Talk:National Iranian American Council

national review article citation at the beginning

the quotes from the national review article at the beginning of this page are unsubstantiated allegations from a biased source. i have removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamrod (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Creators

I am not sure Roy Coffee, Dave DiStefano, Bob Ney were among the creators of NIAC. At some point they were supporters of forming a political action committee of Iranian-Americans, which is now known as, Iranian American Political Action Committee(IAPAC). This is however different from NIAC as a civic entity. If we read the letter of Roy Coffee completely, we notice that at that time Iranian-Americans were not willing to participate in any political activities. Roy Coffee and Dave DiStefano later tried to encourage the NIAC officers to participate in the political activities. This was however after NIAC's formation.(Echopapa (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

The argument above is truley flawed. Some questions:

1- if indeed Roy Coffee is talking about working with Dave DiStefano, Bob Ney and Trita Parsi to succesfully develope this "other" lobbying group, where is it? If it was never formed, why does he claim he was succesful

2- Later in the same letter (same paragraph), Roy Coffee specifically mentions NIAC name.

3- Was Trita Parsi at the same time working on developing two seperate organizations?

Omid.Biniaz (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Omid Also a study of (IAPAC) reveals that it had nothing to do with Coffee, Parsi or any thing that Coffee was talking about. http://www.iranianamericanpac.org/about/ms.shtml Omid

You mentioned " NIAC helped Ney organize public gatherings and discrete and exclusive fundraiser events (with $1,000 plates). They developed training manuals on lobbying" the reference that you provided apparently mentioned that the two involved gentlemen were “former” associates of Ney. I am not sure you are trying to reflect facts in this article or your own opinion. There is no controversy regarding the founders of this organization as the federal and public records agree that the founders were not Coffee or DiStefano. Even your link to the Coffee's letter does not support your claim that NIAC was founded by these people. It seems that this claim originates from deducing rather than facts that you can find on reliable records. The description of NIAC should precede what you try to educe as facts. If you want to mention such connection you may add a subtitle at the end of the article and address the probable allegations there.

Yes NIAC was mentioned in Coffee’s letter but where did he say that he founded NIAC? Are we deducing here?

Coffee and DiStefano was working to form a “political” action committee but for the reasons Coffee mentioned in the same letter they were not successful as he continues:

"...The 4 of us worked very hard for about 9 months to form this committee, but we found that most Iranians do not want to get involved in politics because of their experiences in Iran during and after the revolution. They have come to this country to make a better life for themselves and their children and don't want to get involved. Most have succeeded as many of the Iranian-Americans I have met have been very successful professionals. The few Iranians that are involved in politics seem to be strong supporters of the Shah who advocate the overthrow of the current government and the installation of the Shah's son as a new Monarch. The Shah's son lives in surburban Virginia and actively supports these groups. From everything I can tell, this is a pipe dream. In fact, if you google my name,..., you will see an article from November of 2002 where Dave and I addressed the National Iranian American Council (NAIC) on getting involved in the political process.."}}

NIAC was later formed by Trita Parsi and others as a “civic” organization.

Yes good point about your study on IAPAC. IAPAC is not affiliated with Coffee nor DiStefano. But what they wanted in 2002 as Coffee described in his letter was something similar to what we have now as IAPAC, not NIAC.(Echopapa (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

You can't just ignore what many reasonably belive about NIAC. We need to find a way to convey both sides.Omid.Biniaz (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

I have added all the references you had requated above. Thanks for pointing it out. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Thank you Omid for adding more citations. Still large part of what you edited is not in accordance with WP:NPOV as it is a weighted representation prior to even mentioning the published description of activities and goals of NIAC as a 501(c). There are federal and state records indicating the founders of NIAC. It is not a matter of opinion and perhaps we can find a better structure for the article. Unfortunately, in using reference 1 you used incomplete quotes out of context and which opened that part to WP:FRINGE. I suggest we include the remaining parts of what Coffee had to say (if you still insist its inclusion). In general, we may write a separate subsection perhaps with a title of "Criticism to NIAC". It is a mechanical issue of presenting this article as an unbiased one with your citation(s) appropriately and exactly mentioned. We can discuss the controversies and the mechanical issues here and then we can incorporate them in the article. .Echopapa (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. Let's do it section by setction. 69.177.251.95 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

References

Protected (c.f. OTRS #2008010410012838)

