Talk:Kaveh Farrokh

Pan-Turanianism Takes Aim at Azerbaijan: A Geopolitical Agenda is an online book, not an article.Hajji Piruz 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

well you are free to be Pakistani, and all what Dr. farrokh writes on the Iranian history and Iranian ethnic groups are sourced. So bring your blind sentiments somewhere else; it is all about facts. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus Iranians don't mostly live in deserts. Only a third of Iran is desert, and those areas are uninhabited. Anyways Iranians are fair skinned olive people, don't argue that please just because you aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.17.159 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Farrokh doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. If he is at all notable, then for his online nationalistic rants against "Western-centric" misrepresentation of ancient Persia. But this would need to be established by independent third party sources. Otherwise redirect to Shadows in the Desert: Persia at War. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article ([1]). If you still insist that he isn't please go to AfD instead of unilaterally redirecting the page. Khoikhoi 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews

One of them, by David Khoupeni, seems to be only online-- I don't think that meets WP standards. The other which is really a comment, comes from the book itself. Seems a bit overdone. Doug Weller (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the online inaccessible 'review', we need published reviews. And an introduction is not a review, so I've changed the section heading. Surely there are some reviews from reliable, verifiable sources? Doug Weller (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoo boy, I found one by a historian who contributed some of the photographs, Jona Lendering. [2]

The heading says "Three books on the Achaemenid Empire, all aiming at the general audience. One of them is just bad, the second one is unnecessary, the third explains what everybody already knows. This is the wrong way to introduce people to one of the most fertile branches of ancient history." Guess which is the 'just bad' one?

One of the last lines of Kaveh Farrokh's Shadows in the Desert. Ancient Persia at War is that "there has been an overall decline of programs and studies of Iranica in western Europe and the United States since 1980". If his book is indicative of the quality of modern-day Iranian studies, the decline can only be lauded. Shadows in the Desert contains dozens of factual errors, repeats Iranian propaganda from the 1970s, and contains numerous unnecessary digressions. Osprey Publishers have obviously invested a lot of energy in producing the book, which is indeed very attractive,[1] but all their care cannot hide that the manuscript ought to have been returned to the writer, much though he is to be praised for trying to redress the Greece-centeredness that bedevils most ancient history.

This I guess explains the problem I'm having finding reviews. Doug Weller (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And here [3] Lendering says:

1. Kaveh Farrokh’s Shadows in the Desert is one of the worst books I have ever read; 2. Tom Holland’s Persian Fire is unnecessary; 3. Bruce Lincoln’s Religion, Empire, and Torture, although a very good book by an excellent scholar, understates its own case.

Of these books, the first one is probably the most dangerous for Iranology, as it contains hundreds of errors and even quotes political propaganda. I was shocked to discover that Farrokh holds a PhD and is working for a university. The book by Holland also contains numerous mistakes, but at least the author does not claim to be a historian.
Doug Weller (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This section from Lendering's review strikes me as highly relevant to our Cyrus cylinder issues:

The strangest inclusion is the Cyrus Cylinder, a document from Babylon in which the great conqueror presents himself as the ideal king: chosen by the supreme god, he restores order, repairs buildings, allows exiles to return home, and redresses malpractices. In the past, this text - which is absolutely topical - has been taken as evidence for Cyrus' illuminated policy, especially by the government of Mohammad Reza Shah, who even called it "the world's first human rights charter". Farrokh repeats this propaganda verbatim on page 44, apparently unaware of the extensive secondary literature on the subject.

I can't say I'm surprised - his lengthy "rebuttal" of the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph articles is equally shoddy. I have to say that when read it I thought it wasn't the kind of thing that any serious historian, or at least one with a reputation to defend, would publish. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a bio submitted to a conference as a 3rd party source

[4] is being used as though it is an authoritative source, whereas it is almost certainly something Farrokh himself was asked to submit. That's standard practice at academic conferences, you don't get some researcher researching the participants, participants are asked to submit biographical information. Thus this is simply what Farrokh has said about himself, but at the moment the article reads as though the conference bio is an authoritative Doug Weller (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Queustioning the Reviews of Kaveh Farrokh

Gentlemen,

I am now in Canada pursuing Hellenic Studies and am new to Wikipedia. It would seem that all of these recent attacks on this forum against Dr. Farrokh are mainly based on Jona Lendering’s “review” which was posted around the same time that the Spiegel Magazine article against Cyrus was published (around July or so).

That “review” is actually being examined by a number of academics in Iranian and Hellenic studies – and from what my supervisor tells me, they are not impressed with Lendering’s mainly weak command of a number of facts (I’ll cite one which I was told shortly below). 

I do not claim to be on ancient Iran as Lendering does. From what I see from his writings on ancient Greece (especially Macedonia), Lendering often cites himself as “references” and ignores (or is not aware) of a lot of the pertinent research. I noticed here that some writers here take issue with Dr. David Khoupenia reviewing Farrokh but have no problem with Lendering  citing himself in his “analyses”.  There seem to be a double-standard here. 

