Talk:Diversity Immigrant Visa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference

I can't edit the article, but the "citation needed" about the statistics can be found at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5712.html for 2012 and at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html for previous years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.117.9.173 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

The H.R. 4437 section is too short and did not present view from all sides. I'm not knowledgable on the HR-4437 so, I'm not sure how to expand it. If you're someone who knows more about this issue please expand this section.

Also, there's seems to be some companies out there that you can pay so they would enter you every year for a certain fee. And since the visa is free to register, wouldn't this be a fraud of some sort?

Danke Feureau 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Shouldn't there be redirects from "Green Card Lottery" and "Diversity Visa Lottery" to this page?

Agreed, Done, Why didn't you just do it? Dainamo 12:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I have a Diversity Visa. I did apply via an "agency", who did take a fee. This was in 1999. However the fee is to make sure that the application is sent to the correct processing center, during the short application period. I don't think what the "agencies" do is illegal. However, I would say that they do occupy an "ethically grey" area, because the agency I worked with never indicated that the application process is free. I hope this helps. AndrewItalic textbbbbbb

USCIS Warns of Impostor Websites

There are fraudulent organisations claiming to offer Green Card Lottery services. Such organisations are not sponsored by US Government and should not be referenced as recommended. There is evidence that the "services" do list themselves as offering such sevice to benefit from. USCIS Warns of Impostor Websites

The USCIS reminds the public that only Websites ending with the ".gov" suffix are official government Websites. The Web address of the official USCIS Website is www.uscis.gov.

Many other non-governmental Websites (e.g., using the suffixes ".com," ".org" or ".net") provide legitimate and useful immigration-related information and services. Regardless of the content of other Websites, USCIS does not endorse, recommend or sponsor any information or material posted at any other Website besides this one.

Furthermore, a few other non-government Websites may try to mislead customers and members of the public into thinking they are official USCIS Government Websites. These Websites may attempt to charge you for services such as for USCIS forms that are free on the USCIS or another government Website. They may also charge you for services that you may never receive. They also do not have access to official USCIS.gov immigration job application information or to official Department of Homeland Security job listings on USAJOBS.GOV, so be wary of sending any personal or biographical information that might be used for identity fraud/theft to unofficial websites. All such links to Green Card services should be removed, interested might google for and use them only at own risk.

• USCIS Warns of Impostor Websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.148.8 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility is based on birthplace not citizenship

Persons are allocated to a jurisdiction for the purpose of the Diversity Visa lottery based on their birthplace and not their current citizenship.

In exceptional cases it is possible to claim chargeability to the place a parent was born. Additionally, if one's spouse is selected in the lottery, one can receive a visa on this basis.

JAJ 04:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-Sovereign Jurisdictions

Most DV jurisdictions are sovereign countries. There are at least four exceptions where those born in one part of a country are treated differently to the majority from that country. These are:

• Northern Ireland (UK)
• Hong Kong SAR (China)
• Macao SAR (China)
• Taiwan (China). US recognises PRC as the sole government of China, however Taiwan is maintained as a separate jurisdiction for the visa lottery.
• Persons born in Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Sinkiang, and Tibet are chargeable to the limitation for China-mainland.
• Persons born in the areas administered prior to June 1967 by Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria are chargeable, respectively, to the foreign state limitation for Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.
• For the purpose of the Diversity Immigrant category only, Northern Ireland is treated as a separate visa chargeability per INA 203(c); the symbol for Northern Ireland is NIRE.
• Treated as a separate chargeability area per sec. 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990.
• Persons born in Junagadh and that portion of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by India are chargeable to the foreign state limitation for India. Persons born in that portion of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan are chargeable to the foreign state limitation for Pakistan.
• Persons born in the Habomai Islands, Shikotan, Kunashiri, Etorofu, and Southern Sakhalin are chargeable to the foreign state limitation for Japan.
• In November 1986 three of the four political components which made up the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands assumed new status and are no longer subject to the Trusteeship agreement. The Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia are now sovereign, selfgoverning states in free association with the United States; as such, each has become a separate chargeability for immigrant visa purposes. The Northern Marianas is now a Commonwealth in political union with the United States, and thus a U.S. territory; therefore, it is not a chargeability for immigrant visa purposes. The Trusteeship agreement remains in effect for Palau, however, immigrant visa applicants born in Palau continue to be properly chargeable to the limitation of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
• Madeira and the Azores are included as integral parts of Portugal.
• The Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, and the following areas of Spanish sovereignty in North Africa - Ceuta, Islas Chafarinas, Melilla, Penon de Alhucemas and Penon de Velez de la Gomera - are considered as integral parts of Spain.
• The Macau Policy Act (incorporated and enacted as Title II of Public Law 106-570) provides that the laws of the United States shall apply to Macau in the same manner as before December 20, 1999. Consequently, Macau immigrant visa numbers are chargeable to Portugal.

Some countries have dependent areas:

• AUSTRALIA:
  • Christmas Island CHRI
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands COCI
• DENMARK:
  • Greenland GRLD
• FRANCE:
  • French Guiana FRGN
  • French Polynesia FPOL
  • French Southern and Antarctic Lands FSAT
  • Guadeloupe 1 GUAD
  • Martinique MART
  • New Caledonia NCAL
  • Reunion REUN
  • St. Pierre and Miquelon SPMI
  • Wallis and Futuna WAFT
• GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:
  • Anguilla ANGU
  • Bermuda BERM
  • British Virgin Islands BRVI
  • Cayman Islands CAYI
  • Falkland Islands FKLI
  • Gibraltar GIB
  • Montserrat MONT
  • Pitcairn PITC
  • St. Helena SHEL
  • Turks and Caicos Islands TCIS
• NETHERLANDS:
  • Aruba ARB
  • Netherlands Antilles1 NETA
• NEW ZEALAND:
  • Cook Islands CKIS
  • Niue NIUE
• PORTUGAL:
  • Macau MAC
• SPAIN:
  • Western Sahara SSAH

Because the DV eligibility criteria are based on birthplace, citizenship is irrelevant, except a special case when a person was born in US and does not US citizenship.