Uncle G, most of the material and sources you removed were from NIAC webpages (archived). There are no legal actions against anyone any where. When similar facts were broadcast form VOA (voice of America) the same talk of legal action was raised. But legal action against what? Qouting NIAC's own writting and doing? People have the right to know that there are concerns on this organization. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for any person or organization. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Yes Omid, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform nor is it a blog nor a political forum. Given those, we may introduce the avenues of the blogs and political forums in the article for interested readers onthe controversies. Your references are good and could be mentioned but in an abstract manner. As I mentioned before, it is a mechanical problem. Thanks to Wiki, your edits are recorded and you can always return back and use your already generated materials, once we come up with the structure of the article. Echopapa (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that there is an alternative argument that NIAC was created to influence the US American relations through influencing congress. The cloud around initiation of NIAC as well as the bulk of activities of NIAC all point to that. This alternative belief, considers the concern for the “civic life” of Iranian Americans a side show. Any fair and complete article on NIAC must be able to portray this alternative belief. The best form of doing this, we can work together to define. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

I removed exactly 4 names, and removed no sources at all. If you want to introduce content, I suggest that you find and cite reliable sources to support it. The article is protected because of (a) the edit war, (b) the BLP concerns of unsourced material that states that named living people are felons, and (c) the OTRS ticket. You shall find and cite reliable supporting sources before you introduce material that states that living people are criminals. Find and cite good independent reliable sources for your content. Do not introduce novel syntheses of primary sources. Do not introduce content unsupported by any source. If something is not properly documented, it does not get into Wikipedia, irrespective of how "unfair" that is. If a belief held by people has not been documented or that documentation has not been published via some means that has a good provenance and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, then that belief does not get into Wikipedia. So go and find independent reliable sources documenting what you want to cover. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

locked?

After a compromise is reached, will somebody please add in the interwiki link: fa:شورای ملی ایرانیان آمریکا at the bottom of the article? Thanks.--Zereshk (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Can Zereshk's request be accommodated please, and can an {{unreferenced}} tag be put at the top of the article? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hassan Daioleslam can not be used as a source here

Hassan Daioleslam does not meet the requirements of a WP:RS. Additionally, he is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit with NIAC and Trita Parsi. Therefore, he can not be used as a source on National Iranian American Council and Trita Parsi per WP:COI. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that FrontPageMag is not an WP:RS? Regardless, Hassan's arguments are principally embedded in Lake's article.Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Because FrontPageMag is an activist website, and not a neutral source of news, in line with requirements of WP:RS. "FrontPageMag.com is a neo-conservative magazine founded by ex-Marxist (Trokskyite) turned neo-conservative activist David Horowitz" [1] As for Hassan Daioleslam, besides the fact that he is neither a scholar nor a reputable journalist, and he is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit with NIAC and Trita Parsi, he also happens to be a member of a militant organization designated by the United States, as a terrorist organization. [2] Despite all these, I really don't see how you could possibly still insist that this person be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, specially on page whose subject this person is in a legal conflict with. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your argument. At no point has Wikipedia determined that FrontPageMag is not an WP:RS. You are simply stating your own argument. There are many sources that are used that are not completely impartial -- and sourcewatch is definitely not the appropriate means to invalidate a certain source. His research has to be debunked, not the person who he is -- and I don't see a problem with the research that Hassan has done.Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, there is consensus that FrontPageMag is not a reliable source. See here, here, here and here. FrontPageMag is not a reliable source that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. nableezy - 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Related article?

I've just come across The Iran lobby in the United States, an orphaned article which looks potentially quite problematic - I don't know much about the topic, but it reads fairly one-sided, and may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. (Apart from anything else, a contribution by a user called "Minitrue Propdep" is faintly alarming). It mentions this group specifically - could someone with expertise take a look? If need be, it may need deleting, or partially merging into Iran – United States relations.

Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved Washington Times material

I took some stuff that was under the heading "funding" and moved it up to "lobbying" heading. It seems the Washington Times was quite heavily involved in reporting on the lobbying stuff.

Some might believe the material I moved is relevant to funding. But there's nothing in the material itself to suggest this. The material appears to concern the lobbying issue, & may seem a bit one-sided. Badiacrushed (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop Removeing Section

