Talk:Lion and Sun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The Lion and Sun → The Lion and the Sun in Middle Eastern culture — The original article as of 21 August 2009 was about the emblem. The article now talks about "the sun" and "the lion" and "the sun and lion" from all points of view. This is fine but no longer represent the current title "The Lion and Sun". Xashaiar (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support per above. Xashaiar (talk)
• Totally disagree. The article just talk about the development of the lion and sun motif. Perhaps you just read the first section. The article review the development of the emblem, its history in Iran from when it became a popular sign in Iran. Its history in Medieval Iran, under Safavids, Qajars, Pahlavi and Current situation. --WIMYV? (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please please please do not falsify sources as you did in this edit. Please please use Reliable sources. Please be consistent: if you say "the lion and sun" is a 12th century concept. them what are all those ancient near east stuff. Xashaiar (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Query I don't understand - what exactly is the motive for the move? Doesn't the suggested move amount to needless disambiguation, since the "lion and sun" (as a collective) only appear to be significant in that region. Why can't this article be at its current title, and talk about the subject outside of an Iranian context? Also, if there is justification for a move, it should be "The Lion and the Sun in Middle Eastern culture", not Near East, so as to be consistant with the Middle East article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with "The Lion and the Sun in Middle Eastern culture" either so I changed my request. The point is WP:SYNTH. As you said "this article can and should talk about the sun , the lion, and the lion and sun outside Iranian world". Therefore 1. The title can not be "the lion and sun" because this term is largely about "the flag/emblem". 2. the new title will include the recent changes which are really related to the lion and the sun. The article coffee pot does not and should not talk about "coffee" and "pot". Xashaiar (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is on Iranian coat of Arm "Lion and Sun" and not the lion and the sun in Middle East. Please read the article before arguing with me. Before the symbol was re-introduced in Medival centuries as the coat of Arms of Iran, it had been a Zodiac sign for centuries. This Zodiac sign has long history in Near eastern Civilization before it gained popularity under Turko-Iranian dynasties. Since it was originally a zodiac sign, its development as a Zodiac sign should be addressed in the origin section.

Also, There is neither falsifying the sources nor WP:SYNT. When I used the sources on close connections of Near Eastern traditions to the lion and sun motif, I chose sources that directly link these traditions to Iranian lion and sun.--WIMYV? (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand how accusations of synthesis, regarding the artical more generally, impact on the title of this article. Having said that, I can't see much difference betwen either of the two titles. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For that accusation there was a discussion. The term "the lion and sun" is itself "one term" and discussion of "the sun in various cultures" and "the lion in various cultures" which the user:WIMYV has added, makes the article about all of 1. The sun symbol 2. The lion symbol 3. The lion and sun. His good edits make the article broader and I think it should be "The Lion and the Sun in Middle Eastern culture" (near eastern is more correct but I do not care). Xashaiar (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Xashayar, Why you do not read the article carefully. This article is neither about "the sun" and nor about "the lion". This article is about the motif lion and sun, the coat of arm of Iran. I contributed a lot to all sections; Qajar, Safavi, Pahlavi, post-Revolutions, Turko-Persian dynasties and you keep arguing about the that 2 paragraphs in Semitic origin section.

Just listen for one time. I am tired of repeating this several times. There is no WP:SYNT here. I just organize my sources in the following way:

I had sources A, B, C, D, E.

Source A says A1 on Iranian origin, A2 on Turkic, A3 on Islamic, and A4 on Near Eastern origin of the lion and sun symbol.

Source B says B1 on Iranian origin, B2 on Turkic, B3 on Islamic, and nothing on Near Eastern origin of the lion and sun symbol

Source C says C1 on Iranian origin, C2 on Turkic, C3 on Islamic, and nothing on Near Eastern origin of the lion and sun symbol.

Source D says D1 on Iranian origin, D2 on Turkic roots, nothing on Islamic roots, and D4 on Near Eastern origin of the lion and sun symbol.

Now I re-organized the information my sources in the following way. It is like transposing a matrix:

On Iranian origin: Source A says A1; Source B says B1; Source C says C1; Source D says D1

On Iranian origin: Source A says A2; Source B says B2; Source C says C1; Source D says nothing

On Iranian origin: Source A says A3; Source B says B3; Source C says nothing; Source D says nothing

On Iranian origin: Source A says A4; Source B says B4; Source C says C1; Source D says D4

This is not WP:SYNT. This is just reorganizing my sources. Understood?--WIMYV? (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Why do you make Kooh out of a Kaah? You falsified source in the section "Origin". I offered you my version, you reverted. I offered a correction, you reverted. Now I have quoted "directly". also your source from Afsaneh Najmabadi an expert of sexuality does not seem to be the best choice for matters related to History of Iran. Now I tell you: thanks for contribution, very good, but the article now is not restricted to Iran and your broad view of this little symbol makes the article "broader" and that's the reason of move. Xashaiar (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read what I wrote? Why you don not assume good faith? You call a typo and missing an article, falsifying? I meant exactly the same as what you meant? If you gave me time I corrected that typo by myself?--WIMYV? (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. why did you again change my wording from that "expert"? 2. Would you please stop reverting-undoing? Xashaiar (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I restored, your version. This is your sentence. Do not you see that. --WIMYV? (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No I prefer the direct quote (current version). Your SYNTH is clear to me. Fine do it. But your citation should reflect the whole sentence of the authors and not the part you like. Xashaiar (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do not like something, it does not mean that it is wrong. Show me the WP:SYNT in the article. You just repeat nonsense reasons to oppose me, only because you do not like the information.--WIMYV? (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me all examples of WP:SYNT one by one. If you are right, I will fix the problem. But, please be specific.--WIMYV? (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.