Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Armenian Connection 2 SP Clan's Secrecy 3 What? 4 WP:OR Tag

[edit] Armenian Connection

The family bloodline survived in Armenia and Byzantium until the late middle ages. Also the name Suren is one of the most popular male names in Armenia today. I'll try to expand on Armeno-Byzantine part of the family later.--Eupator 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SP Clan's Secrecy

As a Sistani and Anthropology student at Zabol University, I have great admiration for this Clan. I am against the secrecy in general, but I understand and respect their policy for not permitting anyone to gain access to their records, as I experienced myself. Nonetheless, they should open one day in future, since their history is part of Iranian history, especially Parthian era. Hirmand 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Where are the sources for this article? It doesn't make sense that a family would be able to remain Zoroastrian and have large land owning interest in Iran...or any other Muslim land...especially after 1400 years of Islamic rule. --DFront21 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources of the article can be found under the section that says: References & Sources! However, the article is not about making sense to an individual(s) or otherwise, but relying on the historical facts and data. Surens are very alive and kicking in Siatan. Also Iran is not a Muslim land as you described, it is an Iranian land – Muslim lands are those countries that their cultural and historical identity predominantly based on Islamic faith, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies mentioned by a reader need to be taken seriously, and can't simply be written off with a banal "look at the sources". Articles are not written for the pleasure of the editor, but to inform, and the editor's inability to respond properly makes his/her assertions - particularly in the absence of substantiatable data - all the less credibile. -- Fullstop 09:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, not an advisory or customer service. You supply the info, and it is up to the individuals to make an initiative to comprehend and learn. You can take the horse to water, but you cannot make it drink! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets change roles for a second: I supply info, but you raise a valid objection. Instead of responding with a reasonable explanation, I blow you off. What are you going to think?

Before you read on, think about that for a minute.

Further, an Encyclopedia - Wikipedia or otherwise - is an information service. Not for the editor, but for the reader. And what the reader expects is "factual, notable, verifiable" information.

I'm not going to further argue whether Wikipedia is a service is the reader or not. Either one understands and believes in the ideals, principles and advantages of collective knowledge, or one doesn't.

-- Fullstop 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR Tag

In addition to the comment noted above in #What?, this article contains other outrageous claims, ...
1. >> The moon is iconographical symbol of Goddess Anahita and sun, God Mithra.

The moon is not the symbol of Anahita, and never was. Anahita is and always was the divinity of the planet Venus.

2. >> By AD15, the majority of Suren-Pahlavs were Mithraist, ...

Not only is there no evidence of Mithraist rituals anywhere in Iran, the suggestion that Parthian nobility adopted a Roman religion - that of the arch-enemy! - over their own traditional one is downright absurd.

Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and ones that can be checked in any library, I'm tagging this article as WP:OR until such time as the above mentioned points, as also the #What? section above are properly addressed and/or rectified. -- Fullstop 09:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

..Parthian nobility adopted a Roman religion - that of the arch-enemy!? Since when Mithraism has become a Roman religion? It was Romans who adopted this religion from Iranians. However, I agree with you regarding the moon and Anahita; Moon was the emblem of Māh (Moon god), and not Anahita, which should be corrected in this article. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have corrected the entry about Moon and Anahita, and also added a citation regarding Mithraism and Surens - I will add further citations in later date, and then I’ll remove the tag (Just to keep you happy!) ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article on your own website (the Beck one nicked from the Encyclopedia Iranica), you might have learned...

1. that the term 'Mithraism' applies specifically to the "mysteries of Mithras", i.e. the Roman religion.
2. that the "Iranian" origin hypothesis is actually a Zoroastrian origin hypothesis
3. that this hypothesis is no longer taken seriously and
4. there is no physical evidence for an Iranian/Zoroastrian cult of Mithra anywhere in Greater Iran.

that such a cult nonetheless existed is conjectured, which is ok as an academic procedure, but has no place in a tertiary reference such as Wikipedia. But, that you additionally attribute events/things to this hypothetical cult is totally out of line since you are actually making up evidence.

