Talk:Lion and Sun

Invalid license removed. "non-commercial-use only" and "for wikipedia only" licenses are not valid at wikipedia. All content must be free for any commercial re-use. Everything else is a copyright violation. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Undo Changes

Why the date regarding the Pre-Islamic aspect of the article were removed without anuy explaination, which were supported by references? Is Islamic Fundamentalism still in force here? For god sake revolution happened nearly 30 years ago, and still you revolutioanries won't leave the Lion and Sun alon! 80.41.129.5 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

>> Why the date regarding the Pre-Islamic aspect of the article were removed without anuy explaination, which were supported by references?

What date? What references? The reinsertions have no references whatsoever.

>> Is Islamic Fundamentalism still in force here? For god sake revolution happened nearly 30 years ago...

Fundamentalism, of any kind, is not welcome on Wikipedia or any other source that hopes to remain useful for the world at large. Nor is WP a platform for revolutionaries of any kind, including those who'd like to see a reinstatement of a monarchy/nobility.

That said,...

1. you apparently did not read the article from beginning to end. Otherwise you may have noted that although the Lion and Sun emblem is only attested from the 16th century onwards, the symbolism itself is much older, predating the coming of Islam in the 6th century. This was (and continues to be) expressed in detail in the Symbolism section.
2. Given that the "Lion and Sun" emblem is not pre-Islamic, it could hardly qualify as a pre-Islamic symbol. Instead, it was the coat-of-arms of the monarchy (who were very much Muslims), which is presumably the reason why it was replaced as seal of the republic. The "new" division into "Pre-Islamic" and "Post-Islamic" (that was introduced together with the reintroduction of cruft) is thus a radicalization that was not present in the previous revision.
3. De profundis:

• >> the Achaemenid seal depicting king Artaxerxes II (a Mithraist), honouring Goddess Anahita who is riding on a lion and sun is rising from the lion's back.
  That Artaxerxes was a "Mithraist" is so extraordinary that it borders on the absurd. Moreover, which seal? Whose interpretation? The "seal" that was referred to (in the previous OR version depicted next to the reference, presently lower down in the "Islamic" section) is neither Iranian nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with Artaxerxes or Anahita or Mithra.
• >> in ancient Iranian religion of Mithraism, lion was connected to the sun and to fire and was perceived as a moral cleansing and purifying force, and it was the Sun God Mithra's 'totem' animal
  There is not a single factually accurate clause or subclause in that whole sentence.
• >> CAIS - New Archaeological Findings in Neyshabur. The source for the entire article.
  is complete and utter self-aggrandizement. Its as morally questionable as giving oneself barnstars. Notwithstanding that that page is neither the "source for the entire article" nor is it the epitomy of reliability, the reinsertions are a *copy* of that source.

Apropos your speculations on the presence of revolutionary dogma:

Although, since 1979 extensive governmental efforts and repressive actions were made to demonise the "Lion & Sun" emblem in order to minimize the feelings of nationalism amongst the Iranians, as well as have the successive generations accept the Islamic Republic's "Allah" emblem, but the Lion and Sun still considered by majority of Iranians (apart from the Islamists and the communists) as the sole symbol of the nation.

This is completely unwarranted polemic. Contrast that reinsertion with

The emblem remained the official symbol of Iran until 1979 revolution, when the "Lion & Sun" symbol was - by decree - removed from public spaces and government organisations and replaced by the present-day Coat of arms of Iran. Consequently, the emblem is today considered representative of the era prior to the foundation of the Islamic Republic and remains tied to ideas of Iranian nationalism.

Note the lack of ideological overtones in the second passage. Note also that, following your reinsertion, *BOTH* versions are in the article.

-- Fullstop 09:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for Mardavich

As requested [1] I will explain each of my recent edits.

