Talk:Organization of Iranian American Communities

Restored version

I have restored an earlier version (content) per a majority of editors comments. This was mistakenly reverted stating in the edit summary: "AFD isn't closed yet". There is clear consensus that the contents of the artice be reverted (restored) to a previous version and doing so does not violate and policies and guidelines but per Per WP:EDITATAFD is within editorial consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Otr500: If we agree that a consensus is reached on this (which I believe not), can really users make a consensus on reverting the article to a version that violates WP:RS? Pahlevun (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Yes, they can, WP:NODEADLINE applies, and clearly there will always be room for improvement. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Then Wikipedia will have a better article than that is here now. Two points: first, we must try to rescue the sources whose links are dead. Second, we can insert/reinsert/keep the more recent news around this organization. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Need to look at trimming sources also. The "Mission and acivities" section has severe Citation overkill. Otr500 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to prevent an edit war

The situation is like this:

• 8 March 2018‎: User:Pahlevun redirected the page to National Council of Resistance of Iran; User:Faceless Enemy reverted this on 13 March 2018‎.
• 14 March 2018‎: User:Pahlevun again redirected the page to National Council of Resistance of Iran; User:Faceless Enemy again reverted this on 27 March 2018‎.
• 30 March 2018‎: User:Pahlevun requests a speedy delition; this is declined by User:DESiegel almost three hours later.
• 30 March 2018‎: User:Pahlevun starts an AfD with an appeal to the notability guideline for organizations criteria. Then this user removes the See also-section for being WP:Coat, and removes 70% of the content. The See also-section was restored by User:DESiegel at the same day.
• 15 April 2018: during the AfD-debate, User:E.M.Gregory had proposed to revert the article to an earlier (more neutral) version of 26 December 2016. This idea was supported by User:London Hall and User:Faceless Enemy. On 15 April 2018 this proposal was executed by User:Otr500, and later undone by User:WilliamJE, since the AFD isn't closed yet.
• 18 April: after some not-that-friendly editing on the article, the AfD closes with 6 keep-votes, and only the nominator voting for deletion. Now the AFD is closed, User:Jeff5102 (me, that is) restores the article to the December 2016-version, as was discussed both at the AfD-debate as on the article's talk-page.
• 20 April 2018: User:Pahlevun reverts this to the version of the article that stood there just before the closing of the AfD (because of garbage sources), and add some rather non-neutral texts and a notability-tag. After User:Jeff5102 reverts this version to a "more neutral version", which is reverted again by User:Pahlevun, who adds the text If you want it changed, add content with a reliable sources instead of those garbage.

If I don't look at the article, but just at the process, it looks to me as if in this discussion, the minority of one or two editors is trying VERY hard to get their way, without caring about consensus. I would like to invite those editors to take a good look at the discussions concerning this article, and see if they are on the right path in editing it conform the majority view. Please, let's all try to be reasonable here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care about the article (or the organization) that much. I was just alerted because the bot kept yelling at me because I uploaded the logo. I think Pahlevun probably needs to take a step back and seek more consensus before trying to radically change the article again. He/she may be 100% correct, but this isn't the way to go about things. Wikipedia needs reliable sources for stuff, facts need to be presented in a neutral, dispassionate manner, and if reliable sources conflict, the conflict should be presented in a neutral, factual way, with due weight given to the disagreeing sources. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no agenda with the article at all but it seems there is bias and attempts at one-sided presentations in @Pahlevun:'s edits. I also think there can be "some" justification to ""some" edits but these multiple smaller edits make it hard to follow and are contested. This editor is familiar with edits by "talk page consensus" so should follow this.

The lead now states: "It "inaccurately represent[s] itself as a non-profit" and doesn’t appear in a federal database of such agencies according to NBC.", but one simple check with the IRS shows a listing of "Organization of Iranian American Communities Oiac Inc." in West Sacremento. This means that, according to a "federal database" there is a listing and this would contradict the lead as well as the source. This "might have been overlooked but articles should be edited from a neutral point of view and a disinterested viewpoint according to WP:BALANCE. Since this criteria is one of Wikipedia's "fundamental principles" it should not be viewed lightly.