JAJ 04:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Scams

Maybe a paragraph should be added noting the fact that entry is free of charge and is done electronically, and that third parties exploit ignorance of this fact and demand fees for the "service."

Estr4ng3d 15:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone ever consider the fact that these sites can be helpful to applicatants, who may have questions. I don't think people have to pay the fee for the application, its for making sure the application is correct. I think there should be a paragraph about that.

December 2005: Green Card Lottery Abolished

Needs citation. F15x28 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. http://www.house.gov/herseth/press_12172005_visa.html

Thanks! By the way, don't you think Bush is using terrorism as an excuse for everything? Scaring people to vote him for a second term, monitoring credit card use by international students, tapping into the privacy of all US citizens alike, attacking Saddam, stealing oil from Iraq,... and now cutting off sources of diveristy in the US? F15x28 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was Congressman Goodlatte who thought up abolishing the lottery, not Bush. BGManofID

I proudly came to the U.S. through the Diversity Immigrant Visa. To abolish it would be a joke... the U.S. doesn't want to accept 50,000 LEGAL immigrants, who are documented and checked by the government, while millions of illegal immigrants are pouring through the borders. Haha, what a joke. Noamokun

Let's place this in perspective. It would take the diversity program 20 years to bring in 1 million immigrants. At the same time, millions of illegal immigrants have flooded the U.S. over the last few years. The diversity program should be a non-issue. Noamokun

Foreign-Language Links

Does anyone think it makes sense to keep a link there to a website that is in Byelorussian only (save.greencard.by)? Besides, I don't see the point of a website that apparently aims to influence US policymaking and does not provide an English translation...

I agree and removed the link --84.191.168.243 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Legit services

There are several reputable companies providing paid value added services to green card lottery applicants such as http://www.usafis.com/ or http://www.usofficial.org offering 365 days a year service; Free airline ticket to winners to come to the USA; acceptance of photos by regular mail, email and uploading; photos update anytime; extensive winners notification by regular mail, phone, email and fax multiple times; contact details update; multiple years submission; online support to questions by experts and comprehensive instructions in multiple languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aviregev (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The BURDEN OF PROOF

Here is Johny:

If you are selected to apply for a DV visa, you will be required, before you are issued a visa, to provide evidence that you will not become a public charge in the United States.

Unless you have unlimited financial resources and are able to document that you'll support yourself without the proficeiency in English, DV Visa will not be granted to you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act: The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law. The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used. "DO DV APPLICANTS RECEIVE WAIVERS OF ANY GROUNDS OF VISA INELIGIBILITY OR RECEIVE SPECIAL PROCESSING FOR A WAIVER APPLICATION? Applicants are subject to all grounds of ineligibility for immigrant visas specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are no special provisions for the waiver of any ground of visa ineligibility aside from those ordinarily provided in the Act, nor is there special processing for waiver requests. Some general waiver provisions for people with close relatives who are American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Resident aliens may be available to DV applicants as well, but the time constraints in the DV program will make it difficult for applicants to benefit from such provisions. Applicants who obtain a DV visa are not provided any type of assistance such as airfare, housing assistance, or subsidies. If you are selected to apply for a DV visa, you will be required, before you are issued a visa, to provide evidence that you will not become a public charge in the United States. This evidence may be in the form of a combination of your personal assets, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-134) from a relative or friend residing in the United States, and/or an offer of employment from an employer in the United States."

Contradiction in ineligible list

Poland is given as ineligible, however in subsection "Changes" it is said that in 2002 Poland was removed from the list of ineligible countries. Which information is right? MikeZ 15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland was ineligible before 2002, but became eligible after immigration from Poland fell in the late 1990s. However, as immigration rose again, Poland was put back on the ineligible list for DV-2007. Somebody removed my stating that, so I fixed it again. BGManofID 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the DV Lottery System Sources/References

No sources or references given to back up these claims. --IIIWitnessIII 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the first time I've heard about the problem with rejecting people with the same name, and I doubt that's true. You would have to be really stupid to assume that two people can't have the same name and design a system with such a flaw (not to mention no one seemed to notice this before this Wikipedia guy). --pet5

Immigration Portal Website external link

"FREE Great Blog/Forum with very accurate and knowledgeable bloggers from all over the world to provide you with the answers for DV lottery questions. Mostly for Selected Win"

This is obviously not suitable for this article, but I don't know this particular site, would someone who does look over it and maybe remove the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.18.197 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Floating Question

"All Asians together is 5% of the US population. By favoring the US Irish majority, what diversity is this program promoting?" As well written and intriguing as that sentence is, are questions acceptable in a source of information?

• The US has an Irish majority? I don't think so. I believe that "diversity" in the program refers to the mix of the number of immigrants from each nation per year. Asian nations make up a far greater number of immigrants in recent years than those from Ireland or the other eligible European nations. Asian immigration will far exceed Irish immigration, don't worry about that. And if you're implying that Asian nations are shut out, see that Japan, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, and more, are eligible for the program. --Bridgecross 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

hello people... i've been chosen for the dv visa of the year 2009 with the case no. 2009AS00013xxx what are my chances?75.172.159.75 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chance of actually winning a visa?