1. [2] - That this is 'the' new symbol is completely unsourced POV. Says who? ParthianShot who claimed to author the work? There isn't enough agreement on these matters to call it 'the' new one. If it represents a specific notable organization it may be kept (with attribution), but knowing ParthianShot's other image uploads the sourcing is quite unreliable. The image will probably get destroyed soon on account of this.
2. [3] - I removed the information about the Derafsh-e Kavian because it is off-topic. This article is about the Lion and the Sun, not the history of Iranian flags, so we must stick to information about Lion and Sun flags. The information was fine - Encyclopedia Iranica was the source - but simply not relevant to this article.
3. [4] - This info originated from CAIS, which explains why it is so preposterous. In case you haven't noticed CAIS links and info are now getting removed from WP because of non-RS and copyright issues, so this goes with it. Besides, it is most definitely WP:FRINGE to tie that lion carving in here. This is about Lion and Sun flag imagery, not some obscure carving misconstrued as the Lion and Sun. I believe Fullstop already covered this above anyway so my explanation here isn't quite necessary.
4. [5] - Basic POV removal regarding Ferdowsi and simplification of that sentence. As for Khomeini, not only is that claim unsourced but its pertinence to this topic is questionable. I think this is classic NPOV and OR removal.
5. [6] - The first paragraph removed had a lot of POV statements that didn't even have sources (not that a source would justify POV). The 2nd paragraph seemed redundant though not nearly as harmful - under certain conditions its inclusion could be appropriate. But that first one is no good. Were these really value-added paragraphs anyway?

Well that is about it for now. Tell me what you think. I'll clarify as necessary. Thanks. The Behnam 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mithraic Symbol?

I've seen it suggested that the Lion and the Sun comes from a Mithraic symbol.

There's suppose to be a book called "Lion & the Sun" written by Nasser Engheta which asserts this.

I've seen it on numerous sites... but... here's one example...

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/uploads/sun-lion.gif

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/printer_2376.shtml

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia has a reliable sources policy, which allows us to keep stuff like that out.

Mithra/Sun identification is neither originally Iranian, nor is it as old as that website suggests, nor does it have anything to do with the Lion and the Sun emblem.

1. the Iranian Lion and the Sun is not an ancient symbol. There was no direct emblematic connection between the Lion/Sun until relatively recently. The seal depicted on that website is actually Urartian, not Iranian. This sort of revisionism is actually quite typical for a certain set of people that will put an "ancient Iranian" (or worse "ancient Persian") spin on just about anything. Nothing wrong with it per-se, but ideologically about as unsound as a proposition that Canada is the 51st US state. :)
2. Mithra==Sun identification is not as ancient as the website will have you believe either.
   Anything before 200 AD is speculative, because that is about the time we have the first hard evidence of such an association. While it may have occurred as early as 400 BC (but for sure not before), and this is certainly a long time ago (and long enough to be firmly embedded in the cultural consciousness), it is much too late for what that website is suggesting.
3. The Mithra==Sun identification in the common era is provoked by the fact that Mihr is one of the New Persian words for "Sun." That is, the word came to have that meaning because Mithra came to be identified with the Sun, not the other way around. The Mithra==sun identification probably occurred as a secondary development of the conflation with Babylonian Shamash, which is literally the Akkadian word for "Sun". In contrast, the original and literal meaning of Mithra is "Covenant."
4. The "glory of kingship" - which is what the "Sun" in the emblem represents - is not specifically anything to do with the Sun, but with Khvarenah, the "(royal) divine Glory" and the "Iranian Glory." The etymological root of Khvarenah is (probably) hvar "to shine," which is also evident in the propername of Hvare khshaeta who is the original Iranian divinity of the "Radiant Sun." Avestan Hvare Khshaeta is contracted in New Persian as "Khorshid", and Khorshid is in turn the word for Sun in the "Lion and Sun." Khorshid not Mihr.

While there are ways by which a connection between Mithra with the Lion and the Sun emblem could be made, its a far far leap to do so. There is certainly no sound historical basis upon which it could rest.

-- Fullstop 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ps: please don't confuse "Mithraic" with Mithra. Different culture, different religion.

Lion and the Sun before the Mongols

In this article it says...

The use of the lion and sun symbol is first attested in a miniature painting dated to 1423.[1] The painting, which is of a scene from Mongol conquest (Timurid dynasty, 1370–1506), depicts several horsemen that approach the walled city of Nishapur. One of the horsemen carries a banner that bears a lion passant with a rising sun on its back. The pole is tipped with a crescent moon.