My supervisor was also very shocked at Lendering’s rude language against Dr. Farrokh. I notice that (even with Wikipedia forum rules), this type of tone is being replicated here. To say that Farrokh “has a reputation to defend” is interesting if not misguided. 

But the real issue is not the personal attacks on Farrokh. The focus here is Farrokh’s retort against Spiegel and Daily Telegraph. The article was actually well-written (unlike what some gentlemen try to convey here). In fact both articles were full of citations and references. These led to Farrokh being interviewed with the Persian services of BBC and Voice of America live. I noticed the links to these on the Kavad website before it was damaged by hackers in late July

Also, I find it interesting that you think that Dr. Farrokh is Persian; he is not. He was born in Greece and is of Ossetian descent (he is half-Azeri I think towards Georgia’s southeast region). He never grew up in Iran and has no political connections there or elsewhere. He learned Persian mainly during his graduate studies. Lendering’s attempts to tie him to the “Shah’s propaganda” is fictional and misinformed. Just because one writes in a way that does not agree with another’s views does not make one a “propagandist”. That is called expressing your point of view. 

But let us return to Lendering. He claims in his website that all reports of dangers to the Pasargardae site are “hoaxes”. This shows one thing clearly: Lendering has no clue of what is happening inside of Iran. A number of high-profile sites have already been destroyed by the local authorities– most recently parts of Susa were bulldozed to make room for a hotel. This was reported by Iran’s press reports (not some outside diaspora outfit). The news outlet is Mehr News and entitled “Bulldozing Iran's 7000-year-old mound for brick production” link: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=747668   The only reason the tomb of Cyrus has been spared is due to the vociferous protests by the International Community against the present government of Iran.  It is now a UNESCO heritage site. Lendering’s “review” is certainly false and misleading in that respect. This raises some questions as to the reliability of Lendering’s “reviews” in general.  

Natasha Adamios  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Adamios (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that either review should be in the article. Neither is published, Khouphenia's is on Farrokh's website and Lendering's on his own. The focus here should be on using reliable and verifiable sourced, words which have specific meanings in Wikipedia and in this case I think require published (paper) reviews. I'm not surprised to find local authorities damaging archaeological sites, by the way. (And I never expressed a view of Farrokh's origin). Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

I guess you are choosing to ignore that Farrokh is respected by many academics in Greece, Hungary, the United States, Iran, England, etc. Dr. Farrokh has already been evaluated by Dr. Patrick Hunt of Stanford University, Dr. Llewlleyn-Jones in Great Britain, Professor Emeritus of Harvard, Professor Nikolaz Kachareva, etc. I have seen this on a number of websites and have heard of this numerous times in Greece and now in Canada. The issue here is that he defends ancient Iran in a balanced and non-partisan manner. This proves psychologically threatening to those who dislike Iran, some facet of iran today, or the established historiography of Iran (such as Jona Lendering).

Again, I am no expert of Iran and my mian focus is my country of origin, Greece. I do know that Lendering is not considered an expert of Greece either, at least from what i have run across in the halls of academe in Greece.

But back to your complaints. Perhaps you are not aware, but internet sources if they are independent of the author, can be used as references - please see:

Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish John D. Cone & Sharon L. Foster

My apologies I cannot recall the date/publisher, but it states clealry that internet references can be used.  There are also specific rules of citing internet reference systems in the APA Manual (American Psychological Association. I saw this in the latest APA manuals at our university bookstore.

Again, the issue is not the personal attacks on Farrokh. Internet references are often used in citations for refereed journals - I actually witnessed this in a Dissertation defense last Thursday - the same issue that you raise came up. 

By the way: Dr. Khoupenia, is from the The University of Tbilisi in Georgia. Interesting how even he is questioned now simply because of the review he wrote. This is fascinating. The message is as thus:

I do not like what Professor X has written so I will attempt to discredit him

If I were to do this, then I would be attempting to impose a subtle form of censorship. I am sure you will call this process as something else. I am just letting you know what the attacks are beginning to resemble.  

Now what i have to say is from scientific but here is my view of the attacks I see on this forum. As I noted earlier, Farrokh is guilty of writing in a way that is not palatable to views of certain distinguished members. This may explain the vigour and intensity of the (increasingly) personalized attacks against Farrokh. 

One note of interest - it seems that you have chosen to engage to expend a lot of energy (in a very petty and picayune manner) against one individual (Farrokh in this case). This is what undermines your position Sir - you are using this forum as a platform for Ad Hominom attacks on Farrokh. Very interesting that you rely on Lendering and stay clear of what Farrokh actually stated to Spiegel and the Daily Telegraph - again (I respectfully remind you), the articles were sources and referenced. What is very interesting is that no attacks of the type that you engage in, were seen until these retorts were published. 

