User talk:London Hall - Knowledge (XXG)

1275:, it was Parsi who sued the journalist, and Parsi's emails were part of the evidence that proved he had links to the Iran government: "Mr. Parsi then sued him for defamation... Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif...offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws. Parsi is at the heart of the evidence concerning the Iran lobby in the US: "Eli Lake has come up with some very interesting evidence about Parsi's activities in Washington, including an internal memo from the group's policy director, Patrick Disney, in which he states that NIAC is, in fact, functioning as a lobby... Arranging meetings between foreign officials and members of Congress in order to influence legislation -- the point of meeting with members of Congress, of course -- is an essential aspect of lobbying. Parsi is on record as opposing sanctions on Iran, a position the Iranian regime, and its representatives at the U.N., obviously endorse." 766:

was being used multiple times across these articles) say that Brookings received funding from Ploughshares to "advance its non-proliferation agenda", yet the article stated that Brookings "has received funds from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and National Iranian American Council to publish works for the Islamic Republic of Iran and against certain political opposition groups", which is an extraordinary claim clearly not supported by the source. I'd note that Ploughshares is a long-standing and reputable anti-nuclear weapons organisation, and the Brookings Institution is well regarded. The entire article was built around claims such as this which weren't supported by the source or where the source was obviously unreliable, and similar problems turned up when I spot checked the other articles. As this appears to be motivated by an agenda and was carrying across into BLP issues, I decided to impose an indefinite duration block.

311:" Mr. Parsi then sued him for defamation... Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif... Now a lawsuit has brought to light numerous documents that raise questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law. If so, a number of prominent Washington figures could come to regret their ties to the group. " 1266:"Ohio Rep. Robert Ney personally lobbied the then Secretary of State Colin Powell to relax U.S. sanctions on Iran." Part of Ney's conviction was because Ney arranged a meeting "with FN Aviation to discuss U.S. sanctions against the sale of aviation parts to Iran... The Justice Department said the foreign businessman and his partner sought Ney's help obtaining a travel visa and selling U.S.-made airplanes and parts to a foreign country, and that the businessman's company paid for Ney's trip to London in February 2003." 22: 66: 1378: 1051: 176: 98: 781:

a conversation about this, perhaps also allowing others cast their thoughts. As I noted above, the Iran Lobby in the US is not a hoax or an "agenda", and I've provided enough reliable references to back this up:; and I've also provided enough references to back up what I included in the Parsi/NIAC articles (which I've outlined in my unblock request above).

1224:

Material you added to the same article falsely stated that a US congressman had been convicted as a result of lobbying to have sanctions on Iran lifted, with the source not supporting this either. Other sources state that he was convicted for other reasons. This formed part of a campaign of similar editing regarding Iranian lobbying in the US.

780:

There are reliable sources that disagree with you on that the Brookings Institution is that "well regarded":; and as mentioned, Ploughshares Fund finances the organization considered to be lobbying for Iran in the US: If you disagreed with sources/statements within the article, there should have been

765:

You are not "regurgitating from reliable sources". You have been adding material which is clearly not supported by the sources you give. For instance, the three reliable sources concerning the Brookings Institution (all the same AP article - note that Breitbart is obviously not a reliable source, yet

332:

I resumed those sources into the article. Here are references outlining that the Ploughshares fund lobbies on pro-Iran issues: ; and that Ploughshares funds the National Iranian American Council (which sources claim is at the center of lobbying efforts in the US): ; and that the Brookings Institution

1429:

It is not possible to unblock you in such a way that you are able to post to the administrator's noticeboard only. If you wish your appeal copied to the noticeboard, you may ask for this to be done in your unblock request, although no administrator is under any obligation to do so. Unblock requests

1148:

I have looked at this. None of the sources provided in the article or here above support the claim that the Brookings Institution "has received funds from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps". Thus your claim, repeated here, that everything you included in your edits was backed by references is

846:

when it was wrongly deleted as a hoax .Hence came into this issue. Iranian lobby in USA is true and can be sourced.I have edited here for over 4 years as an IP which is dynamic have made over 600 constructive edits here. I humbly request you to unblock London Hall.This is not a block much less a

1223:

You added defamatory claims about this person to the article which were clearly not supported by the sources given (for instance, that a court found against him personally when the source - which is at best borderline reliable - states clearly that it found against the organisation he heads).

1136:

I just need to have someone else look at this. Is it that this topic cannot be included on Knowledge (XXG)? Everything I included in the edits I made were backed up by references. If there was a dispute on whether the references were reliable, I should have been notified, not blocked. I never

1208:

Many of the sources I used were reliable. Concerning my edits to the Trita Parsi article, for example, I regurgitated directly from the reference provided (I noted this above). I request to at least be allowed to comment on the administrators noticeboard so I may present my case there.

328:

As I've outlined throughout the article, there are reliable sources that confirm there is an Iran Lobby in the United States: Sources claim the lobby is led by the National Iranian American Council: and that the National Iranian American Council has ties with the Iran Government:

1137:

received any type of warning suggesting that what I was doing was wrong in any way. As I've provided in my unblock request (above), there are enough references to support there is an Iran Lobby in the US. I'm requesting to have my appeal copied to the Administrators noticeboard.

1023: 414: 354:

Finally, if there was a discussion to be had on weather the sources I provided on these edits were reliable, the appropriate thing to do would have been to notify me or open a discussion. Blocking my account for regurgitating from reliable sources just doesn't make sense.