If you want to quote Bivar/Cumont, fine, but don't make things up (flag, religion, Artaxerxes was a Mithraist, etc), don't cite yourself and don't make attributions unless you have actually read the text yourself. This applies to all your edits, not just this article.

-- Fullstop 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ps: The tag stays as long as this article continues to violate WP:A sections #2 and #3. As I noted above, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and so far you have neither here nor elsewhere managed to provide these. An article on your own website is not by itself a valid source.

First cool down and try to be civil, and try not to take resolute to false accusations; -neither the website, nor the citations are mine. The tag will go, when I provide enough citation to support the entries. Finally, if the data are not in accordance with your personal taste, that is your problem. Don't try to do your POV pushing here.← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not being uncivil. I'm pointing things out to you that you could use to improve your scholarship, but whether you do or don't is up to you. If you don't care that an informed person can detect that an article is of questionable merit, then I don't care either. That you interpret advice and corrections as hostile (hence reverted) is entirely your own thing. I don't need to be made "happy" (as you so quaintly put it).

That you have replaced Anahita with Mah, and hence exchange one piece of OR for another, is hardly going to result in the article being less OR. That you won't re-evaluate your preconceptions even though you yourself use the phrase "Iran and Aniran" elsewhere doesn't make sense, but thats your personal business.

Ditto the tersification of the religion section. But hey, like I said, if you want to stick to it, be my guest.

Incidentally, the WP:OR is not primarily an advisory to you, but advice to the reader that some parts of the article are questionable. Of course, {{Unreliable}} might be more appropriate, but for the moment {{OR}} is adequate.

-- Fullstop 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest my time is more valuable than to engage myself in trivial and childish discussions. Anyhow, as the Persian proverb (possibly you going to claim to be a Roman!) says: the best mode of instruction is to practise what we preach. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please don't stoop to being trivial or childish.

1. as I pointed out earlier, the use of the terms "Mithraism", "Mithraic", "Mithraeum", "Mithraist" refer explicitely and specifically to a Roman religion, of the Roman Empire, of the 1st-5th century CE. The terms do not apply to any other forms of Mithra/Mitra worship, in any other area, or at any other time. So, ... by using those terms as you do, you accidentally mislead the reader to believing the Parthians followed a Roman religion. Whether or not the Surenas worshipped Iranian Mithra or not is completely irrelevant to that issue.
2. as I had also pointed out, the suggestion that anyone worshipped Iranian Mithra - as a divinity outside his respective pantheons - is highly speculative. There is no evidence whatsoever for this, neither in Greater Iran nor in an Indo-Iranian context. By not only saying that it was so, but indeed attributing "evidence" to such a cult is an extraordinary claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources.[1]

I could - with full backup by Wikipedia policy - summararily remove the offending sentences. So far, I have refrained from doing so because I want you to understand the issues.

-- Fullstop 09:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

What remains to be done:

a) the same error (as noted in #1 above) at Kuh-e Khwajeh and Varzesh-e Pahlavani.

b) multiple and academically referenced WP:RSs to support the extraordinary claims for the Surenas' religious affiliation "before" they became Zoroastrian. Make no mistake: The matter under discussion is not the beliefs of the average Joe of the Parthian era, but a specific, wealthy, land-holding family.

c) at least one WP:RS to support the claim of the Sun-Moon symbolism.

d) at least one WP:RS to support the claim that the Surenas are still Zoroastrians as per the objections raised by DFront21 (in #What? above). It would probably be much easier to state that their present religious affiliation is unknown.

-- Fullstop 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The valid points that you have raised are met – no one can argue with fairness and logic. However, with regard to Suren-Pahlavs and not being Zoroastrians, that is a cruel comment; regrettably, I believe your judgment is colluded with Parsi-orthodoxy. Surens are respected and considered to be Zoroastrians by Iranian-Zoroastrian community and number of them who live in London are considered to be pillars of Zoroastrian community here; - as I have the pleasure of considering one of them as my mentor. However, what I have gathered from your contributions, I concluded that you are a well-informed and learned individual, but quite sadly full of anger, and consequently your neutrality is being jeopardised. However, my humble advice is, try to be calm and accept and respect those views that are opposite to yours. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me the PA. It's not worth responding to and its uneccessarily distracting.

