Talk:National Iranian American Council

message: 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)
thread_title: national review article citation at the beginning

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected (c.f. OTRS #2008010410012838) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: locked?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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"  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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Hassan Daioleslam can not be used as a source here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Related article? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Moved Washington Times material

message: 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)
replies: text: 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."https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/ 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)
thread_title: Stop Removeing Section

message: 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)
replies: text: Page is no longer protected. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by James Bertrand 8