This is a contentious subject and should be treated as such. The AFD consensus was that the article was not neutral and at least "some" of these multiple "spurt edits" do not appear to be neutral. Otr500 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've had a similar experience trying to bring some neutrality to the MEK article. It's been so difficult to work with Pahlevun on this that I'm at the point of giving up working on NPOV issues altogether. I also don't have an inclination against or opposed to the subject, just trying to solve some of the more obvious neutrality issues. Pahlevun has a long history of (not so friendly) edit-warring for POV pushing:[1][2][3][4][5]. London Hall (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Pahlevun it seems that local consensus is not in agreement with your views on the content and sourcing of this article, both here on the talk page and at the recent AfD. Please do not edit in a way which would constitute edit warring. You may of course continue to discuss the issue here, or present additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

From what I can see, that certainly shows notability of an organization in at least 30 states, is that it has been substantiated that there are ties between the OIAC and the MEK, that I seem to remember was once referred to as the MKO, so this is not controversial by sourcing. If there is more than one source referencing being "a front" then that can be used.

To me the situation with the MEK of being on and removed from the US terrorist watch list is political and the US has historically made poor judgements in this area. A once considered terrorist organization, blamed for US deaths, has now had a change of heart to become delisted. I suppose if that actually happened it would be a good thing but politically the MEK organization seems to be aligned with US and Israeli interests. However, sources show that the "listing" was a political move so balance dictates if showing one side both should be presented. The MEK "front" relationship only deserves prominance if backed by multiple sourcing.

I do have a problem with the use of primary sources not backed by secondary. It is acceptable to use a primary source on content concerning a subject so all the individual tags can be replace with a primary source template at the top or "multiple" if necessary to cover other issues. I don't consider the notability tag as needed however, I do not oppose the tag until such acceptable sources are found.

The bottom line is that involved editors need to try to work together. User:Pahlevun has contested notability and consensus has so far determined the subject notable. I will not fault multiple edits to try to improve the article as long as they follow that neutrality needs to be used. Since this has shwon to be contentious it should follow WP:BRD with the "D" meaning discuss if reverted. Also, @ User:Jeff5102, please be open minded to editors that have an interest in an article and "if you revert" and it is re-reverted without discussion this can be resolved by arbitration. The "contentious" material should be presented in the article as well as the "other stuff". Someone should see about expanding the lead. I planned on looking at this but have to work today since nobody will donate a millon bucks so I can retire. Material in the lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Referencing in the lead is not actually necessary "if" summary content is in the body. I haven't looked but if a revision was reinstated that does not follow the AFD consensus then there is a problem and reverting to "other revisions" instead of building on the one agreed upon by consensus can be considered disrumptive editing. I will have to look at this later as work calls. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Article information

The OIAC is an Umbrella organization usually referred to as OIAC-US (OIACUS) and includes various organizational names such as Colorado Society of Iranian Americans, California Society for Democracy in Iran, Minnesota Iranian American Advocacy Council, Association of Iranian Americans in New York (AIAINY) that also covers New Jersey, Iranian American Communities of Alabama, and several other IAC "of ____". All of these are simply referred to as OIAC. I find primary evidence of 25 (I can't find 30 or 40) branch groups in 23 states of one parent organization in Washington DC that does have coverage. Individuals and communities that do not have a "state organization" can certainly go through the OIAC/OIAC-US. A problem is reliable sourcing other than primary and unreliable sourcing and mirror sites.

• Site that are unreliable as user submitted.

Merinews

EIN Presswire

Common Dreams

These sites contain content to the subject but are not vetted, are press releases, and even posted as submitted.

• Other sources (did not check out yet)

The Media Line

Huffington Post

Assertions of being a front is very possible. The organization accused of helping to fund MEK was identified as the "Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia" (pp, 73). This is not the listed and current "IAC-VA" organization of the OIAC.

The source concerning the OIAC’s 2013 Annual Conference for Democracy and that Mayor Bob Filner traveled to the city of Lille, France, paid for by the OIAC’s and that "representations regarding its non-profit status were inaccurate." needs to be looked at. I found OIAC non-profit listing for OIAC so not sure how this ended.

