Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

see previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh
Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fairly obscure history book doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I have been able to find only one - very uncomplimentary - external review, published in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. [1] The publisher's website cites positive comments from a couple of classical scholars but these appear to be solicited feedback rather than non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books). [2] The book has not won any awards, it has not contributed to art forms or political or religious movements and there is no evidence that it is in educational use - I've been unable to find any references to it in any other books, so it does not appear to be in use as a source for historians. Finally, the author himself, an Iranian-Canadian psychologist, is thoroughly obscure - this is only his second published book - and he certainly cannot considered "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". The book is the only one of Osprey Publishing's "General military" titles to have its own article, but there is no indication of why it has any notability of any sort, given that it so clearly fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books) ChrisO (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(added) I have no objection to merging it, though obviously it would need to be slimmed down to the bare essentials. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you explain what "significant coverage" this might be? You've not cited any. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited BBC below where the book has received an award. You might not like the book but the award is a fact and other people that received awards besides Farrokh include notable people like Dick Davis and Patrick Hunt. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment per Richard Frye. Richard Frye notes:"In this book Dr. Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek side and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see other perspectives, and Dr. Farrokh sheds light on many Persian institutions in this history, such as the Sassanian elite cavalry, the "saravan". Osprey Publishing is to be congratulated for publishing Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, which presents another aspect of wars between East and West in ancient times.". Richard Frye has endorsed (waiting for DW to come up with the usual conspiracy theories and psychological analysis on the personality of Richard Frye), which is sufficient from a Historian's perspective. Unfortunately the users here are not qualified historians like Richard Frye who is an expert on Sassanid matters and has correctly noted the book's importance in terms of the details given on the Saravan and other details of Sassanid warfare. Indeed how many books have written in detail about Saravans? Something that rarely is discussed in such details in the literature. Also the book has been endorsed positively by other scholars in universities [3]. The review by Lendering, who does not have a rank as a historian has been responded to hereLet’s Abandon the Distortions of Achaemenid Studies[4]. For example Lendering wrongly claimed the Godarz Site does not exist[5] or he took the whole concept of Achaemenid imperial navy out of context[6] and (very) falsely stated the situation of Iranian studies in the West[7]. The book also has won two awards[8][9] and one of the awards has been cited by BBC [10] (this is from BBC website covering the award for the book) which makes it notable. Also the book has been used for instructions in academic arenas so that is sufficient per Wikipedia:Notability (books) which states:The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. It has been used in Stanford: "Meticulously researched and documented... I have recommended it to many and am also using it here at Stanford not only for research but also in a course ..."(Patrick Hunt, Stanford University). The exact course title is: "This book is now the text of a Stanford University course entitled “ARC 118 - ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART OF PERSIA“". Of course if someone wants to fly to California and have a chat with the mentioned Professor, before certifying it on Wikipedia, then be my guess, but the basic policy is WP:AGF. Also in University of Ottowa: "This is an excellent well-illustrated survey of an important period, useful for students and a general readership alike. It deals not only with military matters, but also more broadly with political developments in Persia. My students have consulted it with profit." -Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa[11][12] ]. Unless there is convincing evidence that these Professors from Stanfard and Ottowa lied (something some other users could be suggesting) and BBC did not cover the award received (it is their website) for the book, then it is best to WP:AGF. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second choice: Merge per DAB. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I have changed my vote to merge per dab. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Frye's words are the foreword of the book. You can't use the contents of the book as evidence of its own notability. (2) You can't use the book's own publicity material as evidence of notability - this is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia:Notability (books). (3) The two academic endorsements that you quoted are part of the book's publicity material, which we can't use as evidence anyway, but leaving that aside, they don't indicate that the book is the subject of instruction as a textbook would be - merely that those academics have used it as a teaching resource. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Frye of Harvard University is world famous Iranists and has endorsed the book on his own free will and recommended it on his free will and wrote forward after reading the book on his own will and specifically comments on the details provided on the Savaran (an area which interests Sassanid experts). We can make different conspiracy theories on why and etc but this will not change this fact. Ultimately: "Richard Frye endorses the book and recommends it". So what a non-scholar say about the book does not have the same weight. The book has been used as part of instruction for courses in Stanford university and the Professor's name is mentioned and feel free to contact the Professor of Stanford to confirm it. So we have Richard Frye from Harvard and Prof. Patrick hunt from Stanford, two top schools in the world. Plus the book has received awards and the award has been covered and mentioned by BBC. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have independent reliable sources for these endorsements? That's one of the principles of an encyclopedia, that it is based on independent sources. --Crusio (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is independent and has mentioned the Award. As per the endorsement of Richard Frye, yes no one forced him to write anything, so it is independent and he independently endorsed it and was not paid or forced or whatever other conspiracy theories that can be cooked up. He also specifically comments on the Savaran part of the book and finds it of great value. Would you know what the Savaran are? 99.99% of people would not know obviously. So these are some of the important concepts that are detailed in the book and were not previously examined at such level of detail before. Endorsement by a scholar like Richard Frye is much more than a children's dutch magazine from a person who claims that the Godarz site does not exist or Iranian studies has seen a growth! (nonsense really) . As per the other two Professors, I am not just quoting the endorsement part, but also the fact that the book has been used in academic settings which is one of the criterion outlined. Even the course name is given in the appropriate site. Also if you believe the sources are crooked and lying, then you need to prove that they are false. If not, we should assume good faith (innocent until proven guilty). It is almost insulting to constantly assume people are lying. The contacts of those Professors are easily obtainable and I am sure for some people, until they do a face to face with them, they will not be satisfied. Unless given a good reason, there is no reason to lie about the book being used in academic settings and those quotes being false. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but you really seem to be unfamiliar with many of the core concepts underlying Wikipedia. Nobody ever said or even suggested that anyone was lying. But the concept of independent (that is, third party) sources is crucial for WP. Frye's "endorsement" does not match those criteria. Also, please stay on topic. What is this about a Dutch children's magazine? Was there a Dutch children's magazine endorsing/refuting this book? As for the contents of the book and their quality or lack thereoff, this is completely immaterial to the AfD discussion. Some books containing patent nonsense may be notable whereas other high quality books may be non-notable anyway. Please do not confuse notability with quality. --Crusio (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again Frye is a different person and he has endorsed the book independently. And I looked at independent, please show me which sentence you are looking at exactly. Frye is a third party, even if he wrote the foreword. Unless you have a source that they forced him to endorse the book, then he did it independently on his own free will. Also BBC is independent and has covered one of the awards. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is my final comment to this really very tiresome discussion. The foreword is in the book. Regardless who wrote it, forced or voluntarily, for money or a nice smile, out of admiration or out of bordeom, male or female, whatever: it is NOT an independent source. --Crusio (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point: "The foreward is inside the book", I agree with. The problem is the scope of the word "independent". Even if it is inside the book, a third party (not the author) has read the book, endorsed it and wrote the foreword for it. The third party is not affiliated with the author in anyway. They are not in the same university, they are not in the same research team, they are not in the same country and they are not related. And there is nothing to suggest he was forced or bribed or etc. It so happens that the person that wrote the foreword happens to be the very eminent and notable Richard Frye of Harvard University who wrote the foreword on his own free will independent of the author of the book.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks the CHN site is another review obviously. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to do a bit more than just Googling and citing the results as "reviews". Your first link isn't a review - it's a copy of the text of the frontispiece of the book. Your second link is not a reliable source and it's not a review - it's a podcast about a general historical topic, in the course of which Farrokh's book is mentioned, on an amateur historian's personal website. Your third link to CHN is also not a review - it's largely a compilation of the frontispiece text and the publisher's description of the book. The same text can be found as the "product description" on Amazon.com [17]. The only original parts appear to be the two paragraphs at the end. Your fourth link only lists the book as part of a bibliography - it doesn't review it in any way whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We google everyday, it is not a bad thing. The first link is a review. It is not just a copy. And not all the works need to be reviews. Being the subject of attention is also counted. BTW, it has got awards. --Raayen (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right besides the BBC, the book/award has been cited by the Keyhan London Newspaper. Also other notable people that received awards in that ceremony include Professor Dick Davis (who deserves his own article) and Professor Patrick Hunt and this was covered by BBC and Keyhan London Newspaper and most likely other sources.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two of you need to pay attention to what Wikipedia:Notability (books) says. It isn't complicated. Reliable sources supporting notability need to be independent of the book itself. You can't cite the book's foreword, flap copy or the publisher's blurbs as evidence of notability - that's specifically forbidden by Wikipedia:Notability (books), which "excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". The sources need to be non-trivial references. You can't quote bibliographies and passing mentions, as those are trivial references. You can't invent your own criteria. "Being the subject of attention" is not a criterion. You can't cite an obscure award from an obscure group as a criterion - that's not a "major literary award." You can't use the assertion by a couple of professors that they use it as a supplementary source. Being "the subject of instruction" means being sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science, which this book patently is not. If you have nothing that meets these criteria, then please stop wasting everyone's time with tendentious arguments. -- ChrisO (talk 19:33, 27 November 2008
Please sign your name. You have made personal attack against the author here:[18]. The Award has been covered by BBC and so that is sufficient to list it. The award may seem obscure to you, but BBC is not obscure and would not cover an obscure award. Obscure is your own invented term here. Yes the foreward is in the book(part of the book), but the person who wrote it is independent of the author. And it is not just someone, but Richard Frye. Finally, if the book is used in courses, then the contents in the book are part of the subject of the course. Yes there is no course on the book but the book is used as a tool in the course due to its content. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I don't know if endorsement of a book by Prof. Richard Frye, one of the greatest experts in Iranian Studies, is not considered as a sign of notability of the book and credibility of the author, then what is. BrokenMirror (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it's not considered a sign of notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books) for the criteria that we use here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Award covered by BBC (independent media) and the fact that the book has been used in academic settings are two factors. Also Frye's foreword is inside the book (agreed) but it is still notable in the sense that one of the top scholars in the field has endorsed the book. I am sure if there is an article on each Pokemon, then one can have an article on a book that has won awards (award mention by BBC), been used in academic settings (see above and the course number and course Professor) and has been endorsed by Richard Frye. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have nothing to contribute but tendentious arguments, please go away. You're wasting everyone's time here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN and do not make personal attacks on users. I believe the article is useful for the Encyclopedia based on the reasons I gave. Merge is my second choice. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per dab. All the keep votes seem to center on rehashed adcopy and unsourced claims of notability about the man who wrote the forward to the book. Independant sources are lacking, professor Frye certianly isn't one. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: ChrisO says: "Being the subject of attention is not a criterion." It is! Please read the section 2: Criteria: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", and then "Some [not all] of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary". "the subject of multiple ..." means attention from (exposed to the attention of) works, media, Internet, ... like the links that I have put above. The book also satisfies the criteria #2: Award. Richard Frye is independent of the book and he has endorsed it. Frye's words are the foreword of the book, but it is not the book's content written by Farrokh. And Frye is a top gun in Iranian studies. That shows notability i.e. "the subject of a work independent of the book itself" (i.e. not by Farrokh himself). --Raayen (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you cannot use the book's own introduction as evidence of notability. You cannot use passing mentions or PR blurbs, especially if published on personal websites, as evidence of notability. Your links are all either material from the book, material largely from the publishers, or brief mentions in passing. They don't remotely meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raayen, do you really want to argue that the foreword of a book is independent of the book itself? Thanks for making my day, this is the most hilarious argument that I have heard in an AfD ever. --Crusio (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we think about it, that is not hilarious. The plate is not included in the food you eat. The art of the cover design belongs to the designer and not the author. independent here is playing with words. The content of the book belongs to the author not the foreword in this case. And I don't think Farrokh bribed frye to endorse the book.--Raayen (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Osprey Publishing#General_Military per dab. In any case, the book is not written by an expert in the field of ancient history[19] and should not be given undue weight by a lengthy article. The review from a well-respected university is unequivocally negative highlighting his lack of knowledge regarding academic sources on ancient history: Instead of referring to the Histoire or Achaemenid History, Farrokh relies upon the internet. For instance, he quotes articles of the notoriously lackadaisical CAIS[20]. The book itself does not meet Notability criteria and the award mentioned by BBC is not a notable award in the field of history. Heja Helweda (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Dbachmann suggests. The book doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dab (Dbachmann). --Folantin (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various arguments already made. The book has won awards [21]- Besides the Persian Award, the prestigious Independent Book Publishers Association named his book in the top three for history 2008, has a forward by a renowned historian, has been the subject of an academic review. (The negative review seems to have been mutual.) The perspective of the book is apparently unique as this has been mentioned by several reviews,[22] - {Frye in the forward says "In this book Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see the other perspective..." -- Patrick Hunt Stanford: "”… a book for all who have ever been curious about the ‘other’ view on Persia, not from the Western standpoint rooted in Greece, but from the traditions of the Persians themselves… ..."} - This review [23] refers to this perspective as "neglected", and that alone is a particular reason for keeping it. Second choice Merge as per Nepaheshgar. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book did not win the "Benjamin Franklin Award" from the IBPA, it was a runner up. --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some embarassingly stupid arguments are being made for the retention of this article. The nonsensical claims about the foreword have already been dealt with. The claim of an award supported by this link is false - it was listed as a finalist, not an award-winner. The "several reviews" mentioned above are in fact brief blurbs on the author's personal website, which Wikipedia:Notability (books) specifically excludes. The last link above is a random blog post, ignoring the requirement - of which Tundrabuggy is very well aware - that reliable sources must be used. Honestly, is it too much to expect some people to actually read the notability criteria before commenting? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from using words such as "stupid" and "nonsensical", they don't help your arguments. Actually "illogical" is the case when someone thinks that "independent" means just "outside" or "remote". These are two sets of different conceptions.--Raayen (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raayen, you're of course right about the use of words like "stupid" or my own recent post on getting some comic relief from other postings here. But in ChrisO's defense I have to say that it is very trying and difficult to remain patient and WP:AGF in the face of all this amateurish wikilawyering and accusations of being biased. Really, if the foreword of a book is considered independent of the book, then we might just as well delete the words "independent" or "third party" from the WP:RS guideline, because then only if an author himself says "my book is important" that would be considered to be not independent. After months of bickering, nobody has yet come up with any sources that really comply with WP:RS. And that is really all it needs. Some good sources, and anyone that has participated in this vote here would immediately change to "keep". --Crusio (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge (second choice). Kaveh Farrokh does not have any articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). You can check this from ISI Web of Knowledge (link). ISI Web of Knowledge covers high-impact journals with powerful tools such as cited reference searching. ISI Web of Knowledge gives the clue of notibility of an author (his/her articles and citations given to his/her articles). For Kaveh Farrokh, the ISI search gives nothing. Kaveh Farrokh fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so the book clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), too. E104421 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadows_in_the_Desert:_Ancient_Persia_at_War&oldid=1090407244"