I came across this today...

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15713/15713-h/15713-h.htm

(The paper is on Project Gutenberg.)

It's a paper from the 1800's about stamps. But in it there's a picture of a stamp with the Lion and the Sun on it. And along with that picture there is the text...

Many stamps of Persia bear the lion and the sun, the arms of the country and the insignia of its highest order of nobility. It is the lion of Iran, hold ing in its paw the sceptre of the Khorassan while behind it shines the sun of Darius. There is a legend concerning the latter symbol to the effect that Darius, hunting in the desert, threw his spear at a lion and missed. The beast crouched to spring, when the sun, shining on a talisman on Darius' breast, so overpowered it that it came fawning to his feet and followed him back to the city. And for this reason the sun became part of the arms of the kingdom. But I think we may look further than this and find in it a relic of the ancient fire worship and of oriental pretentions to power over heaven and earth.

This article should be updated with this.

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The stamp-book quotation doesn't contradict the article, but there isn't any reason why the legend can't be added too. A minor rephrase (and not using that source on stamps of course) might read like this (since the copyright has expired we need not worry about copyvios):

An Iranian legend of unknown date or origin attributes the sun in the symbol to a hunting incident: While hunting in the desert, Darius (presumably Darius I) threw a spear at a lion and missed. The beast crouched to spring, when the sun, shining on a talisman on Darius' breast, so overpowered it that it came fawning to the king's feet and followed him back to the city. And for this reason the sun became part of the arms of the kingdom.

Could you please try to find a legitimate source for the story? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Earliest record of Lion and Sun

I have just encountered the following photographs of a relief, showing Xerxes I worshipping Anahita who stands on the back of a Lion and is immersed in Sun's rays: [7]. The article carrying this photograph, i.e. [8], states that this relief (dated 5th century BC) is in the possession of Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. The address of the website of this museum is as follows: [9]. I have just checked this website, and it seems that no photograph of the above-mentioned relief is available on-line (my search has not been exhaustive, so perhaps some person with a good detective sense should make a renewed attempt). It seems therefore that the The Lion and Sun symbol has an older history than the present Wikipedia entry is proclaiming.

Incidentally, the interested may wish to view some of the Iranian works of art held at Hermitage Museum at the following address: [10]. 131.211.43.222 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, I am BF and have had some unpleasant encounters with you earlier. You seem to have remained faithful to your basic policy of opining on issues about which you know absolutely nothing! I had not read your earlier remarks (and remarks by others for that matter) on this page when I wrote my last comment, otherwise I would have written what I am about to write now then. I should emphasise that on reading the remarks to which you have referred me above, and realising the nonsense that they represent, I was by no means surprised to see them signed by you (I must be frank with you and tell you that I lost my confidence in you as a Wikipedia editor long ago, when you proved to be totally uninterested in facts). I have asked you this question earlier, but why don't you do things that are commensurate with your knowledge? Why do you pass on utter nonsense as truths on Wikipedia pages? I do not wish to be rude, not towards anyone, including you, but how dare you present such a grand heap of nonsense as a collection of facts? You apparently do not sense that you are vastly overestimating your knowledge and competence --- as you may remember, last time I accused you, and justifiably so, of hubris.

Lest that others see my above harsh remarks as some kind of injustice towards you, here are some undeniable facts. I shall not be exhaustive, as I am fully aware that any time spent on convincing you is just a waste of one's precious time; you are not here to learn, but to perpetuate what you have convinced yourself of knowing (assuming that you have no ulterior motives).