Suggestion: Some statistics would help give a sense of scale, for example:

• Less than 1% of people who enter the lottery actually win a greencard. about.com
• The 50k lottery greencards represent 5% of the yearly legal Immigration to the United States#Demography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster128 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

just to know, being part of a european communist party makes you ineligible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.197.246 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Table for chances of winning by region is incorrect. For example, using the DV2010 data for regional allocation (source the travel.state.gov website), it says that Africa was allocated 52.63% of the visas. This means 26,315 out of 50,000 available visas. The wikipedia table says that in DV2010, Africa has chance of winning of 2.19%. This means that 26,315 out of <total number of applicants charging Africa> = 2.19%, this would mean the number of Africa applicants is 1,201,598. Doing this for all the regions, gives a total number of only 3.1million applicants. We know that in DV-2010 there were at least 13.6 million!! (source travel.state.gov website). This means that the chances of winning per region is actually less than the number given in the tables, by at least a factor of 4.3 (ie instead of 2.19% Africa, it would be 0.51%). I wonder why nobody has verified the math or source for this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.193.30 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You made some incorrect assumptions. In DV-2010, Africa was allocated 52.63% of the lottery winners, not visas. The total number of winners was 102,610, and 54,003 of those were from Africa (54003/102610=0.5263). The total number of applicants from Africa was 5,105,274, but this includes 1,565,933 spouses and children; the number of entries was 3,539,341. The winning chance is the number of winners divided by the number of entries: 54003/3539341=0.0153, or 1.53%. Sources: [1], [2].

However, the table in the article calculates the winning chances using the number of legitimate entries, which can be considerably lower. To arrive at a winning chance of 2.19%, about 30% of the entries would have to be illegitimate. The only problem is that I cannot find any source for the number of illegitimate entries per country. The person who added these numbers to the article should also add such a source. Heitordp (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

May I ask a questions, 50,000 visa is 50,000 winners only, or 50,000 winners + spouse + dependent? For example, assume every winners with a spouse, and two children, 50,000 visa is total 12,500 winners x 4 = 50,000 people, or 50,000 winners x 4 = 200,000 people come to USA every year? Thank you! Immigrants (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's 50,000 total, including spouses and children. So if each lottery winner has a spouse and two children on average, only about 12,500 winners actually get a visa each year. Heitordp (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Expected changes to DV-2013 and map

I added the expected changes to DV-2013, but AlexanderRa removed them. I did not use statistics for the DV-2010 as he suggests, I used the actual immigration data for the previous five years (2006 to 2010), and found which countries had more than 50,000 immigrants to the US during that period. It is a simple calculation and I added the reference for verification. I agree that we could wait until the list of eligible countries is officially released, but my conclusion is not speculation.

I also made changes to the map according to the notes and references that BGManoflD added to the image page. Specifically, I changed the color of Southern Sakhalin and Mexico, while Macau was already colored as Portugal, and I removed the respective notes on the text since the map already reflected them. I had added a reference to the US immigration law that clearly states that Mexico is not considered part of North America for the DV program, and it is grouped with Central and South America. AlexanderRa reverted all my changes and added a reference to the instructions for the DV-2012, which by the way also list Mexico under Central and South America. My changes are not vandalism as he suggests, I am trying to correct the information shown and I always added references for verification. Heitordp (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.117.248.144, 11 September 2011

Many people who have a legal status and already adopted in routine of life USA and follows Law rules trying to get a Green card in DV lottery, but can't. Why DV lottery choosing winners from abroad? They are also from foreign countries. They live in limited time in here. I know many situations who won Green card Lottery, they come and didn’t fit anywhere even they had many benefits/example: Link card, education Financial AID, health insurance…/. So they left around from 9-12 months back to home country. In same time who really wants to legally work and live in the USA couldn’t have any chance to get Green card? It is not a secret for everyone. Everyone who came to this country illegally or legally working for living, most of them having a good job experience and skills, good English, high and good education. But can’t raise their career, because don’t have a Green card. In this economic crisis time nobody wants to be their employment sponsor to get some legal documents. In my opinion DV lottery program should review all applications after selections. Some winners even didn’t have any educations or real skills.

Online registration dates

Year	Start	Conclusion
DV-2014	Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4)	Saturday, November 3, 2012 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4)
DV-2013	Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4)	Saturday, November 5, 2011, at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4)

Edit request on 6 May 2013

tHE PROGRAM NO LONGER EXISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.218.206.51 (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Is there not going to be a 2015 version with applications starting in Oct 2013?--Lgriot (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

Powerhandboy (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly what edit do you intend to make? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Circumsized countries

Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia and Ghana have high level of disqualified entries on completely different reason - because they are artificially "circumcised"; other African countries are not "circumcised" artificially
Ukraine and Uzbekistan have high level of disqualified entries on completely different reason - because they are artificially "circumcised"; other European countries are not "circumcised" artificially
Iran and possibly Nepal will possibly join the list of "circumcised" countries starting DV-2014.

I presume this is just an unfortunate translation, I'm just not sure of what. Might have something to do with the countries' borderlines. Comprehensible wording and source (preferably in English) needed. --91.89.228.108 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Original Research in Distribution and lottery process Section

I have twice removed the lengthy discussion related to the supposed "...strong statistical evidence [that] certain countries have very different chances to win (much lower) than the regions they belong to." But, the other editor, AlexanderRa keeps putting it back up. I posted an explanation on his talk page, and he responded on mine. I am pasting these posts below to move the discussion here:

My post on his page:

AlexanderRa, thank you for your attempts to improve the Diversity Immigrant Visa page. Unfortunately, your additions violate Wikipedia's policy against original research. Therefore, I have removed this addition. Please review the original research page to understand why this information must be removed from the article. If you have any further questions, feel free to message me.