Dear User Wikidave2009, since June 2017 the well-sourced March 2017 revelations and implications section has been created five times in this page by three different editors like Wiki726, Ours18 and myself, you have deleted it every single time without providing any credible reference to discredit that the sources cited in that section. Your claim that these sources are "fringe" and "dubious" is not wellfounded. Michael Rubin is a leading expert on Iran at the AEI, Darren Tromblay is a veteran intelligence analyst and both the Small Wars Journal and Commentary Magazine are solid and reliable sources. I do realize that you are very dedicated to guarding the NIAC page, however, you're forcing your opinion on this page without any regard for other editors who disagree with you. Please STOP removing content that you don't like, and perhaps find a way to deal with this conflict of interest that is obvious. Alwaysf (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the content because there are multiple issues with it. The first issue is the source for the story, Washington Free Beacon. It has a "very strong right wing bias and often publishes misleading headlines that do not match the content of stories. The Washington Free Beacon has published numerous misleading, unproven or false claims." In particular, it has a particularly neoconservative bent and puts out lots of attack oriented articles of questionable quality (putting it mildly) against left-leaning organizations and politicians. In particular, here Free Beacon misrepresents the Farsi language remarks it purports to report on. (And indeed, if there were any "there" there, it would have received mainstream coverage so Wikipedia could cite neutral sources, not neoconservative activists (Rubin) or activist media (Free Beacon) with very long and very strong anti-NIAC and anti-Iran deal track records. Secondly, the wikipedia section asserts "coordinat[ion] with Iranian intelligence" without any citation. Given the defamatory nature of the accusations, unsupported assertions like these are not permissible. Third, the next sentence makes further speculative claims which are not supported by the citation, namely about the Espionage Act and "treason". Given the issues I've raised, and the defamatory nature of the accusations and speculations in this paragraph, the appropriate response is to remove the offending content. Wikidave2009 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

James Bertrand 8

Hello, I am reverting these edits which remove citations to valid sources and replaces them with information sourced only to NIAC's website (or opinion pieces such as one in HuffPo by the organization's staff or other allied groups). A lobbying organization is not a valid source to describe its goals, funding, or motivation: we need to go to news sources and third-party sources. I'd urge you to only make additions to the article that are sourced to valid news sources and, if you disagree with a source, we can discuss it on this page. Just want to make some quick edits here (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

These are all citations to NIAC's website that should not be added to the article:

https://www.niacouncil.org/press_room/niac-welcomes-obamas-strong-condemnation-of-violence-by-irans-government/

https://www.niacouncil.org/press_room/niac-welcomes-appointment-new-iran-human-rights-rapporteur/

https://www.niacouncil.org/mission-and-vision/

This is authored by NIAC staff:https://web.archive.org/web/20160713172809/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/lifting-the-iran-embargo-will-increase-american-influence/

As far as I can tell, this only includes a quote from Parsi and doesn't really say anything except Parsi gave a quote?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29319075

This is an opinion piece by a commentator in HuffPo

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iranian-americans_b_2219651

It has as much validity as this Tweet from her, should we include this too? "NIAC has become a slur that is synonymous with regime lobby/apologist to the point that Iranians inside Iran use it (hence the tweet you pointed out)" https://twitter.com/hdagres/status/1581774217758269440

This source does not say that the claims against NIAC are conspiracy theories (as you misleadingly labeled them in the article) and in fact gives them some credibility. Either way, it's not a more reliable source than the ones that are currently in the article.

https://www.pettimatthew.com/p/iran-lobby-conspiracy-theories-turn Just want to make some quick edits here (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations from NIAC's website and articles posted to the Washington Post by NIAC employees are relevant in determining their policy positions and organizational mission. They also fall in-line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, there is no basis to remove these just because you personally dislike them.

Furthermore, your logic in connecting an article posted to the Huffington Post, which in spite of your personal feelings towards the organization abides by an editorial standard in their publication process, and a tweet lacks any logic. I am not citing her tweet, I am citing an article published in a reputable newspaper. The same applies to articles posted by other journalists.

It seems you are more concerned with what "gives them some credibility" than focusing on Wikipedia's fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Our roles as contributors is to not make edits based of our personal political ideologies, but to focus on providing factual non-biased reporting. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Items in articles are supposed to be cited to third-party sources. Simply saying "organization claims this about themselves" isn't valid.

You keep trying to add information to build up this organization utilizing sources that are closely associated with the organization. Self-sources can only be used if they meet all of the following rules:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

Your version of the article does not follow 1, 2, 3, or 5. We're not here to be stenographers of the organization's preferred narrative but to reflect, neutrally, what news articles say about the organization. To be frank, your statements are not even backed up by the articles you use as citations. Just want to make some quick edits here (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you find articles posted by the Washington Post and Huffington Post to not fit Wikipedia's standards, but quite literally post citations from activists on twitter.

Even if we did remove NIAC's press releases, which meet the criteria you have mentioned and are necessary in understanding their policy positions. Why are you deleting third party sources? Why are you deleting that they host annual policy conferences? Why are you deleting that Trita Parsi was the winner of the Grameyar Award?