Firstly, according to Zoroastrian calendar, we are now in the month Ābān (which follows month Mehr, a name whose origin lies in Mithra, or Mitrā in Sanskrit, which in turn has bearing on Anahita) of the year 3746. At the time of writing this comment, the day's name is Bād Izad. Mitraism, to be distinguished from the Roman mystery religion Mithraism, preceded Zoroastrianism so that all traditions and names related to Mitraism date back to times earlier than some 1800 years before the birth of Christ. Given this fact, what sense does your statement "Anything before 200 AD is speculative" make? On which ground are you making this utterly nonsensical assertion? What reference do you have in support of this assertion? Where has "200 AD" bearing on? The only possibility that I can conceive of is that you must be confusing the Roman mystery religion Mithraism, which indeed was in vogue in the Roman Empire from the 1st to 4th century CE, with the Mitraism to which Mehr refers. I sincerely believe that here I have been generous to you, since I could have accused you of outright demagogy, forcing people to accept your unfounded assertions by throwing in such supposedly impressive remarks as "Anything before 200 AD is speculative", as though you had a commanding knowledge of things "before 200 AD".

Secondly, you assert that

"The seal depicted on that website is actually Urartian, not Iranian."

As you can read in the Wikipedia entry on "Urartu", the kingdom of Urartu was conquered by Medes in early 6th century BC, and you must have at least heard that Persian Empire consisted at its inception of a union between Persians and Medes. If you knew something about the Treaty of Gulistan, you would have known that the geographic location of Kingdom of Urartu remained part of Persian Empire up until 1813. There is very reliable historical evidence that if Lenin had not died so untimely, the Treaty of Gulistan, as well as the Treaty of Turkmenchay, would have been annulled and the area at issue was today part of Iran (in point of fact, Reza Shah Pahlavi's ancestors were Georgians). Ask any professor of linguistics, and they will tell you that the languages that are being spoken from the North-West of the Iranian border up to the Eastern part of the black sea are mostly Iranian languages. The people of South Ossetia have the same genetic make up as that of the people of Yazd, a city with one of the largest population of Zoroastrians in the present-day Iran. Given these facts, is it, or is it not, justified to call a seal that dates from 4th-5th century BC as being Iranian? You seem only to know some names without the ability to connect these names with some historical facts! Of course, it could be that you know better but that is not what you are here for. How do I know?

Thirdly, you assert repeatedly "Mithra==Sun", or "Mithra==Sun identification". What kind of nonsense is this? Where do you get this nonsense from? I have really no time to go into the details of the issues involved here. I suffice to say that Mehr was an Aryan God (i.e. a Bagh as in Baghdad) which in Avesta and Achaemenid texts is referred to as Mithra, in Sanskrit as Mitra (rooted in the Sanskrit word Mith which means joining or connection) and in Pahlavi as Mitr. It is also the name of the seventh month in the Iranian calendar; in earlier times, Mehr was also the name of the sixteenth day of every month. Mehr became the dominant deity in the Iranian mythology, surpassing Indra who by Zoroastrians came to be considered as a Daeva. In contrast, Mehr came to be considered as an Asura or Ahura. Explicitly, Mehr came to be considered as an Angel charged with matters related to love, friendship and some other issues.

Fourthly, what significance have your statements that:

"The Mithra==Sun identification in the common era is provoked by the fact that Mihr is one of the New Persian words for "Sun." That is, the word came to have that meaning because Mithra came to be identified with the Sun, not the other way around. The Mithra==sun identification probably occurred as a secondary development of the conflation with Babylonian Shamash, which is literally the Akkadian word for "Sun". In contrast, the original and literal meaning of Mithra is "Covenant.""

In fact, what documents do you have in support of all these verbiage and utter nonsense? You say for instance:

"The Mithra==sun identification probably occurred as a secondary development of the conflation with Babylonian Shamash, which is literally the Akkadian word for "Sun"."

Where is "probably" based on? On which ground do you classify things as "secondary developments"? Methinks that you are just and imposter, parading words to impress the illiterate readers who might chance to visit this page. Do you know anything about Zoroastrianism? The definite answer is no! Do you know anything about the way Zoroastrians make their daily prayers? The definite answer is no! And yet, you have the audacity to associate things that you are totally and utterly ignorant about with Babylonian and Akkadian things. The Akkadian word "Shamash" is the equivalent of the Arabic word "Shams" (both Semitic words) and the so-called identification to which you refer is nothing but the product of your own failed imagination!