That the Suren-Pahlav are Zoroastrians is not questioned. Your brush-off of DFront21's note is.

Second,... cite in context! If the context is the iconography of a crest, then tell us what the symbols *in the crest* represent, not what the sun and moon are *generally* identified with. Don't "cite" something that does not say a single word *about the crest*.

Third, please respond in proper, educated and articulate manner and respond to the issues at stake.

-- Fullstop 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from POV pushing and removing entries that are supported by citations – I have neutralised your edits, and for the future reference try to observe neutrality. However, let stop the discussion here, at least until a mediation started. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 

 

Please drop the idea the I am pushing anything other than trying to get you to write/cite correctly. If you want to continue to be treated as a rational and intelligent individual, then please refrain the "pushing a POV" stuff. Claiming someone has a POV is not the opposite of being NPOV. You can "neutralise" a statement that says something is unknown only by removing that statement. You can't neutralize it by changing it to say the opposite.

That you still don't know the difference between "supported by citation" and 'supported by PROPER citation' is really bad, but for the moment I must still assume you are reasonably intelligent, and I'm just the bad teacher.

If you are not the intelligent person I presume you to be, and/or you have no interest in learning how to cite properly, please, please say so. I'll then stop from telling you how to improve the quality of your articles, and simply start dealing the hard hand. I have no qualms whatsoever about doing so. As I'm sure you agree, its much more constructive for you to learn how to do things properly, particularly if you hope to be an academic one day.

And no, I don't have any particular Mithra hangup. If what I know a little bit about had been in another field, then that would have been the subject I would have noted your "creativity" for.

Incidentally, I do have a POV, which is that I expect - no demand - proper citation for extraordinary claims or deductions.

-

Now, on to "correction", and why that is again OR.

• Let us assume that the crest is indeed a sun/moon. Ok? Assume, because this is not established by an expert on heraldry. By saying it is sun-moon, you are already in the realm of OR, but because I know that sun-moon iconography exists, its very possible that the Surena crest uses such symbolism too.

However,... you are not just saying it is sun-moon symbolism. You are saying sun-moon are a) religious symbolism, b) of a specific divinity pair.

Now, if a peer-reviewed academic source has explicitely said "the sun-moon of the Suren-Pahlav crest represents Mithra-Mah", fine. But this is not the case. This is your deduction. What is really bad however, is that the citations provided do not support your deduction. In other words, not only did you contradict what is known of Iranian heraldry (what the average user wouldn't know), by citing a bad source (which the average user would immediately recognize as such if he looked it up) you threw away your credibility.

Tip 1: when challenged, remove the sentence immediately. Don't even try to fix it at that time. Because when you're stressed you're liable to make mistakes. And the challenger is paying attention, so he/she will immediately catch any mistakes you make. If he/she catches your mistake, he/she will look for more.

Tip 2: never ever respond with "read the sources". Instead of driving a user away, this will often make the reader pay even more attention. I probably wouldn't have caught your mistakes if you hadn't pulled that stunt.

-

More on your Mithra assertions are so extraordinary, and on why your citations are not up to par:

• The identification of Mithra with the Sun itself is very late. The old Iranians didn't have this association. He was the eye of the sun, or the light by which badness was detectable, or the harbringer of the dawn, but he was not identified with the sun itself. Mithra is also not (and never was) a god of the sun. This is and always was - since ancient times - Khorshid (from Avestan Hvare-kshaeta). You can still see this in the Zoroastrian calendar: Khorshid (11th day of the month) and Mehr (16th day of the month) are two different entities. That this was still so in Parthian times is evident from the Mithradatkird clay fragments as also from the Siroza (presumed to be a Parthian-era text). Mihragan doesn't celebrate the sun either. Do you recall the names of the seven legendary great temples of the Parthian era: adur, mir, nosh, vahram, ayin, khurin, barzin. There is a pattern, what is it?
• Iranian royalty were always also priests, and indeed, a feudal lord (such as a Suren-Pahlav) was a land-owner only by virtue of his being the chief-priest of a temple, and hence being collector of taxes from the lands around it. In turn, temples couldn't be built without permission of the king, and priesthood was a privilge assigned by the king. Temples owned the lands as well as the slaves who worked those lands, and so the privilege of priesthood implied control of those lands. Kings also didn't make their religion official by decree. They made their subjects adherents by economically crippling the alternatives. Like kingship, priesthood was also always a family matter: the temple-priesthood was almost always handed from father to son (or another close relative) for the simple reason that one didn't want the power to go into other hands.
• The only unambiguous depictions of any Mithra are anthropomorphic ones. Such was the Hellenistic legacy. Mithra is never just an orb, but a human figure with a halo with spoke-like rays. Sometimes with chariot.
• As I said before, there is no conclusive evidence from Greater Iran of there ever having been a Mithra that was worshipped independently of any particular pantheon (eg Zoroastrian, Buddhist, whatever). If, as you say, such a thing existed,...

how was it different to what already existed? What was the cosmology/eschatology of such a religion? How did it explain/present the dichotomy? What was Mithra's role in all this? Did it have a secondary pantheon? What did worshippers hope for when they invoked him? Was it at all a him? Not a her? Did they have statues? Was he represented at all? Whats the archaeological evidence? Were there temples? What did they look like? Where have they gone? What were the rites and rituals? Were there priests? How were they selected/elected? What were their texts? Was it a revealed religion? Where did it come from? Where did it go? How do we know all this??!

As you see, to say the Suren-Pahlavs (or even the Parthians) worshipped Mithra, and that too "before" they became Zoroastrians, flies in the face of all established scholarship. And because its so extraordinary, when citing such a thing, you must completely and accurated cite the sources. It is not sufficient to simply add a ref to your own words. You must quote directly, must provide a page number, and the exact context must be evident. The quotation is worthless if the context does not match exactly. You also cannot use a source that is not peer-reviewed (eg CAIS or parthia.com).

Its *very* important that you stay in context. You cannot say "the crescent moon is generally identified as" when you are talking about something specific (non-general). In this case, it is particularly bad because a crescent moon is generally identified with Islam. Also, "a crescent moon ... generally identified as the iconographic symbol of Māh (Moon God)"[ref here] is a false cite. Boyce does not say a crescent moon is the iconographic symbol of Mah. (Boyce says) "Mah is the moon". Ok. (Boyce says) "Mah means moon". Ok. (Boyce says) "Mah is the divinity of the moon". Ok. But (Boyce says) "crescent moon is symbol of Mah" is not ok.

-- Fullstop 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 

ps: the OR has not been fixed, ergo the tag goes back up. This time, with {{Unreliable}} because you have since the OR now also introduced unreliable sources. Whether an article is free of the OR/Unreliability is not your call to make. I am questioning the article's reliability, with reasons per WP:A and described in excruciating detail here. If you do not understand what I am saying, say so, but do not remove the tags.

i have read your both comments, and I believe parthian is right. you are doing POV pushing. i remived tags and if you put is back i remove them again. just grow up and come out of you fullstopness. Sistani 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sistani, unfortunately some people due to their biasness, cannot handle the truth, and as the result they take resolute to threat and these kind of childish behaviours. Anyhow, thanks for your inputs. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 

Whoa! "Biasness"? Please, for the record, note which "bias" is being referred to here? The demand for proper citation is not a bias. It is a position perfectly in line with WP:A policy and common sense.

Please stay on topic and address the issues point-for-point. Person-directed comments are neither necessary nor relevant nor do they make you look good.