His response:

What is wrong with diversity visa page? I provided all necessary links with references

Moving on, what is wrong with your additions, Alex, is that they are a clear case of OR/synthesis. I posted a link to the OR explanation on your talk page in order to avoid an edit war. Please go and read it and delete your own additions (or find proper citations.) If you prefer, I can submit this to a neutral arbitrator. But, I can assure you that what you have posted is OR. If you are unclear about how OR works, I will give you a simple example:

Can you provide me with a (reliable source) citation that says something along the lines of "...certain countries have very different chances to win (much lower) than the regions they belong to."? If not, then your additions violate OR. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The link is https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmbWzexdyvIldEs1d3VWWnJoV1BZSTF0R0JGeVRSTFE&usp=drive_web#gid=2, and I clearly enclosed it, even two times (that is how I understand OR from the very beginning), it was from the very beginning in the External Links section, that I thought you had overlooked, so I added it to references as well, but it looks you are ignoring that again.

On the other hand, I did not find anything about OR on the page you mentioned. So, I am not sure what OR is from your point of view. On the other hand, the link clearly shows Ukraine and Uzbekistan are drawn very much differently from other EU countries since their numbers (KEV [Kyiv] for Ukraine and THT [Tashkent] for Uzbekistan) stop much earlier than for other countries. THT numbers have high density until 19864 (only 4 numbers after that until 30532), and for KEV until 14682 (only about 10 numbers after that until 30532). While all other countries go until 30532 with the same density. That is what I call strong scientific evidence. Here is what is called statistical evidence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

The same story with other mentioned countries (ACC - Ghana, CRO - Egypt, ADD - Ethiopia and LGS - Nigeria) in AF tab of the same file.

I would prefer if the article is reviewed by neutral arbitrator with Masters degree (or PhD, PhD preferred) in Math, Physics or Mathematical Statistics. Sorry for insisting. I would also be able to provide additional comments via talk to the neutral arbitrator if necessary. Thanks very much (talk) 03:27 PM, 30 September 2014 (ET)

A spread sheet on Google docs cannot be used as a reference. It's not a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source] (and, I'm assuming is just the spreadsheet you've used to post your original research.) Now, if you submit your hypothesis to a peer reviewed journal and then it gets published, then we could cite to it. Also, lol, no, we're probably not going to get Wiki Editor, PhD to review this dispute; the math is not the issue. What's at issue is this is the very definition of OR. But, I will submit to a third party editor to review. JoelWhy?(talk) 19:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Spreadsheet in Google is a copy of what you could get by accessing directly the government website - https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx by putting there numbers like 2013EU14766. I consider this tool as a proof. You can check any particular line in the spreadsheet via this link, or any particular hole. If you are questioning the reliability of the spreasheet, this answer would satisfy you. If you are not questioning the spreadsheet, the previous answer would satisfy you. What exactly are you questioning? The fact that the spreadsheet has correct information, according to https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx or the fact that provided the spreasheet is correct, my statement has a good and reliable reference? We need a math person for the second and we do not need a math person for the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, can you cite to a reliable source that says something to the effect of "...certain countries have very different chances to win (much lower) than the regions they belong to."? Not "I found a chart, did a statistical analysis, and concluded that certain countries have different chances of winning." Do you have an article that says something to this effect? This would need to be communicated in words, not numbers (which is why a mathematician is not needed for this exercise.) If there's no such article, it's OR. I've submitted a request for a third opinion to confirm/contradict my understanding of the rule. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I created the spreadsheet based on the official source ( https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx ), and put in into google docs (because I am a computer engineer, it was not difficult for me). Are you questioning the official source? Everyone, including yourself can verify the spreadsheet is indistinguishable from the official source I mentioned. It is perfectlky verifiable and it is a proof. Then I noticed that some countries (Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria) have significant differences from uniform random distribution. I wrote all this logic in the original wikipedia article, and you ignored what I wrote. Because I am a mathematician, it is pretty much obvious to me and does not require any article other than what I originally wrote in the wikipedia page for Diversity Lottery and what you tend to ignore. I tried not to use the numbers, but words, and I think I succeeded. Also, what I just wrote here in two sentences would be all I need to publish an article. Article containing two obvious statements? If I see something blue and I need to prove it is not yellow as someone who does not want to think on his or her own thinks do I need to write an article on the subject? It seems obvious I do not need to. Everything is pretty obvious. Originally I thought you overlooked the spreadsheet, then I though you overlooked the way how I created the spreadsheet, now I see you did not overlook anything, but you lack mathematical logic. The biggest problem was to figure out from you what exactly you do not understand. That is why we need a specialist in math, statistics, physics or mathematical logic to see those two statements and conclude that an article is not required. Mathematicians would laugh if someone wanted to publish anything as obvious as an article. Would I need an article to prove the sky is blue, not yellow? Just look at the sky. Or do I need a reference? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am here based on the request for a third opinion. Alexander, I do not doubt that your Google spreadsheet is accurate. Your initiative to compile this information is also impressive. However, Wikipedia has rules regarding the appropriate use of primary vs. secondary sources (see wp:primary), and unfortunately your work here does seem to comprise original research. The policy states "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You have taken raw statistical data (a primary source) and drawn your own conclusions from it. The fact that your conclusions are accurate and even illuminating is, unfortunately, beside the point. I recommend trying to find secondary sources that have made similar claims, and citing them. Alternately, perhaps you can try to have your own findings published. Good luck. Keihatsu ^talk 02:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly here needs reference? We have 3 pieces in the logic - source ( https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx ), intermediate results (the spreadsheet), and final conclusion (based on the data) - some countries have different probabilities than other countries in the same region. The original source (primary or secondary, I am not sure) is a very reliable source. Or does it need additional references? Compiling data into spreadsheet does not seem to be a research at all. It is just compilation from the source. Right? The last piece (final conclusion) seems too obvious to constitute research as well. You are redirecting me to original research. I would agree that is an original idea, but where is the research? Everything here seems to be too obvious to be a research, just common sense. No research. I agree, there was some work - compiling the results into spreadsheet. This is not research, just rearranging raw data. When you have the spreadsheet, the rest is obvious. What exactly part of this logic seems to be original research to you guys? I am just trying to figure out what exactly I need to reference with primary or secondary sources, and what exactly pieces are in compliance with the policy already. As I said before, if I need to make a statement that the sky is blue, would it be not enough just to look at the sky?! Give me an example what kind of reference in that case would be a primary source and a secondary source. AlexanderRa (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex, you essentially present this as a thesis statement: "Even though DV lottery instructions mention 'All entries received within each region during the entry period will have an equal chance of being selected', there is a strong statistical evidence to believe certain countries have very different chances to win (much lower) than the regions they belong to." Everything that follows is evidence to support this thesis. Unless you have a reliable source that says this -- not your analysis of the statistics, but a reliable source that explicitly makes this conclusion -- it is OR under Wiki guidelines. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Joel, it looks I understand the wikipedia policy better now. If I state instead of "Even though DV lottery instructions mention 'All entries received within each region during the entry period will have an equal chance of being selected', there is a strong statistical evidence to believe certain countries have very different chances to win (much lower) than the regions they belong to." something like the following "Among the winning numbers numbers for some countries stop or almost stop much earlier than for all other countries in the same region", would it also violate the OR policy? I am just telling in my own words what I see in the official source - where does rephrasing in my own words stops and OR starts. As you know, the copyright policy requires me to rephrase what I see in my own words. I am also trying to figure out what the minimum statement that does not violate the OR policy is. AlexanderRa (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the phrasing that's problematic, but the concept. Anything that implies "the gov't says X, but statics imply Y" needs a source stating this. Maybe there's some data or process you're not aware of that explains why it appears some countries have a better chance then others. Or, maybe your conclusion is spot-on. It doesn't really matter for Wiki purposes. Rather, you'd have to find a source (like a newspaper article or peer reviewed study) stating, essentially "the gov't claim not true." JoelWhy?(talk) 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement "Among the winning numbers numbers for some countries stop or almost stop much earlier than for all other countries in the same region" would not have any contradictions with the government policy specifically listed. That would be just mentioning a factual implication of government provided raw data, nothing more than that. AlexanderRa (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual purpose of what I wrote originally was not to find the fact that what the government says was not true. It was for those applying for the DV lottery and having a choice in country of eligibility by country of birth, by country of birth of a spouse, or in allowed cased by a parent's country of birth) to know that that choice could significantly affect the odds of winning, and to know how to calculate those winning odds. I do not really think that is significant to state specifically that the government's say is not true in the article. However, that is unavoidable to realize that (not necessarily to say directly) if we want to find those odds.AlexanderRa (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link farm

