Talk:Lion and Sun flag

	hideThis article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
showIran Low‑importance showHeraldry and vexillology

I had worked on this draft in my Sandbox, and when I was done, I submitted it through the Article Wizard. However, it appears to have been published directly rather than entering the review queue. What should I do? ConflictFan (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about this, Lion and Sun Dr.TheHistorian✎ 01:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That article is for the symbol itself, not the flag that features it. Faraz Farsiani (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2025–2026 Iran National Uprising, Tehran, 9 January 2026.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Can we add https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Iran_with_Official_Lion_and_Sun_emblem_stylized_1970s.svg as an alternative? I understand sodacan's version is in use by the Iranian diaspora but I think we should also add this 1970s version because it was at some point officially in use by the government, as the article states, the flag was relinquished in July 1980 which was not sodacan's version that was relinquished at the time as seen on old documents and photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sadeq_Tabatabaei_and_flag.jpg also some diaspora iranians do still use this variant as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260112041640/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-25/why-are-there-two-different-iranian-flags-at-protests/105453584

Use on a Birth Certificate (source, shows all the details of this version): https://web.archive.org/web/20260124085407/https://westwood.services/تعویض-شناسنامه-شاهنشاهی/ HistoryKnowledge1925 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be included near the top of the page, either as a 2nd image in the infobox or in its own box. It's not much used nowadays but its historical relevance should warrant a place in the lead. ConflictFan (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ConflictFan: WP:NOR is policy, not a guideline. Secondary sources have to first be provided for this whole section to be kept, not the other way around. The section "modern representations" is based purely on interpretation of primary source webpages and photos, and I have been unable to find any secondary sources which attribute the ultimate origin of the digital design to Wikimedia Commons or to the specific user Sodacan. See WP:PRIMARY. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Howardcorn33 thank you for prioritising quality and standards. I have read through WP:PRIMARY and agree that we should not make any interpretations of primary sources that go beyond what can easily be verified. That said, the policy outlines that we can make use of reliable primary sources (I think we can agree that Commons qualifies) provided that they are handled with care.

Therefore, I believe a good portion of the material in the section you removed can still be retained. Most of the claims are supported by easily verifiable primary sources (e.g. Twitter flag emoji change by Emojipedia, and Reza Pahlavi in Munich through a livestream on his verified YouTube channel), which per the "handle with care" clause is permitted under WP:PRIMARY (we won't be making any interpretations; just stating facts). Yes, secondary sources are still needed — hence why I am keeping the maintenance tag — but their absence (for the time being) does not in itself justify removing all the information in the section. Instead, all we should remove or reword are the interpretive claims, as those are the statements that require secondary sourcing.

I will make an edit based on this and would like to hear your feedback. Best, ConflictFan (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not actually agree that Commons qualifies as a reliable primary source and it should not be used to verify any claims about the origin of a flag design. It is entirely possible the Commons user in question copied it from elsewhere, which is common in the case of flag design. Furthermore, maintenance tags should only remain if there is a possibility of the issue being resolved; in this case there are no secondary sources so the issue cannot be resolved and the section must be deleted. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there is the issue of due weight with this entire section. I have not seen any secondary source discuss the digital variants of the flag. Wikipedia does not discuss the contributions of Commons users in any other flag article unless secondary sources do. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair amount of research and have only seen Sodacan's name associated with every upload of the design in 2012, so I doubt they stole it. (They are an established Commons vector illustrator and has made thousands of other contributions too)

With the ongoing situation in Iran, I see it likely that we could soon see the Lion and Sun flag waving in Tehran, if not at least being recognised as the flag of an official government in exile. In light of that, I foresee more outlets reporting on the flag, and more specifically the different variants. I think it'd be important to keep this section for journalists who aren't as familiar with Wikipedia and Commons to more easily find the original source of the design and share their findings.

I really believe the maintenance tag is all that is needed to tell readers. At worst we could remove the references to Sodacan to avoid the potential risk of design theft, but for the reasons above I think it'd be best if we keep the mention to Sodacan.