Fifthly, your point 4 makes only partial sense. Your confused assertion that:

"and Khorshid is in turn the word for Sun in the "Lion and Sun." Khorshid not Mihr."

just proves that you are out of your depth. You simply know nothing about the language (and I have told you this repeatedly in my previous equally sad communications with you), and yet do not hesitate to draw meaningless conclusions. Persian styles of prose and poetry prefer phrases that rhyme. "Lion and Sun" in Persian is Shir va Khorshid (or Shir o Khorshid), where the sound "sh" in the first and third words is pivotal. From this perspective, Shir va Mehr (or Shir o Mehr) would not make any sense! But aside from this, what logical relationship can be there between the name that modern Iranians have given to a symbol and the question whether this symbol dates from 1423 AD or from 5th century BC?

I am truly dumbfounded by your bloated certitude. You assert:

"While there are ways by which a connection between Mithra with the Lion and the Sun emblem could be made, its a far far leap to do so. There is certainly no sound historical basis upon which it could rest."

I rest my case here, as I sincerely believe that I am wasting my time; you have never shown any inclination to want to understand things that you clearly know nothing about. Methinks that you are here on Wikipedia on some kind of ego trip, presenting your utter ignorance as truth to those who may be more ignorant than yourself. I am sorry for my harsh words, but harsh words have to be uttered when people prove to be impervious to reason.

I close this comment by recommending you, once again, to leave Iranian matters to those who have spent their precious lives on the study of these matters. Your constant interference with these matters can only testify to your disrespect towards this culture and those who hold this culture dear. Opine on matters of which you know at least some basic facts. I would have been less harsh on you, were it not for the fact that you hide your ignorance under the cover of

"This sort of revisionism is actually quite typical for a certain set of people that will put an "ancient Iranian" (or worse "ancient Persian") spin on just about anything."

Not only are you ignorant of how miserly your knowledge is on the subject matter at issue, but have the audacity to accuse people of putting "spin on just about anything". It seems to me that your problem is that you cannot comprehend, or even are unwilling to comprehend, that Iran is an ancient land with an ancient culture. In psychology, this phenomenon is referred to as envy complex. Be assured, people do not make things up. There are remains of human settlements in Iran, using very sophisticated technology, which date back to at least 7000 years ago (consult, e.g., [11], the site of one of the most prestigious archaeological institutes the world over).

Incidentally, I no longer edit Wikipedia so that it is very probable that I will not respond to your future comments on this page; I was foolish enough to place a comment on this page, which made me write the present one.

--BF 131.211.43.230 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony! Great stuff. Really.

• The "unpleasantness" that you allude to (Talk:Farrokhroo Parsa presumably) is only on your side. Had you concentrated on the issue you would presumably have come away feeling fine. But you didn't get it there, and -- as is evident above -- you still haven't. I am not your enemy, and we'll get along just fine if you don't jump to conclusions, and -- at least once in a while -- do listen carefully.
• My "certitude" is nothing to be dumbfounded at. You can find it every decent, reasonably up-to-date academic library. I don't want to rub it in, but in the diatribe above you sound awfully certain yourself. On the other hand, the half-baked conclusions do support your assertion that you don't have it all together, so I won't hold you to those.
• I'm not that certain_[,_] that I won't listen. But after suffering fools for so long, I've turned allergic to conjecture. So, just don't add two plus two.
• I'm willing to listen to a point. That point gets crossed when you -- as in every single paragraph above -- heap abuse on me. Its rather silly to claim that I'm "impervious to reason" while you keep punching me in the face.
• You are essentially a smart guy, and quite evidently have the basic distrust necessary to be a great smart guy. But somehow that skepticism stops short sometimes. Its almost as if some key word(s) cause you put your brain on pause. Then out comes the Thomas More-like exhortation. Its creepy, almost Manchurian candidate.
• Much of the stuff you write above (when not polemic) is not correct, or no longer valid. After reading it I was grinning ear to ear (really!). Some of it is so appallingly bad that, like an Ed Wood film, it turned humorous. Some of it is so bad that its even below the threshold of what is typically found on the web.
  If you are willing to listen, I am willing to show you whats wrong and why, with the necessary reliable sources so you can take it further. But I'm not going to make the effort when you make it clear from the outset that your mind is closed.