To recap the issue:

1. The interpretation of the Sun-Moon iconography of the Suren-Pahlav crest is falsely attributed to Boyce. In the cited source, Boyce makes no such interpretation of the Suren-Pahlav crest, which is not at all mentioned. The interpretation of the Suren-Pahlav crest (as it is presented in the article) also contradicts what is actually known of Mithra-Mah iconography in that:
   1.1 There is no precedence for such abstract symbolism. Mithra iconography was always anthropomorphic.
   1.2 There is only one known instance of a Mithra-Mah pairing (in which the two of them are also not alone),
   1.3 The crescent moon is not an attested symbol of Mah.
   That Mithra-Anahita was changed to Mithra-Mah (when I pointed out that Anahita had nothing to do with the moon) suggests that an explanation for the inconography was sought (as opposed to already having a citable explanation).
2. Further, there is no evidence of a "Parthian cult of Mithra" (direct quote from article), or any other "cult of Mithra" that is separate and distinguished from any other religion.
   2.1 Nowhere in Iran (leave alone in Parthia proper) is the worship of a Mithra-like divinity attested outside the boundaries of its respective pantheons. In 1st century Parthia this would include Zoroastrian Mithra, Hellenistic-Zoroastrian Apollo-Mithra and probably Bactrian/Sogdian-Buddhist Maitreya.
   2.2 What characteristics such observance may have had is unknown. Hence, the notion that such observance could be distinguished from any other belief system is unsustainable.
   2.3 There are no attested remains of any "cult of Mithra" temples anywhere in Iran, (as is claimed in this article and the Kuh-e Khwajeh article). Nor has any academic source ever noted that there were any. Further, the cited source (Jan 2002) does not state that such temples exist and so fails to support the context in which it is cited. Indeed, the source is actually completely off-topic, speaking not of the divinity Mithra, but of some legendary person also named Mithra who was born on December 24th/25th, 272 BCE. (I won't delve into the other wierd things that the article is saying, which in the WP context that it is cited in, makes it appear as if the the Suren-Pahlavs worshipped the prototype of Jesus). Its not surprising that no article on JSTOR refers to any publication by that author (leave alone his Mithra theories).
3. What religion the Parthians followed is not documented. Although assumptions have been made, when noted in a WP article, these have to be reliably cited (per WP:A), properly relativized (pantheon), and properly contextualized (Hellenic syncretism).
   3.1 That the Suren-Pahlavs were followers of anything *before* they became Zoroatrians is a deduction (an extraordinary claim) unsupported by established scholarship. I'm afraid citation from multiple supporting sources is required for such a claim.
   3.2 Very little is known of the religion of any of the Parthians, at any time, leave alone a particular family at a particular time.
   3.3 The Arsacid Parthian dynasts are presumed (Duchesne-Guillemin in CHI3, or Boyce in the EI:"Arsacid", or Boyce-Grenet in Z3) to have been Zoroastrians from the beginning. Whats the basis of the assumption that their Parthian subjects were anything else? Is one (and academically unreliable) parthia.com sentence the only citable source?

I find it encouraging that the articles are slowly but surely being reformulated such that the OR is not so blatant, but there still remains much to be done. Address the issues and stop beating about the bush. The facts must be *hard*, *on topic*, and when speculative, then with *reliable* sources and the article must be phrased such that it is evident that the source is speculating.

