Talk:Kaveh Farrokh: Difference between revisions

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)

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)