This needs to be an article presenting both sides according to reliable sources and not possibly Wikipedia led false accusations. It does not need to be one or more editor's political agenda. This is apparently a problem with bias editing on Wikipedia. I find primary evidence of 25 (I can't find 30 or 40) branch groups in 23 states of one parent organization that does have coverage. Otr500 (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Otr500: Note that the NBC source stating the organization is not non-profit dates back to 2013, and five years has passed since then. Maybe OIAC was registered legally as a non-profit after that, but we need an independent and secondary source to verify it. I'm not having an issue to change the lead, if there is a reliable, independent and secondary source (like NBC) that states it is non-profit. The Huffington Post link above is a blog post: "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email." The Media Line source reads: "Nate Nkumbu [the author] is a Student Intern in The Media Line’s Press and Policy Student Program". Plus, none of them state that OIAC is non-profit. Pahlevun (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Pahlevun: To even "attempt" to try to argue that a branch of the US federal government (IRS), that is the sole deciding entity on any non-profit status, needs secondary sourcing or be discounted is absurd. However, since you brought this up, an article reference, presumably a reliable source since not argued with and content is used in the article ("located right next door to the NCRI office..."), and "right next door" to this: "Separately, the NCRI-linked nonprofit Organization of Iranian American Communities (OIAC),". Individuals do not get to pick-and-choose exactly what type of source (like NBC) qualifies as reliable unless they bought the article. Reliable, independent and, secondary are qualifications. We also should not pick and choose content from among sources that can look like a one-sided agenda called synthesis. Using 2013 sourcing and then wording that "appears" to be present language instead of year related past-tense: "...the organization "inaccurately represent[s] itself as a non-profit" and using "represent[s]" and not "represented" is implying what is not there. “I have become aware that OIAC’s representations regarding its non-profit status were inaccurate,”, is one side of the coin but the other side is in the same article: "NBC 7 reached out to the OIAC for comment on Wednesday. OIAC vice president Ross Amin said his group is a non-profit, but said he’s unsure what kind, and does not know why the organization doesn’t appear in a federal database of such agencies.", along with the primary government source showing non-profit status, and the secondary sourcing backing this up, means that as written the content is biased. The lead is a summary of what is in the body of the article and not the location for political statements with a sole reference goes against the five principles of Wikipedia. As summary content the lead does not need to present new information. Since referenced content should be in the body of the article it would then not require re-sourcing. The lead in this article is in severe need of expanding but if we can't get it right then leave it out. Otr500 (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What would be your proposed neutral lead then? The IRS source you gave for the regional office in Sacramento being tax exempt, does not show any other record of the OIAC being non-profit, that's why OIAC's vice president is says "he’s unsure what kind" of non-profit this organization might be. (Yes, an organization paying lobby firms listed as a charity!) Maybe that's why the Intercept calls it part of an "opaque network". I would also suggest you to read about how the MEK ran another front organization in the UK under guise of charity in IB Times and The Guardian. I think we should evade giving "equal validity" to opposing views. The organization's PR and press releases were given too much weight, and turned this article to a soapbox for the organization. Pahlevun (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tax exempt status

The source NonProfitFacts shows "Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2) (for 2009 - 2013)" for the Organization Of Iranian American Communities Oiac Inc.. Otr500 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The website says:

"NonProfitFacts.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk."

I don't think that it is reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://oiac.org/about/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Intercept and OIAC

@Pahlevun: In your edit [6] you added “The Intercept describes OIAC as an "opaque network" which is used by the MEK to lobby the United States Congress”. Where does it say that in the source?Barca (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have summarized a long text in one sentence, and this a usual practice per WP:CLOP. A quotation of the parts in question in the source is as below:

...Via an opaque network of Iranian-American community organizations, supporters circumvented anti-terrorism laws to garner many fans in Washington, at least in some quarters, where they quietly pressed their case for hard-line policies against the Iranian regime through meetings with sympathetic members of Congress. “It’s their Hill outreach strategy that accomplishes nearly everything they’re able to do,” the former staffer explained. “Given how small they are and how marginal they actually are, the amount of influence they wield is actually kind of amazing.”... In the U.S. today, an umbrella organization of groups declaring allegiance to Maryam Rajavi — the innocuously named Organization of Iranian-American Communities — claims its network covers over 30 states. In the intervening years, even while constrained by their terrorism designation, the group and its affiliates poured millions of dollars into a sophisticated effort to rehab their image, creating an influential lobbying effort on Capitol Hill.