Finally: As per Farrokh's origin Sir, you cannot have it both ways. You are citing Lendering as your main source, who on top of his flawed (and very biased) review, conveys the false impression that Farrokh is a "nationalist" from Iran. You cite Lendering as a valid source and now seem to be engaged in a partial retraction. It would appear that your dislike of Farrokh is more personal than professional. This may explain why you cited Lendering. Doing so raises questions as to the ulterior motives behind these attacks. 

Natasha Adamios  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Adamios (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what is going on here. This is a discussion (at least from my point of view) of the article, not of Farrokh. I was citing Lendering because I found his review and I thought it relevant. I understand about Internet citations but this is Wikipedia and we have different policies and guidelines.  What Farrokh wrote in Spiegel and the DT is irrelevant to this article, which is not and should not be trying to judge whether Farrokh is wrong or right (have I commented on that?), that is not our role as editors. Wikipedia values verifiability over truth (eg over proving a position is wrong or right) and reports what reliable and verifiable sources have to say, so editors' opinions of the subject matter should be irrelevant. Khouphenia as a person is not being questioned, the issue is that his review is on Farrokh's own website. If it were published in a reliable source there would be no problem at all about its being used. I've put a welcome menu on your talk page if you want to learn more about how Wikipedia works. We also expect editors (and you are one now) to assume that other editors are acting in good faith and not attack them.  Doug Weller (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

It is you who misunderstads or most liklely misinformed. Allow me to demonstrate:

1)Kaveh Farrokh does not have a website 2)The review you of Khoupenia cite is posted on Iranscope which belong to a certain Sam Ghandchi: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/Khoupenia/index.html

You can contact the webiste and verify this for yourself. Did you think that Iranscope is Farrokh's website? Surley I hope you are wring. This indicates that judge first and then ask questions later. I beleive that your peronsal dislike of Farrokh is clouding your judgement and analysis.

You may be getting confused with the now-defunct Kavad website that Farrokh had earlier this year but was hacked in July 2008. The Iranscope posting is from 2006 - again contact Iranscope and find out for yourself Sir.

Again Sir, you are playing it both ways - now in 3 cases:

1) First you cited Lendering, then when I point out his review's lack of credibility, you engaged in verbal acrobatics. Simply put, you are caught off-guard because you did not knwo that Lendering is a biased and misinformed source.

2) This very forum attempted to question Dr. Khoupenia's credibility. Then you attempted to mislead me into thinkiong that Iranscope is Kaveh Farrokh's site. Theremay be legal implications however I am no expert in syuch matters. What is clear is that either you did not know or attempted to convey a false impression.

3) This forum and the one on Farrokh's book did make reference to Farrokh's articles against Spiegel and Daily telegraph. Now you attemtping to divert the conversation as you realize that some fo us have actually read these and know that they are sourced, references and reviewed by places such as Stanford University. Are we now going to question Stanford Univeristy as weli, as we just did with Dr. Khoupenia and the University of Tbilisi? This is a canard.

Interesting that you now have to affirm that your intention is not to "attack" - but your actions belie your words. The case of Iranscope is yet another case in point. Do I have to cite the other unprofessional statements made on this forum? The only reason I chose to enter this forum is that I see it as unbalanced, biased, unfair if not rude. I have done this eventhough I am no expert on ancient Iran. I do however understand that I do not dislike Iran or Iranians and do not take offense at the gloroius role of ancietn Persia in history. I am sure that you will say "oh no I do not dislike Iran/Iranians, I am simply an onjective aditor...". As noted before, your statements do appear to have ulterior motives which are disguised as "editorial".

I understand where you are coming from. Again, you do not like what Farrokh has to say in his publications (on-line and in print)and hence are trying to manipulate this forum to your satisfaction. I witnessed an explosive exchange last year in Athens where a Romanian ethnologist attempted to portray modern Hungarians as genetic descedants of the ancient Dacians. This reminds me of the reactions on this forum and the one of Farrokh's book: the message is not palatable therefore which results in the system of "Let us shoot the messenger"..in this case Farrokh. And here again is where you go astray: Farrokh is not the point - let us focus on the writings. You then cited Lendering and I needed only 1 example to show you that he is unreliable.

I must admit that I see an interesting parallel:

1) Lendering thinks that no archaeological sites are in danger in Iran. You cited this. Now you attempt to backtrack and downplay this by saying "oh I never said that". There is a self-contradiction here. You like to cite Lendering when it suites you and then distance yourself when it is liability. Your self-contradiction reminds me of our politicans in Europe.

2) You "thought" that Iranscope is Farrokh's site. That was (I must admit) very surprising. Perhaps you did not realize that yoru assertiosn would be checked.

It is my hope that you engage your energy in more constructive ways. The more you attempt to discuss the "Farrokh case", the more transparent your motives become. Again, this may (partly) explain your mistake with Iranscope.

Natasha Adamios