted text that Benjiboi and I worked on together. I'll restore it, as it is consensus and I don't want the only shred of collaboration to dissapear. BTW, I look forward to robust discussion of "substantial changes" with you over on TMM Talk page when we encounter one another again. Lionelt (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

rm b/c WP:SPS. Reminder: Lionelt and Benjiboi are not WP:OWNER. --Dr.enh (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Immigration Equality owns Fox News? The mere fact that IE hosts a copy of the interview doesn't make the source self-published.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the Immigration Equality organization is hardly controversial, some of the issues they work in may be seen by some who don't like the efforts they are working on but that is different than this group actually being controversial in any way. Please stop pretending there is smoke and fire when neither exists. -- Banjeboi 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's try it this way. I concede that the organization "Immigration Equality" is not controversial. I am restoring the tag because there is circular editing, there is edit warring, and there is RfC. If you revert the tag, please make a showing that there is no circular editing, edit warring, and no RfC. Lionelt (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so everyone is on the same page. {{Controversy}} doesn't apply to article content. It refers to the activity on the article, e.g. edit warring. You may be confusing POV dispute with Controversy dispute. Lionelt (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off. Lionelt, you are edit-warring and are headed for a block or ban at this rate. I have discussed every point raised and to date your efforts have been to delete and disrupt and when that didn't work to add "controversy" and "criticism" where neither exist. You keep missing the point that if any reliably sourced criticism existed I would have likely found and added it myself. Several others have apparently looked and also found nothing substantial to add. If anything does show up - guess what? We'll look to adding it. Until then, no, there is no controversy and there is no criticism. When there is we'll deal with it, as of yet you are the most controversial thing this article has to deal with. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular interest or prior experience with the Immigration Equality Organization. AND it seems to me that having the controversial tag on the article, regardless of what Lionelt says that their intent is, leads a reader to believe that the Immigration Equality Organizations is itself controversial. I think common sense would say that the average person who is not a Wikipedia editor would interpret the tag as a statement about the subject of the article. Alot of people who have no prior experience with this gay and lesbian advocacy organizations are likely to have their perception of the organization effected (probably negatively) because the tag is on the article. That of course is my subjective opinion and I realize that, but I think most people would agree that Wikipedia articles have a real world impact on the people and organizations that are their subjects. Based on the above, I do not think that the contoversial tag should be on the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)