—Pahlevun (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC) This part also is a description of the investigation in that source:

The outspoken advocacy for the group coincided with the rise of campaign contributions from Mojahedin supporters to Menendez, according to an analysis conducted by The Intercept. Assisted in part by the work of independent researcher Joanne Stocker, The Intercept compiled a cross-section of political giving by supporters of the organization in the U.S. between 2009 — when the campaign to de-list the Mojahedin ramped up — and the present. The Intercept’s study examined giving by people listed by the pro-Mojahedin OIAC network, as well as supporters and activists identified by other news articles, and a former Congressional staffer who has tracked the group.

—Pahlevun (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, about removal of content that said OIAC is a front for the MEK/NCRI, several reliable sources are available. Haaretz wrote about Rudy Giuliani's speech at Iran Freedom Convention for Human Rights and Democracy, May 5, 2018, in Washington. Politico and Al-Monitor mention that too. This one states NCRI and OIAC share an address in Washington DC. Pahlevun (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Pahlevun added to the article that "The Intercept describes OIAC as an "opaque network" which is used by the MEK to lobby the United States Congress” [7], but I did not find the source supported this, so I asked him about it. However, in his answer [8], Pahevun re-organized the text differently from the way it’s organized in the article (the “In the intervening years,…"” part is from a different paragraph in the article that talks about the MEK, not the OIAC). This is what is in the article[9]:

“In the intervening years, even while constrained by their terrorism designation, the group [MEK] and its affiliates poured millions of dollars into a sophisticated effort to rehab their image, creating an influential lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. Via an opaque network of Iranian-American community organizations, supporters circumvented anti-terrorism laws to garner many fans in Washington, at least in some quarters, where they quietly pressed their case for hard-line policies against the Iranian regime through meetings with sympathetic members of Congress.”

Then, in a different paragraph, it says:

“Pro-Mojahedin activists were outraged. Their exact numbers can be hard to divine: the Mojahedin themselves often won’t declare their membership. In the U.S. today, an umbrella organization of groups declaring allegiance to Maryam Rajavi — the innocuously named Organization of Iranian-American Communities — claims its network covers over 30 states.”

In his answer in this talk page I think Pahlevun merged these paragraphs together to make it seem like the source is talking about the OIAC, while it's really talking about the MEK.

Also, Pahlevun then provides 3 sources[10] saying “about removal of content that said OIAC is a front for the MEK/NCRI, several reliable sources are available”, but none of those sources say the OIAC is a front for the MEK/NCRI. Barca (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: please answer BarcrMac's latest comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As you can see above, I have used ellipsis (...) in my quotation, which means I have intentionally left the text in between to refer to the relevant parts, not to "to make it seem like the source is talking about the OIAC". Yes, the source speaks about the MEK, and it says OIAC is actually part of the MEK (an umbrella organization for the "opaque network of Iranian-American community organizations" which claims 30 state affiliates per source). This quote which I added is a summary in the source itself, which asserts that their investigations examined the OIAC network and what they wrote and concluded is based on that information. I stress again, that I have summarized the source (=shortened a long article to one sentence) in my own words which is fairly aligned with the spirit and meaning of the source. About the front organization, Haaretz which is referring to "Iran Freedom Convention for Human Rights and Democracy, May 5, 2018" writes:

The group that hosted Giuliani has been accused by critics of being a "front organization" for Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that was designated in the past as a terrorist organization by the United States.

This is from Politico:

Or perhaps, in Giuliani, avarice and ideology melt into one another. His last appearance before the MeK’s front organization, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, involved a scream fest not unlike his performance at the Republican National Convention.

as well as Al-Monitor:

Top officials close to the Donald Trump administration — including national security adviser John Bolton and Rudolph Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer — have taken tens of thousands of dollars in fees from the MEK and its front organizations over the years to speak before rallies that promote Maryam Rajavi’s leadership ambitions.