Knowing how stubborn you are, and (now knowing) how long you carry your grudges around with you, it would be a vain hope to expect you can take a deeeep breath, and not talk to me as if you know everything and I'm an idiot.
But my door will always be open for you should you ever want to walk through it. At some level I really like you; you have grit and integrity and you write beautifully. But your conjecture stinks. Really. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I wager you will come back, if you aren't monitoring this page already. And I bet that you will fly off the handle again and accuse me of being incorrigible. Again. Oh, more irony! No, no. No more. I crack me up. Fin.

I am not here to argue with any person, Fullstop included (Fullstop: even a blind person will notice that you have not responded to even a single technical point in my criticism of your scribblings; this simply shows that you really do not know the relevant issues and this makes your domination of the discussions on this page all the more incomprehensible and outrageous).

My knowledge of the history of Lion and Sun is almost entirely due to a relatively small book (consisting of 31 printed pages) by Ahmad Kasravi, published in 1930 (1309 AH) in Tehran, Iran, with the title Tarikh'che-ye Shir va Khorshid (A Brief History of the Lion and Sun); the book has been reprinted, again in Tehran, in 1971. On page 15 of this book, with reference to the book Tarikh Mukhtasar ad-Dowal (A Concise History of Nations/Governments) by Ibn al-Ebri, or Ibn Ebri (published in Beirut — Ibn al-Ebri is the same person as Bar-Hebraeus — see Loghatnameh-ye Dehkhoda, Third Edition, Tehran University Press, 2006), Kasravi attributes the origin of Lion and Sun' to Kaykhusraw II, a Sultan of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm. Interestingly, by consulting the Wikipedia entry of Kaykhusraw II (which I did just some minutes ago), I have noticed that this entry contains a section with the heading Coinage, where it is mentioned that (see [[12]]):

"Between 638 and 641 A.H. (ca.1240-1243) a series of remarkable silver dirhams were struck in Kaykhusraw’s name at Sivas and Konya depicting a lion and sun."

Kasravi gives the story of how the Lion and Sun came to be used on these coins. Briefly, Kaykhusraw II came to fall so passionately in love with a Georgian Princess (recall my earlier reference to Kingdom of Urartu) that he decided to order depiction of the face of this Princess on coins. Since this would be in contravention of the Islamic law that forbids making idols (similar to the Judaic tradition; the 2nd Commandment reads thus: "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the likeness of any from that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", Exodus, 20:4), Kaykhusraw's closest advisers persuaded him to choose for the symbolic depiction of his beloved Princess in the form of the Sun on the back of a Lion (for this account, Kasravi explicitly refers readers to page 447 of the above-mentioned book by Ibn al-Ebri). This brings the date of creation of Lion and Sun to sometimes between 1240-1243. Already this date is by some 200 years earlier than the date 1423 given in the present edition of the Wikipedia entry on Lion and Sun.

Personally, I believe that Kasravi's work is already outdated, for many reasons which I shall not go into (obviously, he has not had any of the modern technologies, both for research and analysis, at his disposal). It is interesting to note that Kasravi makes a very fine analysis of a number of texts of the classical Persian literature. For instance, he quotes from Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, where Ferdowsi (who lived between 935 and 1020 CE) says (in Rostam and Sohrab — it would be very appropriate if someone undertook to translate the following into English):

یکی زرد خورشید پیکر درفش
سرش ماه زرین غلافش بنفش
زده پیش او پیل پیکر درفش
بنزدش سواران زرینه کفش
یکی شیر پیکر درفش بنفش
درخشان گهر در میان درفش
درفشش ببین آژدها پیکر است
بر آن نیزه بر شیر زرین سر است

He also quotes from Fakhr od-Din Assad Gorgani's Vis and Ramin (Vis o Rāmin), in both cases indicating that the authors have their inspirations from pre-Islamic Iranian stories (in fact the original Vis o Ramin story is in the Pahlavi language and script).