Let's keep it up for a year — if things die down and no secondary sources come to cover it by then, then we should remove it. I don't think having the section up at the moment is doing any harm to anyone or to the image of Wikipedia (in fact it probably strengthens it because the design was made by a Wikipedian) ConflictFan (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how much research you do here. WP:OR explicitly does not permit original research, and you need reliable secondary sourcing for these claims. And furthermore if journalists begin reading Wikipedia and sourcing from it, we end up with WP:CIRCULAR referencing which is also not permitted. If you assume that reliable sources will cover this eventually, then first wait for such reliable sources and cite them. Wikipedians cannot predict what sources will or will not cover in the future. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I should note that WP:UGC specifically mentions any other Wikimedia project (including Wikimedia Commons) as an unacceptable user-generated source. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see — thank you ConflictFan (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's just keep the first paragraph that makes no reference to any user-generated content. It is backed up by the numerous images in the gallery as primary sources. ConflictFan (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue in this. Thank you for listening. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed/swapped a few flags on the article:

In the infobox, I replaced the 1970s standardised design with the dark version using the modern standardised emblem. I did this because it felt weird to say that the darker colours were what was used pre-1979 but then show a flag supposedly from before 1979 using non-contemporary colours. There is still another instance of this flag visible in the flag timeline gallery, so it's not like I'm removing it completely.

I also added Hoomanzahedi's researched reconstruction to the gallery, taking the former place of the dark version. The reason why I did not put this specific version in the infobox is because its proportions are evidently not aligned with those set out in the standardisation, so for now it's in the gallery. Once reliable source start covering the individual designs, I hope to be able to move it into a section in the article body alongside other prevalent variants. ConflictFan (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if I am misundertanding something, but why must the standard "official" flag on the front infobox only be Sodacan's design? As far as I know it was never used as an official flag. I tried uploading a researched design under the Sodacan one more faithful to the 1970s official flag but it was swiftly removed. Wouldn't it be better to show a few of the alternative designs so page viewers can immediately discern between them rather than digging through the gallery? Especially, why is the "darker alternative" take spotlight over the others, even though its neither offical OR popularly used like the original Sodacan one? Faraz Farsiani (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think one of the designs used historically should be front and center and the 2012 Sodacan design should be placed below with a description that makes clear it is a modern wikicommons originated design popular with the Iranian diaspora. LoneShadow42 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see an earlier discussion disputed the ultimate origin of this design (sodacan/wikicommons). I think this is even more reason to use a design that has credible sources. We dont know for sure who, where, when this design came from. It has no sources. Yet it has become widespread because of WP:CIRC LoneShadow42 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence/sources for this 70s version and an older design here. Additional sources for the older design: Smith (1975) and Smith (1980) LoneShadow42 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is meant to be brief and so we can't have 5 different flags on it. I moved your flag design to the gallery with a link to the construction sheer you made. Originally the plan was to have a section going in depth on the different variants, but because we lack secondary sources we cannot include it (see discussion above). I will make an edit to the infobox to make it clear that it is a modern variant. The dark flag is there because it is not just an emblem variant but a different flag completely that many Iranians use. Again because we don't have reliable secondary sources I can't make a section in the body covering it. As for the modern standardised flag itself, the article makes no attempt to pass it off as official. It is used on the infobox because it is the most widely used design. WP:CIRC has nothing to do with this; that guideline concerns citations, not versions of a flag that millions of people use. ConflictFan (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of CIRC is the same. It's used by people because of Wikipedia not because of verifiable sources. It's widespread now so we shouldn't delete it. I just think it should be more clear that we can't verify anything about this version except it's on wikicommons and one variant seen in photos of protests. And at that the one seen in photos is before your personal edits. The top of this page and the infobox seem to present it as a defintive version, it's not until "Modern representations" that it really explains it. I thought the inclusion of the historical 70s version in the infobox over a darker version of the same thing was a nice addition. LoneShadow42 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose more "unofficials" are in order then. If we can get a version of the 1970s flag with the historical darker colours then it would be a good fit on the infobox. Another reason for move from the infobox that I mentioned previously in an earlier discussion was the contradiction between mentioning the historical darker colours and then having a historical version with the anachronistic lighter colours. ConflictFan (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, making an edit of some sort to the infobox to make it clear it is a modern variant is a good idea. LoneShadow42 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]