I have yet again removed the extensive link farm from the article. WP:EXTERNAL (and WP:NOTDIRECTORY) are quite clear on this, Wikipedia is not a directory and external links should be kept to a minimum. AlexanderRa should familiarise himself with this guideline and discuss here before making any further changes. Valenciano (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to remove the vandalism on the page again. If you continue vandalism, I'll have to report it. AlexanderRa — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AlexanderRa, you obviously haven't read WP:EXTERNAL as I advised you to. The link farm that you are constantly readding is contrary to Wikipedia policies and seems to be partly down to the fact that you want to link to your own original research based on spreadsheets that you've created, even though, in the section above, editors, including a third opinion, have told you that it is original research and therefore shouldn't be in the article. It's time to start listening to other editors. If you really want to make a vandalism report, you can do so at WP:AIV, but it would be a waste of your time as it would clearly show that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. If you want to discuss the merits of individual links, please do so here, but the extensive clutter you want to add to the page is unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano, I have read the External References link, and I also read what Link Farm is. "a link farm is any group of web sites that all hyperlink to every other site in the group" - those links are definitely not link farm. I'll have to remove your contributions. I would love to create a vandalism report, and I would love to do it at WP:AIV. However, I am not really familiar hot to do it in the update line. Looks update line does not work the way I expect. Would you please explain me how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Much marketing

A site with not official sources which tries to catch a user telephone number (succecfully). http://html.usagc.org ("What should I do if I spot a scam?")

"there are numerous companies and websites that charge a fee in order to complete the form for the applicant. The Department of State and the Federal Trade Commission have warned that some of these businesses falsely claim to increase someone's chances of winning the lottery, or that they are affiliated with the U.S. government" RippleSax (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Moved from User talk:184.100.130.191

 – Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't used talk pages before, so I apologize if I'm not doing this incorrectly, but when I clicked on cite 14 (" Instructions for the 2018 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2018)") on the "Diversity Immigrant Visa" page, it took me to a broken link/the page had 404ed. I found the correct link and it is "https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Diversity-Visa/DV-Instructions-Translations/DV-2018-Instructions-Translations/DV-2018%20Instructions%20English.pdf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakotoMacaron (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Done I've updated the link accordingly. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of winners

The DoS will not notify winners, neither by email nor by postal mail. Apllicants must check their status on the lottery web site themselves and, in case they are shown as winners, fill in an online application form to schedule a consular interview. It seems that apllicants had better check back on their status several times as the DoS apparently adds new selectees when previously selected winners do not respond or qualify. Is all that mentioned in the article? https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/diversity-visa/if-you-are-selected.html
Westvirginiator (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I added this information to the article. Heitordp (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