I close by advising Fullstop (and his ilk) to stop being frivolous with other people's history. I am absolutely not here to get involved in personal and ad hominem arguments, and I certainly do not need to be told whether I am clever or write well. I sincerely believe that we have a moral obligation to be truthful, to history and to all those who may chance to read (better, to be foolish enough to read) our scribblings here; who we are and what nationalities we have are utterly irrelevant; the all-important thing is how well we know things that we venture to write about (Fullstop: as you can verify, not a single word of the present entry on Lion and Sun is due to me, and clearly I know infinitely more than you on the subject matter — here, "infinitely" reflects your absolute ignorance about Lion and Sun, and related subject matters, rather than the absolute height of my knowledge, which, as I just explained, is very limited and is almost entirely due to a booklet by Ahmad Kasravi). I have only noted that you persistently present yourself as someone who knew something without actually knowing any of the things that you insinuate or purport as knowing (incidentally, I never called you an "idiot"). Just look how you have responded to my previous comments: your response lacks reference to even a single published work, either a book or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Yet, as I have emphasised earlier, you have the audacity to tell people that:

"This sort of revisionism is actually quite typical for a certain set of people that will put an "ancient Iranian" (or worse "ancient Persian") spin on just about anything."

If you were working in my environment and with this attitude, I had undertaken everything in my power to get you fired (I am absolutely serious); your behaviour is utterly irresponsible and thus despicable. You have never seen me going around and insert nonsense into say the British History or American History, not that I do not know these histories, but that I fully realise that there are far more qualified persons to deal with these entries. In contrast, you have taken on yourself to roam Iran-related entries of Wikipedia and opine on issues that you know absolutely nothing about! How am I to interpret this behaviour? I have told you earlier, that this behaviour is an undeniable manifestation of your low esteem for other people's history and culture (I am prepared to believe that you are really not aware of the enormity of your behaviour and that you truly may believe that you are doing Iranians a service by "improving" the Iran-related entries on the English Wikipedia; what I really do not understand, is the reason behind writing those utterly nonsensical remarks on this page — you really come over as an imposter). --BF 131.211.43.230 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the reason I didn't respond to the so-called "technical" points is -- as I have already indicated -- because your mind is locked down tight. I'll discuss them when your belief in a "moral obligation to be truthful" manifests itself in a willingness to discard preconceptions of "the truth".
• I don't really give a rats ass how you interpret my behavior. In any case, its patently apparent that you are bitter and hold a grudge for no logical reasons whatsoever, so any interpretation of my behavior is not going to be rational either. Well, that much was obvious anyway.
• The ad-hominems in every single paragraph of the earlier diatribe and ad-hominems that constitute more than half of the last response belie any notion that you are "not here to get involved in personal and ad hominem arguments". But really, go ahead and ad hominem troll all you like; I'm still not going to respond to it.
• While you might very well "sincerely believe that we have a moral obligation to be truthful" (why should anyone else be different?), the notion that you can be an arbiter of "truth" is laughable. From the long-winded monograph of two days ago its evident that you are not familiar with the academic literature on the subject, and that is all that counts.
• Yes, I know you never called me an "idiot". But you have repeatedly said so in as many words. e.g. "your absolute ignorance". No matter. I don't really mind (read: care). So trash away if it makes you feel better. Somehow I doubt it does.
• I certainly would hope that you would want me fired for having an anti-revisionist attitude. Indeed, I'm absolutely delighted that you would want that to happen.
• Kasravi's work is not outdated at all! Your (on-topic!) tip about the Lion and the Sun in Kaykhusraw II coinage was excellent and led me to recheck the EIr article upon which this article is based. The Kaykhusraw II coinage and the 12th century date is exactly what the EIr article has too, including a reference to Kasravi's work. The 15th century date merely reflects the earliest-known representation as a flag!
  This needs to be fixed ASAP, and should also include the beginning of the next paragraph as a quotation. It reads: "This symbol, which combined ancient Iranian, Arab, Turkish, and Mongol traditions, was destined to receive a specifically Shi'ite interpretation and become the national emblem of Persia".
  A section on the <source quote>"nationalistic interpretation"<unquote> of Mohammed Shah should perhaps be added too, so identifying where "earliest record of Lion and Sun" revisionism has its roots.
  From this and the previous quotation, it would seem that an apology from you would be in order, but I won't press to see how far your "moral obligation to be truthful" goes. Since you prefer to identify expertise with citizenship, you could also just blame the disinformation on the European visitors to the Qajar court who attributed the symbol to remote antiquity.