It is clear that you believe in conspiracy theories against the organization, there is no proof that they are "the Islamic Republic's lobby". If you genuinely believe this I strongly encourage you to contact the Department of Justice, instead of forcing your views on Wikipedia. 2600:1003:B010:D965:B184:697A:C82F:93C3 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a Tweet from a subject matter expert who you previously quoted (same author as https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iranian-americans_b_2219651) just a more updated reflection of her opinion. Wikipedia policy says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." She does seem like a notable commentator on Iran, but if we're going to include her opinion, a more recent post from her is more relevant than an older post.

You keep saying conspiracy theories. The only citation you've provided from the term is from https://www.pettimatthew.com/p/iran-lobby-conspiracy-theories-turn and this website does not count as a reliable source and also does not say the label is a conspiracy theory. Where can you find a citation that says conclusively that it's a conspiracy theory? I've provided nearly a dozen citations to reliable sources saying that it is.

Press releases from an organization aren't reliable and shouldn't be included. It then just becomes a reflection of what editors want to focus on rather than an overview of the organization. We should only highlight what has been reported in the media. jwtmsqeh (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, Grawemeyer Award is not relevant to NIAC's article. Definitely not to the introduction. Add that to Parsi's article. jwtmsqeh (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

These citations are from the org itself or otherwise not reliable.

• https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/67631-changing-course-on-iran-sanctions/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iran-summer-of-war-or-peace_b_7275672
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160713172809/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/lifting-the-iran-embargo-will-increase-american-influence/
• https://www.ibtimes.com/us-visa-waiver-program-reform-bill-amid-donald-trump-anti-muslim-comments-proposed-2216571
• https://www.proteusfund.org/grant/nationaliranianamericancouncil/

Let's stick to third-party reporting and not cite the website for anything except completely non controversial stuff. jwtmsqeh (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, Matthew Petti is literally affiliated with NIAC. See https://twitter.com/dsa_intl_comm/status/1534517020745768964?lang=en and he was employed by NIAC's founder in his new gig https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/08/experts-urge-swift-return-to-iran-nuclear-deal/. jwtmsqeh (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

From what you sent, Matthew Petti appeared on a DSA panel and he posted an article to the Quincy institute. Neither of these things have any sort of correlation to being "affiliated" with NIAC. By your logic, every person who appears on a DSA panel or posts to the Quincy institute is an "affiliate" which verges on McCarthy era tactics.

You literally prove my point that press releases play an important role in determine the policy priorities of the organization when you said "reflection of what editors want to focus on". If you look at the sources, there is a balance of both their press releases and third party reporting to paint a more accurate picture of their intentions and real world effects.

The Grawemeyer Award to Parsi was awarded while he was President of NIAC, and his work with NIAC led him to winning the award. It adds context to the nature of the organization.

You have not posted a credible source about them being the Iranian Regimes lobby, and if there was one NIAC would immediately be investigated by the DOJ for violating federal law. They are very transparent with their funding and have secured transparency seals. It is much harder to prove something doesn’t exist than prove it does, and in this case proving it does is referencing tweets from social media activists. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if we were to agree that a blog by Petti is a valid source (I don't, he's not an expert and he's affiliated with NIAC), the source does not call it a "conspiracy theory". To be clear, the Quincy Institute article says he was employed by Quincy which was founded by Parsi. That is affiliation.

I could see adding the award into the history but it's not so significant to go into the introduction. The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. The award isn't even mentioned in the article.

I have provided multiple sources including Eli Lake in Bloomberg, Politico, Middle East Eye, Jerusalem Post, etc. describing them as a lobby for Iran.

We're allowed to include opinions from notable people attributed to them. You were the one who wanted to include Holly Dagres' opinion in the article (from Huffington Post). I simply found a more recent post where she expressed an opinion. I'm sorry she adjusted her opinion so it no longer fits your narrative. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

NIAC Policy Positions and Conferences

Please enlighten me Just want to make some quick edits here, on what makes you say their policy positions are "PR Fluff" James Bertrand 8 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Read the entire above section. You're only citing their own website to describe their positions. No reason to do that when we have reliable sources (for example, your Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles which I incorporated). Minutia of press releases put out by DC lobbying outfits don't belong in the article. jwtmsqeh (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The citations under the policy positions are not just from NIAC's websites, and the references to their website fall under the guidelines of Wikipedia's policies.

