This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Not sure why Web of Trust has any comments listing their site as spam or phishing... it's full of legitimate content and MPI is well-known and well-respected. 108.28.12.129 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Web of Trust considers their website to be fairly unsafe, and the comments on its scorecard include some listing it as a spammer. --187.141.98.211 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, criticism sections are an inappropriate way to structure information per WP:CSECTION. This one in particular was particularly WP:UNDUE - one relatively mild and subjective criticism of one report, coming from a fairly WP:BIASED source, clearly doesn't meet the standard for inclusion. Additionally, the section severely oversold the one factoid it presented - an op-ed by their ideological opponents disagreeing with the math in one report isn't "several reports", and it's misleading to describe them one person on the other side of the issue "immigration analysts." --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