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)ps: A recent example of Wikipedia-editor revisionism: "in fact the original Vis o Ramin story is in the Pahlavi language and script". In its known form, Vis o Ramin is written in New Persian language and script. The story seems to have originally been Parthian. Whether it had an intermediate Middle Persian form is unknown.

Fullstop, you will do yourself a favour by stopping to make vacuous statements. Gorgani's verse, though in modern Persian, is based on a text which is in Pahlavi; this is explicit in my statement: I wrote "the original ... Pahlavi ...". It is abundantly evident that you have just read the opening part of the Wikipedia entry on Vis o Ramin and reproduced your newly-acquired "knowledge", namely "originally been Parthian", here for the sole purpose of showing off. Had you checked the Wikipedia entry on Parthian Empire, you would have known that in Parthian Empire "Courtiers used the Pahlavi script". Further, had you checked, you would have known that all the external links to texts and spoken files of Vis o Ramin in the corresponding Wikipedia entry are due to me; in such event, you would have surmised that I must at the very least be familiar with the language in which Gorgani has written his poem (this is one of the links: [13]). Lastly, the fact that Gorgani's Vis of Ramin is based on a Pahlavi text is attested by at least Ahmad Kasravi and Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda (as Dehkhoda remarks, the issues in Vis o Ramin that relate to marriage, women and love are all in contravention of Islamic laws and traditions, so that the story of Vis of Ramin must have pre-Islamic origins). Your problem is that you have never consulted any primary source on issues that you have the temerity to talk about. You have decided to be blind to your poor knowledge of things and instead accuse all and sundry of "revisionism"; you probably do not realise that you are insulting people by this and similar unfounded accusations. --BF 131.211.43.226 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, actually I did not read the "opening part of the Wikipedia entry". As you so capably demonstrate, it is not a good idea to trust an Iran-related Wikipedia article.
• And yes, I was quite aware of what you wrote, and I was quite aware of what I wrote, and its quite apparent that you (again) don't have a clue what academia has to say even though you should. I know what Gorgani says about his Middle Persian skills. But I also know what academia has to say about those statements. And you should too! Oh, and that stuff about Arsacid courtiers using Pahlavi script, though essentially correct, it irrelevant in this context because Gorgani used the term "Pahlavi" to refer to Middle Persian.
• And I'm quite confident in my assertions. But like I said, I'll discuss them when your belief in a "moral obligation to be truthful" manifests itself in a willingness to discard preconceptions of "the truth". So far you just keep going on about "poor knowledge" silliness when it is patently evident that you wouldn't even know what to look for if/when you got to the library.
• As was the case the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that,... I do my homework. It would not only be wise to assume I do, but it would also be wise for you to do the homework yourself. Otherwise, like you do here repeatedly, you will merely continue to put your foot into your mouth for all posterity. Wikipedia pages never die.
• As for not consulting primary sources: Quite right I don't! Contrary to your opinion of me, I'm not an idiot, and you would be sticking to the secondary sources too if you don't want to keep doing the foot-in-mouth routine. Wikipedia has a section on this in the very same policy that you like to abuse so much.
• btw, please let me know if/when you are going to stop throwing tantrums. Just for scheduling. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad Shah quote

Shahbazi quotes Mohammad Shah to show how Lion and Sun got a nationalistic interpretation in 19th century not to show it's antiquaty. Actually he does not say that the symbol dated pre-Islamic period. Moreover, the quote repeated too times and Mohammad Shah qoute can not be considered as evidence to support linkage of Lion and Sun to pre-Islamic Iran because Mohammad Shah was not an expert in history. This is Undue Weight to put this quote in the lead --Larno (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)