Additionally, please explain why you are deleting the Policy Conference header. It is relevant in providing context of the progressive-nature of the organization. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This article already excessively relies on NIAC itself. We don't need to add additional citations to itself which is essentially puffery. Could you maybe try to discuss here instead of continually removing sources to valid news articles and adding press releases? You haven't responded to any of the objections in the section above, just continued to add the disputed content to the article without explanation. jwtmsqeh (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I literally cited a video of Ben Rhodes delivering a keynote speech at a NIAC conference, [3]. You can't get any more objective than this, just watch the video. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

These are the standards for using a primary source:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

Essentially any press release from a DC lobbying organization is "unduly self-serving". Using a press release to discuss a conference does involve claims about third parties. Using a press release to talk about a result (like Venmo or EU countries doing something) does involve claims about third parties and events not directly related to the subject. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me how the citation for Ben Rhodes delivering a keynote speech violates any of the 5 standards listed. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is original research. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not even research, he is giving a speech... James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You're doing your own research when you summarize it, use original source material to do your own research, and determine that something happened. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of this is my own research? I am using original source material ( source). Are you claiming Ben Rhodes didn't give this speech, and that this video is fake? James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to claim anything beyond pointing out that you have no sources for anything beyond a video of Ben Rhodes speaking behind a NIAC lectern. In the meantime, you're ignoring the fact that the press releases are against Wikipedia policy and keep re-adding them. You're also ignoring the fact that I've explained above how your edits contravene policy and you keep re-implementing them. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly just give up, this is hopeless. You keep removing the disputed tag which will get mods to intervene between this.

I hope that one day you will have a greater civic understanding and realize the gravity of the claims you are making. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added quite a few additional citations attesting to NIAC as the regime lobby. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the US government is ignoring that one of their biggest geopolitical foes has a lobbying firm in DC? James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not here to do research into NIAC, it's clearly a pro-Iran lobby from the numerous sources I've added. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol so now instead of arguing the point you're resorting to name calling? Classy. jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you got name calling from my question, but in my opinion the sources you have cited are not decisive in labeling it as a lobby funded by the Iranian regime.

Furthermore, pro-Iran is highly subjective and I have issues with presenting it as a fact when the sources are overwhelmingly war-hawkish conservative experts. We need to strike a balance in accurately defining NIAC, but there should be a difference between classifying them ideologically and claiming they are committing espionage. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. Seems someone else added some name calling and I misread it as directed towards me.

I don't think I ever wrote that they commit espionage? I think we should reflect what sources which are independent of the organization describes it as. They clearly overwhelmingly call it a lobby for the Iranian regime. We don't need to whitewash the organization by looking for information they or their affiliates created to dispute that (beyond saying that they don't prefer that label). jwtmsqeh (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

None taken, I understand the mix up.

I will return to this topic tomorrow. It appears there is a troll deteriorating this subreddit. STOPNIAC (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

wiki page* STOPNIAC (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited make allegations NIAC is violating FARA and they are conveying information between the Islamic Republic to the Biden/Obama administrations which mean they are committing espionage.

As you can imagine these are big assertions and I feel the burden of proof should be on those who accuse, and not NIAC being forced to defend. I concede your point about the public opinion amongst the diaspora being more prominent in the article. But I feel there should be a reflection of the progressive values the organization embraces. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to adding more about the organization if its cited to news media that's independent and not affiliated with NIAC.

I don't think we should be evaluating any accusations, just summarizing and reflecting what news media reports and evaluations from unaffiliated experts. jwtmsqeh (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadjadpour & Rubin

@James Bertrand 8: you removed their commentary from the article. They're both important enough to have Wikipedia articles and are relevant experts in the field so I think their opinion with attribution is appropriate to include. Care to explain? jwtmsqeh (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

A twitter argument between Jamal and Karim on twitter is not a credible source. As for Rubin, you have consistently been deleting the opinion piece by Holly Dagrees. If Holly's piece is not allowed, then Rubin's shouldn't either. James Bertrand 8 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

My argument against including the Holly Dagres HuffPo post from 2012 is not that her opinion is not valid. It's that I found a post from her in 2022 that expresses a different view of NIAC and we should go with her most recent published opinion.

Instead, you've removed the more recent post from Dagres because it does not fit your narrative. Along with other published opinions about NIAC from notable people. Meanwhile, you've decided to write your personal opinion on Ted Cruz's attack on NIAC to frame it as a right-wing attack while ignoring the fact that the opinion is widely held (including in citations from reliable sources that you've removed).

You've also re-added information sourced only to invalid sources as I've explained above in sections you have failed to reply to. jwtmsqeh (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits by James Bertrand 8

I don't know how to do this but the article is protected now after James Bertrand 8 made his edits again. As I've noted above, his edits continually mischaracterize the citations he uses and uses this lobbying organization's own website to impeach valid news sources. jwtmsqeh (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Page is no longer protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)