2011 Visa Lottery do-over???

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386896/22-000-aspiring-immigrants-U-S-given-invitation-visa-told-offer-wasnt-valid-glitch-federal-lottery-system.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.189.129.182 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diversity Immigrant Visa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717031428/http://travel.state.gov:80/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4539.html to http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4539.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071103065530/http://www.voanews.com:80/english/2007-10-30-voa68.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-30-voa68.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017

- 66.117.237.146 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Empty Request Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Updates probably needed post October 2017 NYC attack

Newsweek reports New York terror suspect entered US under visa program Trump wants to end, referring to this program, and other sources seem to be picking it up after the 2017 New York City attack. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Another user added a "Notable Recipients" section with him in it. While I don't oppose his inclusion in the article, I feel like he would fit in better in the Legal Status section (perhaps under something about Trump wanting to end this program). Or, if the recipients section is kept (and his name in it), maybe add in a few other notable recipients? Paris1127 (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I will add these people, found through searching Wikipedia: actor David Charvet (France), actor Karl Geary and singer Mark Geary (Ireland), artist Natasha Johns-Messenger (Australia), civil rights attorney Carla Gericke (South Africa), Johanna Marie-Roe of the a cappella quartet Anonymous 4 (Northern Ireland), comedian Violet Benson (Russia), model Peter Shoukry (Egypt), actress Tania Gunadi (Indonesia), politician Basil Rajapaksa (Sri Lanka), singer Pasquale Esposito, conductor Derek Gleeson (Ireland), figure skater Daisuke Murakami (Japan), photographer Boogie (Serbia), wrestler Cesaro (Switzerland), punter Zoltán Meskó (Romania), runner Jude Monye (Nigeria), singer Mehrnoosh (Iran), writer Christine Piper (Australia), and soccer stars Freddy Adu (Ghana), Alex Zotincă (Romania), Behshad Yavarzadeh (Iran), Sallieu Bundu (Sierra Leone), and Stefan Dimitrov (Bulgaria).--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Selinker: I spot checked a few from this list and many have missing citations for this assertion. Also there are situations where the notable person themselves did not win the lottery, but rather a family member (ex. Sallieu Bundu's brother). Seems like some sloppy additions, and since most of these are living people, you'll probably have a very short window to add citations for every entry or expect they'll be removed. -- Netoholic @ 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

This is a lie, located in the history section: It is also known as the Schumer program, after its sponsor., Checking Wikipedia's own entries about the sponsor of the bill, it's listed as Ted Kennedy. "The Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101–649, 104 Stat. 4978, enacted November 29, 1990) was signed into law by George H. W. Bush on November 29, 1990.[1] It was first introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy in 1989" Source = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

}} RyckNelsonmn (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the entire statement per your good faith challenge to uncited BLP material. I have no prejudice against that statement being re-added if a reliable source is added along with it.—KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@RyckNelsonmn: My edit was reverted and a reliable source was added, so my involvement here as a user who patrols semi-protected edit requests is done. There is an active discussion above about the "Schumer program" that you might want to look at and/or participate in. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Schumer Program

I am seeking clarification of the first use of the term Schumer Program to describe the Diversity Immigrant Visa. I cannot find a reputable source that first called the DIV the Schumer Program. Seeing that Schumer was only one of the people that helped draft the Immigration Act of 1990 bill and was a only co-sponsor in the House, why is his name attached to this portion of it? Given the heat that President Trump is laying directly (and solely) at Schumer's feet over the 2017 New York City attack, I think someone with better research skills than I may need to suss this out. Reverend Lee (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Lee: This is the legislation that, among other things, established "diversity immigration" which is the base for the DIV, Schumer is a co-sponsor: https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/4300

I understand that. What I am trying to find out is who gave the DIV the moniker "The Schumer Program"? He was not the Sponsor, so how did it end up with his name on it, and who put it there? I ask because it is being used as a derogatory term by the president and Schumer's political enemies in light of the NYC truck attack. Reverend Lee (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to find the exact phrase but there is no doubt it is linked to Schumer personally; see Extreme right blames Chuck Schumer, 'Diversity Visa' for NYC terror attack (Syracuse.com) for example. Not a BLP issue, particularly when a public figure involved in policy is the subject. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is one source for the exact moniker, Irish Echo 2011: "the Schumer program is currently the only way that Irish people hoping to emigrate to the U.S. can obtain legal visas" [3] Note this is a pro-immigration op-ed. A link to this commercial site is also circulating, which says "Diversity Visa (DV) program... is also known as the Schumer program, after its sponsor". Whether we describe it as "a" Schumer program, vice "The Schumer Program" I am indifferent but it seems a bit of a whitewash to remove his name entirely under aegis of BLP protection. WP:WEIGHT surely allows this with such extensive political reporting now (WaPo too, just noticed). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I cut it. Referencing articles that reference wikipedia is circular. The original bill, that Schumer introduced, was H.R.4165 https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/4165 it was later rolled into into H.R.4300. If any bill should carry the "Schumer program", title, it should be H.R.4165. In reference to H.R.4300, it is an unofficial term, a nickname at best, and will only be cited derisively by political opponents going forward as is has in the past 24 hours. Reverend Lee (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So now the article doesn't include the word "Schumer" although the Washington Post and other rock-solid reliable sources are reporting the connection to this program - in fact it is currently in their top 5 most-read stories. This isn't good NPOV article construction per WP:WEIGHT and other criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Show me these "other rock-solid reliable sources" that refer to a "Schumer Program". WaPo doesn't. Even this IrishEcho, which you must've trawled the depths of internet for doesn't really do it either. No. WP:BLP. Volunteer Marek  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with @Bri:. Material should not be removed because it may be "cited derisively by political opponents". Instead, material should be edited for clarity and pre-2017 references added. beefman (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post does not call it the "Schumer Program". The Irish Echo does, but that's not enough to include it. This is a politically loaded term with insufficient sourcing, hence a BLP vio. Volunteer Marek  17:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here. Whether the Irish Echo source is "insufficient" is debatable. beefman (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course there is a BLP issue. Chuck Schumer is a living person. And it is insufficient. Volunteer Marek  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally added that sentence to the article, over a year ago. I had already provided a reference, which is in the middle of that paragraph: [4]. It's a book from 2001, on page 63 it says "In 1994, the Schumer Program, or Permanent Diversity Program, began." The Irish Echo article is from 2005. Are these sources enough? If the term "Schumer program" is offensive, I suggest at least mentioning that Schumer was the main sponsor of the program. Heitordp (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspect?