-- Fullstop 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ...The interpretation of the Sun-Moon iconography of the Suren-Pahlav crest is falsely attributed to Boyce. You are wrong read the article again. The entry uses Boyce as a point of reference, for each individual symbol i.e. the moon and the sun. The entry reads as: "crescent moon" is generally identified as the iconographic symbol of Māh (Moon God)[38][39] and "sun", as the God Mithra[40], but the iconographical representation of the symbolic crest combined together as a unit is unknown., so where Boyce's reference is being used to justify the Sun-Moon iconography as you falsely stated?
2. Further, there is no evidence of a "Parthian cult of Mithra" (direct quote from article), or any other "cult of Mithra" that is separate and distinguished from any other religion... Wrong again - Read the following articles and dozens of books regarding this matter such as "F. Grenet, "Mithra au temple principal d'Aï Khanoum?" in P. Bernard and F. Grenet, ed., Histoire et cultes de l'Asie centrale pre‚islamique, Paris, 1991"; -"F. Grenet, P. Riboud, and Yang Junkai, "Zoroastrian Scenes on a Newly Discovered Sogdian Tomb in Xi'an, Northern China," Studia Iranica 33, 2004"; -"V. Shkoda, "K voprosu o kul'tovykh stsenakh v sogdiĭskoĭ zhivopisi", Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 45, 1980"; -"B. Schlerath, "ráksate śirahá RV 9.68,4," Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13-14, 1987"; [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Pre-History/niasar_cave.htm ''LINK'']; [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Pre-History/niasar_cave.htm ''LINK'']; [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Ashkanian/verjuy_mithra_temple.htm ''LINK''], etc
3. What religion the Parthians followed is not documented..... Well if you expect me to bring you a proof which has been written on stone, or I can materialise a Parthian priest from past to give an audience, the answer is no, I cannot. However, in the meanwhile you can be practical, and for time being, until we invent a time machine, rely on theories that have been put forwarded by many historians and archaeologist in this matter, and if you are disagree with them, write an book to convince them otherwise. Nevertheless, in one point I agree with you, and that is no evidence to prove Surens were also Mithra follower, therefore I have revised the entry regarding their religion.
4. Finally, I believe you should clam down, and realise that world doesn't go around according to Parsi's beliefs, and they hardly represent Zoroastrian religion; instead engage in constructive, clam and neutral discussions, that everybody can benefit from; and by working together we can bring this article to a respectable and reliable standard, as long as you offer constructively, rather than impose destructively. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. "...The interpretation of the Sun-Moon iconography of the Suren-Pahlav crest is falsely attributed to Boyce. You are wrong read the article again."
   I'm drawing your attention to the fact that Boyce says nothing about the iconography of the Suren-Pahlav crest. To cite her in this context is false. In the cited text, Boyce simply states Mah means moon. She does not say the Suren-Pahlav crest has anything to do with the moon, which is your assumption.
   Its nonetheless telling that you would take one of my sentences out of context. My statement read: "The interpretation of the Sun-Moon iconography of the Suren-Pahlav crest is falsely attributed to Boyce. In the cited source, Boyce makes no such interpretation of the Suren-Pahlav crest, which is not at all mentioned." This continues to be valid. To make it clear,... Neither does Boyce mention the Suren-Pahlav crest in *any* way or form, nor does Boyce say "'crescent moon' is generally identified as the iconographic symbol of Māh (Moon God) and "sun", as the God Mithra". She does. not. say. that.
   * You are identifying the Suren-Pahlav crest with the Sun-Moon.
   * You are identifying these crest symbols as having religious significance.
   * That XYZ is the divinity of ABC (which is the only thing Boyce does say) is only the third step in the chain.
   Since the iconography of the crest is not established as religious, the article cannot allude to the crest's religious significance.
2. "Further, there is no evidence of a "Parthian cult of Mithra" (direct quote from article), or any other "cult of Mithra" that is separate and distinguished from any other religion... Wrong again." (some citations follow)
   I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the original source for those articles, not cais, which as you should well realize, is compromised.
   That means, I require the name of the publication, year, volume and issue, which page(s), and which quote specifically makes me wrong. If its a web site, it has to be a peer-reviewed source.
   Also, I'd like to draw your attention to the crucial qualification "... that is separate and distinguished from any other religion." No peer-reviewed source has ever noted the contrary, including the peer-reviewed ones you've cited.
3. "What religion the Parthians followed is not documented..... Nevertheless, in one point I agree with you, and that is no evidence to prove Surens were also Mithra follower"
   Glad to hear that. May I also assume that similar allusions you made here and elsewhere are also moot?
4. "Finally, I believe you should clam down, and realise that world doesn't go around according to Parsi's beliefs, and they hardly represent Zoroastrian religion ..."
   Excuse me, but I am calm. Thanks for the kind thought though. As for what the world revolves around... I don't really care what anyone's world revolves around, leave alone what the Parsis might (collectively?) think, even if it were at all possible to lump them together as having any particular and coherent ideology. In any case, I rather doubt that you (or I) are qualified to define it.
   I am pleased that you now choose to "engage in constructive, [calm] and neutral discussions" even if your immediately preceding sentences are unworthy of such sentiment. Your change of heart is encouraging.

-- Fullstop 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the citation needed tag and the unverifiable tag. Citation needed is used for lack of a source, though it is probably true. Unverifiable means that a verifiable citation is needed because it may be true, false, or Original Research.--Wizardman 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wizardman, I do appreciate your inputs, but I'm already aware of the purpose and meaning of each tag; however, the problem here is that, they were installed by Fullstop, not because of serving their original and true purposes, but to serve his own personal agenda, since some of the entries, especially with reference to Zoroastrianism contradict to what he has been thought since his birth. Zoroastrian-Parsis, are the equivalent of Muslim-Hizbollahis (my way or highway), which the logic and reasoning has no place in their doctrine. To demonstrate his absurd or “my way or Highway” behaviour can be depicted from his above insertion, which so immaturely he threating: "....Incidentally, the WP:OR is not primarily an advisory to you, but advice to the reader that some parts of the article are questionable. Of course, {{Unreliable}} might be more appropriate, but for the moment {{OR}} is adequate. -- Fullstop 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)... Anyway, I desperately and sincerely hoping that I’m wrong, and hopefully we could work together to bring this article to a respectable status, if he offer constructively, rather than impose destructively. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

if you were really interested in working constructively, you wouldn't make person-directed remarks (which incidentally don't work as you presumably expect them to). Like many of your other citations, your quote fails to support what it purports to support, i.e. "demonstrate [my] aggrasive (sic) ... style".

Your quote also says nothing about my "personal agenda", which is actually quite obvious (*CITE PROPERLY*) and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything/anyone/anygroup/anyfringe (the existence of the noted one I wasn't even aware of). Indeed, that I am not aggressive but instead extremely circumspect and patient with you (as I am also with everyone else) appears to have not fit your picture of me and hence ignored.

Whether or not I take your assertions personally (I don't) or seriously (I don't), they do qualify as "personal attacks" since they are not relevant to the issues, noted AT LENGTH above. That - instead of staying at an mature level and taking what is noted at face-value - you prefer to speculate about my "personal agenda" is itself worthy of note. But that you then consider your own speculations to reflect fact is part of your original-research modus operandi, and is precisely the issue I question.

Oh, incidentally, the WP:OR tag is indeed primarily intended an advisory to the reader. Whether you - as the author - choose to act on it or not is your affair. That removing the tag without adequately addressing the issue is not an example of "working constructively" should be obvious. Whether you really know what OR and RS are remains doubtful, and it is evident that you are not interested in learning how to cite properly, or in giving your creativity some semblance of reliability.

So, please refrain from the "hopefully we could work together" fluff. Your previous behaviour contradicts it. As also you're ignoring my repeated requests to address the issues instead of distracting from them with irrelevant person-directed remarks. You don't want to work together. You want to be followed. Heaven forbid anyone should question your direction. Oh, no. Then they are "biased"; then they are members of some fringe group; then they have an agenda they are trying to impose. That such things would be said is even predicted by the WP:A.

-- Fullstop 10:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but some of the claims are more speculation than fact as far as I know.

The claim that the Parthian warrior stature displays Rostam of the Soren clan has as far as I know no basis. What’s the source for this claim? At the moment its just a unknown Parthian warrior since there is no inscription or personal information about it.

I can't speak of todays Soren clan, if they exist and if they really have those customs. Fortunately I have found this at the website CAIS: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/about_cais.htm One of the founders claims to be a member of the Soren clan and according to the Wikipedia article he should be the successor of the current chieftain and future leaser of the whole Soren-Pahlav clan as far as I have understood. I have my doubts on this affair. Artabanos 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)