323:‎article with substantial amounts of sensitive material which was not supported by the sources given - for instance, that the Brookings Institution is funded by the Iranian Government and the Ploughshares Foundation has lobbied on behalf of the Iranian Government. 129:‎article with substantial amounts of sensitive material which was not supported by the sources given - for instance, that the Brookings Institution is funded by the Iranian Government and the Ploughshares Foundation has lobbied on behalf of the Iranian Government 1287:

had a Knowledge (XXG) article, so didn't consider the article part of an attack campaign. Regardless, it did cross my mind that someone may object this as source, but I honestly thought that there would be a discussion about this, not a direct block!

469: 458: 1024:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ycHFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101&dq=iran+lobby+in+the+united+states&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjij5CsjYDbAhULsBQKHYWkDygQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=iran%20lobby%20in%20the%20united%20states&f=false

415:

1399:

I am being blocked, and it's coming across as unjust. I would like to be granted the rights to defend myself in the administrators noticeboard. Please allow me that much, so I can at least get the perspective of others there.

261:

I made sure that the article/edits I published recently concerning the Iran Government lobby in the US were backed up by reliable sources, often quoting directly from the reference. For instance, taking the points outlined by

1191:

I am not formally reviewing this again- but discussing the existence of an Iran lobby is not the reason you were blocked, but that you are claiming sources state things that they do not, as well as using unreliable sources.

590: 722:

seriously, and in addition you do seem to have some sort of agenda here. For those reasons, and the fact that this request only defends what you did without even suggesting you may have been in error, I am declining it.

1034: 689: 296:

stated "raise questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law." The documents included e-mail correspondence between Parsi and

470:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HODJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT135&dq=iranian+lobby+niac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi92OLVj4DbAhWKOxQKHfWUA0EQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=iranian%20lobby%20niac&f=false

459:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HODJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT135&dq=iranian+lobby+niac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi92OLVj4DbAhWKOxQKHfWUA0EQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=iranian%20lobby%20niac&f=false

946: 935: 139:

As this is a clear pattern of misrepresenting sources or using bad sources to advance an agenda, including in relation to negative material on living people, I've set the block duration as indefinite..

866:, thank you for defending me here, but because your account involves an IP with no editing history, others may think we're related. It may be best to just let an admin look at the case objectively. 809: 1384: 591:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/24/for-new-iranian-american-lobbying-group-response-to-nuclear-deal-is-pivotal-first-test/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8d80953759e8

1035:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=9RR2MyoDwBAC&pg=PA345&dq=Iran+lobby+niac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn3qLljePaAhXsB8AKHS0sDY4Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=niac&f=false

690:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=9RR2MyoDwBAC&pg=PA345&dq=Iran+lobby+niac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn3qLljePaAhXsB8AKHS0sDY4Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=niac&f=false

302: 70: 913: 968: 656: 480: 403: 947:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/24/for-new-iranian-american-lobbying-group-response-to-nuclear-deal-is-pivotal-first-test/?utm_term=.611fc59897a3

936:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-fast-growing-brookings-donors-help-set-agenda/2014/10/30/a4ba4e8e-48ef-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?utm_term=.a6abe4d932d3

1183:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

757:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

623: 1283:: Upon investigating some the article's claims via other references, I saw that most of the statements were covered in other press. I also confirmed that 645: 924: 1091: 216: 1430:

such as the one above are flagged to all administrators, so your statement will be seen by the admin corps regardless of whether it is posted to

1168: 742: 144: 914:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/06/02/brookings-institution-the-progressive-jukebox-funded-by-u-s-taxpayers/#108da9f45e53

863: 848: 513: 969:

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/americas-most-prominent-group-advocating-engagement-with-iran-was-hit-with-a-rough-court-decision-2015-3

843: 657:

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/americas-most-prominent-group-advocating-engagement-with-iran-was-hit-with-a-rough-court-decision-2015-3

481:

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/americas-most-prominent-group-advocating-engagement-with-iran-was-hit-with-a-rough-court-decision-2015-3

404:

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/americas-most-prominent-group-advocating-engagement-with-iran-was-hit-with-a-rough-court-decision-2015-3

320: 126: 1336: 979: 813: 678: 491: 381: 1086: 348: 339: 211: 133: 524: 1347: 1325: 1314: 1001: 667: 447: 392: 1012: 634: 436: 35: 804:

to right here. The edits are sourced and this is dispute only over the quality of sources.There is no BLP violation per se.As

957: 601: 579: 557: 546: 1440: 624:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/20/soros-backed-group-helped-sell-iran-nuclear-deal-funds-media-dc-think-tanks/

1064: 425: 189: 111: 106: 646:

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/how-the-liberal-echo-chamber-sold-the-lie-moderate-iranian-leaders

283:"In response, Parsi sued him for defamation. As a result of the lawsuit, many internal documents were released, which 1058: 183: 925:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html?mtrref=www.google.es

880:

I would add for the IPs benefit that warnings are not required if the issue is serious, which BLP issues often are.

1063:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

568: 188:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1105: 502: 230: 74: 44: 852: 1358: 535: 700: 275:

article claiming that a court finding against the National Iranian American Council was actually about him

122:

article claiming that a court finding against the National Iranian American Council was actually about him

514:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/31/obama-adviser-on-iran-worked-for-pro-regime-lobby/

69:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

298: 1337:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/

1279:

To be fair, I should say that I was inspired to write about this by a single article, this one by

980:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/

679:

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-taking-heat-over-ties-to-pro-iranian-group-2009-11?IR=T

492:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/

382:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/

82: 50: 525:

http://www.thetower.org/2340-expose-reveals-deep-links-between-dc-iran-lobby-and-iranian-regime/

1438: 1348: