Talk:Kaveh Farrokh/Archive 2

Redirect discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was an AFD and the result was No consensus. In this case, the article should have been kept per: WP:AFD. Plus there was not an agreement in the article's talk page about redirecting the article. Therefore redirecting it 2 years ago unilaterally has been a mistake. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• As can be seen from the talk page archives and as explained multiple times at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kaveh Farrokh, there was a discussion about the redirect. Again, as explained multiple times, a decision of "no consensus" (or even an outright keep) does not mean that an article has to remain in perpetuity and cannot be redirected to an appropriate target. After a long discussion, this was the consensus decision. If you want to change that, I repeat again, you'll have to bring up some new evidence that demonstrates that the situation has changed since the redirect was put into place. --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Crusio is correct, this was discussed before the redirect. And so far as I can see, nothing has changed, Farrokh still works as a counsellor, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I repeat there was no such agreement in the talk page about redirecting.

Plus he has a new book.

Please check these 1, 2 and 3. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 08:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• There was a discussion, starting from different viewpoints and ending with nobody objecting the redirect any more. How could that have stood for 2 years if people still objected? And please read that AfD discussion and don't come with "he has published a book" (all academics publish, what counts is whether it gets noticed) or "look at these claims" and source them to his own website. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you and your friends were pushing it to be redirected: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Do you call it an agreement ?!!! *** in fact *** ( contact ) 09:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think a link to a review by a computer engineer (your 3rd link above) suggests? To me it suggests a problem getting reviews from reputable academic specialists. By the way, Crusio, he's not an academic. He's a college counsellor with no qualifications in history. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pardon me ?! That review was done by a PhD student of Ancient History of Iran in the Tehran University. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the 2nd link, but that's no better. A minor student somewhere publishing in - I don't know what, sorry -- is meaningless so far as showing any notability. Even more evidence of a problem getting reviews. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, wow!! A PhD student, no less!! That really establishes notability, doesn't it? Sjeez, please be serious. --Crusio (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Published by University of Tehran.

If something is being reviewed, that doesn't necessarily show that it has a problem. On the contrary it shows the importance.

Dr. David Khoupenia of the University of Tbilisi has also noted this. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The question remains : Why were you pushing it to be redirected, while other editors were opposing ? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do we really have to rehash all these tired old arguments? A blog like Iranscope is not a reliable source. A book review by a grad student in some local magazine does not establish notability. Please read the appropriate policies and guidelines. --Crusio (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And again we have this apparently unpublished review by 'Dr. David Khoupenia': ""Research in the Republic of Georgia has shown that Hepatico improves bile secretion, peristalsis, facilitates evacuation of the stomach, improves digestion and elevates the metabolism - the natural results of normal liver function," said research co-ordinating physician, Dr. David Khoupenia." - a medical doctor in Georgia who gave Farrokh some photos. An unpublished review by someone not qualified in the subject is pretty useless. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are saying materials published by Tehran University are something local and downgrade the level of PhD courses. Let's just hear from other editors. ( Something you did not do 2 years ago ) *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I am indeed saying that some magazine published locally is a local magazine, even if it is published by a reputable university. And no, I was not "downgrading" the level of any PhD courses, just note that a PhD student is at the bottom of the academic ladder. Together, that means that this review does not add anything to the whole discussion about notability. And apparently you still have not read the talk page archives: there was significant discussion and interaction with other editors. After initial resistance, they accepted the decision to redirect. At this point, you seem to be the only one resisting it, despite your extensive canvassing. --Crusio (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• When and where exactly did they accept it? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious from their actions (or lack of it), I'd say. Everything was quiet here for 2 years. --Crusio (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the point : You made them tired of back and forth redirecting, without an obvious agreement in the talk page. Now we wait for other users to comment and admins to decide your previous actions ( 2 years ago ) and the current status. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Dougweller is an admin. --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been the subject of discussion on WP:BLPN#Kaveh Farrokh where three editors requested that the redirect not be restored pending discussion. Original AFD resulted in "no consensus". Articles for deletion policy says ""If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." A review of the archived Talk page revealed no consensus whatever. In fact User:Crusio himself posted, ""at this point there is no consensus for a redirect", and other users were adamant: "No, the page won't be redirected anywhere", "There is no consensus for deletion or redirection", and "It also doesn't mean that you can simply take unilateral action and redirect the article". There is no sign of this ending in any consensus, and the edtors should not simply have redirected the page again given the active opposition at WP:BLPN. If they continue to think the article is not notable then a new nomination for deletion would have been the way to go. A redirect was effectively a unilateral decision to delete the article, and was inappropriate given the opposition and ongoing discussion on the noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a redirect that long after the AfD is quite different from a redirect right after an AfD. I thought a RfC was going to be raised about this issue, what's happened to that? Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The RfC template is at the top of this section. --Crusio (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Redirecting it two years ago without an agreement was a wrong action in the first place. Therefore it must be stopped, and those who did it are responsible for it. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Crusio, going blind. in fact, there is now an RfC to decide what should happen, and I have no idea what you expect by saying 'those who did it are responsbile for it'. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Remember, we are not discussing his notability here. Simply because it has been discussed in 2008. Here I made the question of why you have redirected this article through an edit war in November 2008.

Something about the passing 2 years: let me give you an example, It's just like a user vandalises an article and nobody notices it. After 2 years another user finds it out and reverts it. Then the first user replies : since nobody opposed my edit, therefore my action was right !!! *** in fact *** ( contact ) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please remain serious. Comparing this to vandalism is not helpful at all. --Crusio (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Wait a minute, I think I have just found something interesting: There used to be a deal between the two parties which was made on 25 Nov 2008 ( in the talk page ). See this history 25 Nov 2008. But you broke the deal a week after !. I am really shocked. What was going on in that time ?!!! *** in fact *** ( contact ) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't support this redirect, it is clearly disputed and I don't think the wiki wheels are going to drop of by this more or less noteworthy person having a separate article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have decided to quit this discussion. Let the article be redirected. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A historian

Please check past discussions before starting labeling this person as "historian". He's not one. He's a salesman, because he writes books for commercial publisher to gain profit. Pierre Briant is historian, Jona Lendering also, Daniel Thomas Potts, Wouter Henkelman... Former two published dozens of great articles about ancient Iran and you may find them for free, Lendering is sharing everything on Livius where you can find every single primary source (includes refuting long-conventional prejudice among historians that Darius III have fled Gaugamela battlefield), Dr. Briant has spent years for compiling great History of Persian Empire (just Achaemenid period, but 1200 pages). And what Farrokh has done? He's compiled three books in just six years in which he hasn't provided anything new, he hasn't cited academic sources (neither do scholars cite him) and after receiving bad reviews he's started attacking all relevant scholars on his personal website. Instead of receiving email support for devoting their lives to research on ancient Iran, scholars are receiving insults, accusations and even threats because patriotic salesman Farrokh has conviced many they're part of "anti-Iranian conspiracy". In search of real conspiracies it's enough to see his website where he supports manipulator who runs CAIS-SOAS (blocked at Wikipedia), repeats propaganda about Sivand Dam "threat" (refuted by experts and ignored by UNESCO), even claims Iranian establishment is "anti-Cyrus" (while even Ahmadinejad calls cylinder as human rights charter [1]). Farrokh may claim he's a "World renowned expert in the field of Iranian studies", but he's far from it. Actually, he and other persons whose goals are profit or political agenda have done significant damage to Iranian studies in past years. --109.165.168.175 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

He's a college counsellor and an author. He has no qualifications in history. He isn't published by an acdemic press. I didn't know CAIS-SOAS was blocked here and don't think it is. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Striking through this, it isn't correct. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

May I know why Staszek Lem is replacing two major authorities on Iranology by some charlatan sources? --109.165.241.212 (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"The added text says nothing of the book in question." (Staszek Lem). In fact, they do. Both Lendering and Briant-Kuhrt are refering to both Farrokh's work and "anti-reviews" of his fanboys. You may not like it, but you can not find more reliable sources then those two leading experts. Also, I have been searching for Achaemenid-related publications of those "collaborative scholars" and, of course, zero. --109.165.241.212 (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

remind us again why this is even brought up on this website? We are not a free webhost for Iranian patriots or their haters. Some people are trying to write an encyclopedia here. I am sure this would all be much more in place in some flame war on an appropriate forum. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was brought here as justifing this edit (article has labeled him "historian" before it). Dougweller has corrected article even further. Also, I put it as notice to many young Iranian lads who consider criticizing Farrokh as some "anti-Iranian conspiracy". There very little "patriotic" is his amateurish approach to Iranian historiography and especially labeling scholars who dedicated their lives for it as "racists". IMHO, I belive Wikipedia should follow Iranica's path and make article Historiography of Iran - it can cover all scholarly and amateurish works (of course I'm familiar that Wikipedia is not a forum, but it's not a peer review magazine for every wannabe-historian either). --46.239.13.244 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is not " peer review magazine for every wannabe-historian". In fact, there is close to none text which explains Farrokh's theories. It merely metions that he wrote a couple of books, that sameone criticized them and someone else responded to criticism. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by an IP

The following text removed from the article:

Citing Lendering, World's leading authorities on ancient Iranian studies Pierre Briant and Amélie Kuhrt agree that recent advances in Achaemenid historiography are not always correctly evaluated and taken fully into account, They also criticize excessively aggressive responses to Lendering's review stating that such polemical exchange gives a disorted, even caricatured image of the state of Achaemenid history today.

The text says nothing about the book. At the same time, restoreed deleted reference of the response to ctiricism.