Since the sources specifically refer to Rudy Giuliani, the official website of OIAC shows how many speeches has he made for the group: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Moreover, there is another source for it (The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda, Brookings Institution Press, 2018, p. 300, ISBN 9780815732198 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)), I have not yet added any of these to the article as it is clear. I am also pinging Vanamonde, in case he was interested. Pahlevun (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pahlevun, the content you added here, specifically, the phrase "The Intercept describes OIAC as an "opaque network", is very obviously not supported by the source. The source uses that to describe the network of the MEK's supporters, not the OIAC. This is a rather obvious example of what happens when you let your personal POV get in the way of reading a source carefully; you've blurred the distinction between the OIAC and the MEK's other supporters, which, for better or for worse, is a distinction the source makes. Consider this a warning, please. Further examples of original research may be met with a TBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93. I don't get your point on the distinction you said the source makes. The source says "opaque network of Iranian-American community organizations", and then adds that OIAC is an umbrella organization (of that Iranian-American community organizations) with chapters in 30 U.S. states. It also says it "examined giving by people listed by the pro-Mojahedin OIAC network" to write this article. Would you please explain how it is OR? Pahlevun (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: The source does not treat the OAIC as being synonymous with the entirety of the MEK's support network. I said this already, so I don't know why you are asking me to repeat it. If this is a distinction you cannot see, you ought not to be editing this page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Filner and OIAC

@Pahlevun: you created the section "Lobbying activities" [17], and then added this that section:

"In the same year, the organization paid nearly one-third of the costs for the trip of then-Mayor of San Diego Bob Filner to Paris, France, which totaled $31,363. Filner –who attended the annual meetings of the MEK in 2007 and 2011 sponsored by an Iranian-born Colorado real estate broker named Mehdi Ghaemi– appeared the event again in his trip. After the OIAC payment was placed under investigation for violation of state law by the City Council, Filner pledged to reimburse the costs."

Can you please explain where in the sources ([18] [19]) does it say that Filner did any lobbying for the OIAC? Barca (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Al-Monitor piece which is about lobbying says "The groups have also sought to build support for Rajavi’s claim that the NCRI is the legitimate government of Iran. The OIAC notably spent just shy of $100,000 over the past three years sending six House members and five staffers of both parties to the NCRI’s annual rally in Paris, according to the for-profit congressional data aggregator Legistorm, and helped put together a special section of the conservative Washington Times newspaper in conjunction with this year’s rally" and I thought paying for Filner's trip is a similar case. Maybe engagement was not a good word to choose, so I moved the content to a new section. Is it OK now? Pahlevun (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: you thought "paying for Filner's trip is a similar case"? What you added to the article suggested that Filner had done lobbying for the IOAC, something that is not supported by the sources. Isn't that what they call "original research"? Barca (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sponsorship of MEK/NCRI rallies

@Pahlevun: you added a section in the article "Sponsorship of MEK/NCRI rallies", but from I can see, the content in that section talks about the OIAC paying some congress people to attend a NCRI rally. Please explain how the content is suitable for that section. Barca (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun stopped responding. I will remove that content as it doesn't look like it fits "Sponsorship of MEK/NCRI rallies". Barca (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: You're overreaching here. A bad section title isn't a valid reason to remove content that is actually supported by the source; also, only a section of the "lobbying" section has been demonstrated to have original research issues. Please stick to removing that content which was demonstrated to be problematic, retitle the rest of it, and initiate discussion here about the material that you still disagree with. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I did not think that Filner reimbursing trip costs to a rally was notable information, this is why I removed it. If you think this is important information I will put it back in the article. Barca (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another, but you were claiming your removal was based on a discussion, which isn't true. The discussion was only relevant to one part of what you removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not think the content was suitable for that title. I also was hoping to have a conversation with Pahlevun and ask him why he thought someone reimbursing travel costs was notable content for a Wikipedia article, but he stopped responding, so I just removed it. I think that Pahlevun needs to explain why this is important information before it can be added. Barca (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac can you explain why you removed this and this. You said the reason was that the content was mistitled, but Vanamonde explained you could retitle it.VR _talk 02:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There was WP:OR by Pahlevun in several of those edits. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)