Isn't entering a SUSPECTED perpetrator into a list against the policy that Wikipedia does not catalogue current (ongoing) newsstories but waits until substantiated evidence comes in from reliable sources? Even a wrong "suspected" entry that will be found by webcrawlers for decades to come can ruin a person's life. Does Wikipedia really need to be SO hyper-actual in its texts? --176.199.184.48 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Take that up with editors of the article on the incident. The name of the "suspect" has been confirmed by authorities. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

POV edits

Washington Times and Fox News are not reliable for this material. ABC and Commentary Magazine are being misrepresented. Neither say "Critics have long singled out...". In fact, does ANY source say anything "long" or is that something someone just made up? Several of the sources, like ABC and Commentary, after pointing out that yes, there are critics out there, go on to call bullshit on these critics claims. Excluding that part is obviously POV and a dishonest misrepresentation of sources. The inclusion of "The recent attack..." in the lede violates WP:NOTNEWS and presented out of context also NPOV. Volunteer Marek  19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

POV removal of Terrorists admitted under Diversity Visas

This brief, well-sourced to Houston Chronicle, AP, Washington Post and Fox News, repeatedly removed from page.

• This is the second terrorist attack committed by a winner of the Diversity Immigrant Visa lottery, the first was the 2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting committed by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

I have cleaned up the section, hopefully resolving the concerns on all sides. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• User talk:James J. Lambden Thank you for o=doing that and for notifying me. However, while the criticism velongs in the criticism section, I believe that the actual instances of Diversity Visa holders belong in the History subjead, where I had placed it. Reason is, sources, the Washington Post, Houston Chronicle and Associated Press are not opinion pieces, nor are they are not describing this as a criticism, but, rather as facts. Which it is. As a fact,it does not belong in the "criticism" section, even though it may indeed be used by critics. These two case examples belongs under history because they are facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand these are valid sources and I agree that mention of the attacks should not be limited to a criticism section. On the other, the scope of the "History" section at present is legislative and administrative history. Note even the repeal attempts are listed in a different section. Let me clear my head and think about it. Maybe a reorganization is in order. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with that, and open to solutions. I was also puzzled about where to put it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think? I have created a subsection for legislation and administration, moved repeal efforts to "History" and added a "Terrorism" subsection. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, new to this. Clarity on the criticism: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet entered the country on a tourist visa in 1992; he tried to claim political asylum (which was denied), but was awarded work permits that allowed him to remain in the US through 1997 (when she won the lottery). The program was not responsible for his immigration; it just finalized it after 5 years of other visas. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/10/local/me-lax10 Beck240 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this and make the correction. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article to say he "maintained residency in United States through his wife's Diversity Visa." James J. Lambden (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Golden Ticket"

"From Romania to Nepal, they call it the 'golden ticket'" - Washington Post Here's what you need to know about the Diversity Visa Lottery Program ☆ Bri (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Bri:, see above, I added that a couple of hours ago, and a POV editor has been removing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A Dartmouth economist's assessment of the diversity lottery was removed

A Dartmouth economist's assessment of the economic impact of the diversity lottery, attributed to him, and published in an editorial for the Conversation, should not have been removed[5]. This is precisely the kind of content that more Wikipedia articles should be based on: expert assessments.

This is now a pattern for the user Natureium who repeatedly removed similar content (assessments by economists) from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Illegal immigration to the United States pages for similarly flimsy reasons. Natureium was of course reverted repeatedly by other users, but now he's here on a new page reverting content for the same reasons. Deja vu. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But perhaps this view by economists needs to be expanded, explained and better sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We absolutely do not need to litter articles with opinions of associate professors.

The quote you inserted suggests it be maintained because it "has a positive economic impact on Americans." Ignoring for a moment that "economic impact" is never defined nor is the cohort of Americans affected specified making it a bland and meaningless statement - I could say for instance that a bank robber who lives in the United States and operates in Mexico has "a positive economic impact on Americans" - the argument itself is a strawman.

Those arguing against the lottery argue for replacing it with a merit-based system. The professor's argument compares lottery immigration to no immigration rather than a merit-based immigration. Is the "professor" suggesting the goat herder from Comoros will likely have a greater positive economic impact than the biophysicist from Belgium? I don't need an economics degree to know that is untrue.

What the article needs is legitimate arguments in favor. For example that the lottery helps the most needy and promotes international goodwill [6]. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate on what Lewis says if you have problems with the brevity. Your own views on the diversity lottery are irrelevant. Are you seriously arguing again that assistant professors and associate professors are not experts and/or lesser experts than full professors? All I can say is thank god that Wikipedia bans WP:OR if that's the extent of editors' knowledge of academia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. It should be expanded. But it needs to start somewhere. The DACA 'impact' section is a good example of what I have in mind: it started with me adding 3-4 sentences which then built over time into this:[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of studies on the economic effects of DACA. I am not aware of any studies on the economic impact of the Diversity Visa program specifically. The economic arguments that apply apply to immigration in general and should be included in the general article instead. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The DACA article is full of both studies (which unscrupulous editors with political views tried their best to scrub from the article) and assessments by economists. Both are invaluable. The only reason why you want to remove this particular assessment is because you disagree with it. It's the same reason why you have repeatedly removed academic publications in the past. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not correct. A peer-reviewed study on the impact of the program would be entirely appropriate for this article as would the arguments of notable commentators who support it and the legislators who enacted it. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here is section under discussion. This whole section tells about elimination of the program, not about a reform. Hence the argument by an economist against eliminating the program is very much relevant. And no, the opinions by professional economists on the subject must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The section covers efforts to eliminate the Diversity Visa lottery program specifically. The article does not cover general immigration policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, no. The cited publication was precisely on the subject of grin card lottery. Its title: US shouldn’t give up benefits of ‘green card lottery’ over low risk of terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Having examined the site (theconversation.com) more closely I am persuaded it is reliable. I propose this text which could be expanded to include non-economic arguments in favor from the source I provided earlier:

Professor of Economics Ethan Lewis argues that the immigration of lesser-skilled workers encouraged by a lottery system reduces job competition with the native population, citing a study by economists Giovanni Peri and Chad Sparber. Further, that other research shows "simply encouraging immigration from diverse origins lifts wages."

These are published papers with specific arguments. If this is acceptable there is a question of where to put it. It is not appropriate under Criticism and repeal efforts. Can you suggest a reorganization? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No significant objections. A separate section about scholarly debates on the subject could be created. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with my phrasing of the initial sentence. Improvements are welcome. Regarding "scholarly debates" Given the scope and content I think it is best to group all arguments for together as well as against, and possibly group for and against together. I will be stepping away for a bit. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Sanders statements removed

I've removed a recent addition per WP:BLPREMOVE because it fails verification of the reference. Section stated "Sanders, the White House Press Secretary, inaccurately stated that there was "no vetting" of diversity visa receipts". This fails verification of the reference as she is not quoted as saying this as it implies, and in fact viewing the associated video shows she did not use this quoted phrase. I also want proponents of this addition to provide some secondary citations for why this particular topic is notable. It adds no educational value to this article, it seems added just as a partisan jab at an opposing pundit. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) The text should state that she "suggested" that there was no vetting. Here's a second source.[8] Problem solved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you agree that "suggests ... program lacks thorough vetting" is far different than "suggested that there was no vetting"? One is a subjective interpretation of the level of vetting, and the other is an absolute statement. Watching the associated video makes it clear she did not say "no vetting". For articles to claim she did, but to have it so easily disproven, sheds doubt on the quality of those sources and sheds doubt on your ability to vet those sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(2) To suggest that this isn't notable is just mind-boggling. This is only the stated rationale of the most powerful office in the country for ending the program. For an editor to insist that this is not notable is shameful and severely weakens my assumption of good faith. The educational value is that prominent people are claiming things about X which are just not true, and the Wikipedia page for X corrects misinformation about X. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree fully with Snooganssnoogans. If we're going to include the recent Trump admin statements and their justification, then we also of course need to reflect what the reliable sources say. The text is also fully/directly supported by the source, see PolitiFact here: "Sanders said that immigrants coming to the United States through the diversity visa program are not vetted before their arrival." The inaccuracy of this claim was not just noted by PolitiFact, but also others, e.g., Washington Post and CNN. Neutrality^talk 20:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Explain to me why Sanders' comments are significant though? Not everything that we can source deserves to be in this article. Rather than bicker about the interpretation of one person's words, why don't we fill the article with information from various sources about the real vetting practices used in the program. Her comment is one of many that question the vetting practices of the program - singling it out gives undue weight in the overall article. Her comments will not have any lasting significance. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

She's not "one person" and she's not speaking for herself - she is the White House Press Secretary and her words represent the formal position of the Trump administration. Neutrality^talk 21:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, they do not. She does not set policy in the press briefings, she communicates policy in a live Q&A session during which I could never expect 100% accuracy of statements. Even if it is accepted that she made a 100% false statement, I still do not see the lasting significance to this article. How about we first make a section that includes detail about the vetting process itself? That's valuable to the article. Her comments are not - its just her understanding/opinion at a moment of time, not a conspiracy. -- Netoholic @ 22:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with Neutrality here. Restored. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as PolitiFact has walked back their reporting of Sanders comments - their article title has changed from "WH press sec. claims diversity visa immigrants not vetted" to "Diversity visa applicants are vetted, despite contrary claim from White House press secretary" - I've updated the ref, removed the misleading quote, and split the reference's information into more relevant sections so that it doesn't play as point-counterpoint in WP voice. This illustrates the dangers of trying to make WP join into the 24/7 news cycle in real time. I still contend that her statement is too minor for inclusion in this article, and a better handling would be to include more sources about the actual vetting process, rather than just PolitiFact and other pundit click-bait. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

"size" is poor word choise as to what is being measured. more specific term would be "group". 2605:E000:9149:A600:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Regions and eligible countries for the Diversity Visa lottery

Interesting diagram, but it's not explained very well in the article. I get that dark red might mean "more DIV's allowed" than light red. But what about green, for instance? The color coding doesn't appear specific to continents, or really anything. Maybe an explanation is needed?YellowAries2010 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Each general color indicates a region (continent), and the light and dark shades indicate whether a country is eligible or ineligible, respectively. For example, red is for Latin America, so dark red means a Latin American country that is not allowed to enter the DV lottery, and light red means a Latin American country that is allowed. Green is for North America, again in light and dark shades, and similarly for other regions. Sorry for the confusion. I added a legend to the map explaining the color coding. Heitordp (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I get lottery visa to USA

John Nana Baidoo (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)