In seems that we deal here with two conflicting historical schools, who, interestingly, accuse each other in ignoring recent advances in Achaemenidography and poor scholarship. Wikipedia is not the place to go in the detail of their bickering. Mentioning of heir disagreement is enough. At the same time, it is against wikipedia rules (WP:NPOV to delete references to the opinion of the opposing side, especially responses to criticisms of one side. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Text is directly refering to both Lendering's review of Farrokh's work and later anti-reviews (refering only to Farrokh's book, not Holland's or Lincoln's). There aren't any "two conflicting historical schools", there's only one relevant historical school flamed by few for profitable or political interests. Critics by people who aren't historians are irrelevant for encyclopedia, as same as theories about Nibiru or "live Elvis". I suggest you to improve identifing of reliable sources because main problem is - it's easy to find charlatan flaming using Google, but it's much harder to be familiar with reputable academic historiography (Briant, Kurth, etc.). Let me give you one example - I disagree with Lendering about Cyrus Cylinder and his too-much-critical view on primary source, but I won't use even Farrokh's book as proof that he's wrong. First thing I should to is to consult FCTA:HOPE (2002; p. 47) by P. Briant consindering he's an authority on Acaemenid history, and second I'll consult EOHR (2009; p. 396) by D. P. Forsythe considering he's an authority on human rights. In this case we have "conflicting views", because they're experts publishing academic works, they argue and cite. Farrokh's done none of it, he accepts only one side (even without any citation) just because it sounds more pleasure to him and he doesn't argue anything about this subject (p. 44-45). So what's the basic difference between him and Eurocentrics who still favor Alexander romance more then modern scholarly works? There isn't any. --109.165.186.180 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not answering my questions. Let me rephrase it: what new information it adds about Farrokh's book besides the fact that some criticize it? Let me repeat another time, you are not allowed to delete references of the opposing opinions. Sorry, I stopped listening to you when you stick a label "charlatans" on people who are described as professors from different countries. They were accepted for publication in the same place where Lendering was. If Bryn Mawr considers this discussion fair, it is good for wikipedia as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Real problem is that you aren't answering our questions because Dough has already asked you where are your sources saying these are historians? Now I'm asking you - who accepted them for publication? Internet website? Lendering review is cited by most reputable historians, while is Vashakidze's article was described as "excessively aggressive response" which ridicule Achaemenid historiography. --109.165.186.180 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bryn Mawr Classical Review is a respected publisher, not an "internet website". Opponent's bickering irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I see - problem is that I've dropped link while rewording page. I have no problem with using it as I stated below, but as Dough has adviced you - don't label them as historians if they aren't related to subject. Even amateur can write a good book or good review, I agree about that. --109.165.186.180 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. We're still waiting for your proof that V. Vashakidze is relevant scholar on Achaemenid historiography. --109.165.186.180 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not my business, see above. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your recent edit. --109.165.186.180 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No more isses from me. I still disagree with your addition, but I can live with it. The major issue was criticizing some "aggressive response" while removing a chance to see it by readers for themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I can clarify why it was describead as "excessively aggressive response". Lendering was equally aggressive if not more ("Shadows in the Desert is an exceptionally bad book" and so on). However the authors of the response were stupid enough to originally publish under the title (later amended) "Collaborative Scholars' Response to Pseudo-Historian Jona Lendering", which of course drew fire Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you can clarify why it was described that way unless you are actually one of the authors editing here under a different name. So long as it's attributed and not written as though Wikipedia is stating it, I'm not sure there's a problem. Anyway, you both need to back off now as you are past 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can do what I want in article talk page. And I am not seeing it is a problem, just a funny detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A 3RR warning is just that, by the way. 3RR is a bright line rule and editors should be notified when they are in danger of being blocked. This dispute looked to be going over the top and I would not want to see anyone blocked over it. I also asked for page protection, perhaps that isn't necessary but it would prevent anyone from being blocked while the issue is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You are late with your big stick: the dust already settled. Anyway, sorry about 3RR: I should have watched better. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Some explanation about my involvement in this page. While reading some wikipedia article I noticed that it was footnoted to a book by Farrokh. Being a random wikipedian, I wanted to make sure that the author (wikilinked) is reasonably relevant. Instead I noticed a weird redirect to nowhere, so I proceeded with fixing what I saw an issue.

However the current dicussion makes me realize that there is a reverse side of the coin: since there are strong doubts about credibility of this author, then quotations of this author in wikipedia (plenty of them, as I've checked now) must be thoroughly verified. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Yes, he really shouldn't be considered a reliable source. He's got some popularity for nationalist reasons, but he isn't an academic historian. I need to look into the use of him as a source, but if you can help that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

re: "be merged with military history of Persia. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2012. "

Tentative Oppose (unless convinced otherwise) - if the author is nonnotable, then I don't see how the major article Military history of Iran" (not Persia) may benefit from the merge. At the same time the author appears to be reasonably notorious (regardless his expertise) to be discussed by scholars. And even receiving an award (which is IMO a political thing) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the award is a political thing but more importantly, not notable, so it doesn't matter. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Send him to AfD if he's not notable, but don't bring him here. Shrigley (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I'm not sure how this idea came about, but at least at first glance the merge idea seems rather far fetched not to say idiotic. Independent of the question, whether one considers this author notable or not, his personal biography has definitely no place in the Military history of Iran.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.