![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Coat of arms of Lithuania Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
For Lithuanian users: provide facts, but not your own point of view; don't delete facts; read provided sources. 82.135.217.176 ( talk) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand You. How the name of coat of arms is related with the name of country where lived Ruthenians? Second, the name Vytis is invented by Simonas Daukantas in 1845 - this is the fact. It's important to note, it's ahistorical use this term for events prior 1845. So why You claim Vytis existed in the Battle of Grunwald? [1] Third, the user who claims that Pahonia wasn't coat of arms of Belarus is a liar. [2] The fact, Pahonia was the Coat of arms of Belarus in 1918, and in 1991-1995. It's historical symbol of Belarus - so was written. Passed years are history. What's wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.217.240 ( talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nowaday Belarusian lands once were called Litva/Lithuania and the lands of nowaday Lithunia were called Zmud. The name Belarus appears only in 1840, when Russian Emperor ordered to rename litvins into "belarussians" and to name Lithuanian lands "Belarus" or "North-western lands". Remind you that after 1795 when Russian Empire destroyed The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, most part of the duchy was annexed to Russian Empire. And then this part was renamed as I've already said. In fact, it's Belarus must be called Litva today, but post-soviet and pro-russian politicians prevent litvins (belarusians) from returning their real name - Litva/Lithuania. That's why, Pahonia is a belarusian symbol, moreover "Pahonia" is a slavic word. read more here:
http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/pahonia.html
Litvins or belarussians had never been ruthenians. It's a lying stereotype which were thought up by pro-russian politicians and historians. As you see, litvins were renamed in 1840. Beldame ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Beldame
Lithuanian never been a "zmud" or samogitian samogitian is only a part of lithuanian people 91.196.249.4 ( talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:BIA Lipniszki COA.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pahonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article for the history of the National emblem of Belarus, i.e. the traditional Belarusian historical coat of arms Pahonia, obviously should be illustrated with File:Coat of arms of Belarus (1991–1995).svg, not File:Coat of arms of Lithuania.svg. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Opinion. I'm from Russia. Regarding the coat of arms Pahonia: to which country should he be attributed? The national elites of both countries claim the inheritance of the Grand Duchy. I think that legally neither the Republic of Lithuania nor the Republic of Belarus are the legal successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, it is wrong to consider the symbol as Belarusian or Lithuanian. Moreover, the Pahonia existed before the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in addition to the state emblems, the Pursuit is the patrimonial emblem of the Gediminovich princes and the emblem of the regions and cities of modern Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine and Poland.
There is, for example, article
Double-headed eagle on the heraldic symbol, and there are articles on the coats of arms of specific countries:
Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire,
Coat of arms of Russia,
Coat of arms of Montenegro. I think that the same should be done in this case. Otherwise, any preference of one of the parties will be wrong and cause controversy on the other side. --
Лобачев Владимир (
talk)
14:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
According to Encyclopedia Britannica's article ( link), written by vexillology expert Whitney Smith, Belarus had no national symbols until the 20th century as it was ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. So there is no place for pseudoscience in Wikipedia as it violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Lithuania is one and indivisible. Just because some individuals are not satisfied with their own country's history, it does not mean that it can be rewritten as they wish. -- Pofka ( talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please solve your differences on the talk page rather than edit war. I have protected the article and restored it to the status before the start of the edit war. My protection of the version is not an indication of supporting this version. In fact it appears to me that since we have a separate article on the Lithuanian coat of arms then this article should concentrate on Belarusian aspects of the symbol and this might be more interesting to the readers due to connection with the current events in Belarus Alex Bakharev ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev: see also Pogoń. -- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 06:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit It looks to me like the information about the possible connection between Pahon and different emblem of Rus princes is notable and referenced to academic sources. It is also presented in neutral point of view: both views are presented. The only problem I see is that emblems of questionable connections to the subject are mixed with the emblems where the connections is obvious. Maybe we have to move the images in a separate gallery? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result if the discussion is - Option A With modifications as per Pofka. - And yes, I read it all, including the DRN and other discussion pages. And yes, threaded discussion receives as much (or as little) weight as all other comments, whether they are after a bullet point or in a subsection. WP:CON, as always.
Now I'm going to say this several times, as it apparently needs to be said -
Ok with that done...
Please feel free to implement this close in a collegial, collaborative, and civil manner.
And please consider this fair warning - If edit warring or other types of disruptive editing starts appearing, please don't be surprised if sanctions (such as blocking) start happening at this point. We are all here to collaboratively produce an encyclopedia.
And with that, I hope you all have a great day. Happy editing. - jc37 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the Pahonia article be made into a redirect or a disambiguation page, as described below? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
A. Make Pahonia a redirect to Coat of arms of Lithuania, and move any information from Pahonia that is not in the coat of arms article into the coat of arms article.
B. Make Pahonia into a disambiguation page with 2 or 3 targets.
C. Leave as is.
I think that sections and information from Pahonia about Belarus (e.g. section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" and information related with Belarus from section "1990–present") should be moved to National emblem of Belarus, not Coat of arms of Lithuania. Section Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus is enough to describe the brief history of the Belarusian CoA. I don't think that it would make sense to have a section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" in an article about the CoA of Lithuania. -- Pofka ( talk) 07:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: by initiator of a case at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pahonia with relevant information mainly from
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Pahonia mainly is just a Belarusian language name ( romanized) of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and since 1918 of the National emblem of Belarus, but other names exists (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Origins of the word Vytis and other names). Most notably there are equivalents in the Lithuanian language: Vytis, Waikymas and the earliest known written variant of it is in Polish as Pogonia by Marcin Bielski from 1551. English: Chase. This symbol is the official CoA of Lithuania since the 15th century, first adopted by Gediminids.
The early statehood of Lithuania was created by Lithuanians (same as the modern state), who expanded their territory into the Ruthenian territories and ruled them. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times".( ref1)
While Belarus according to Encyclopedia Britannica is: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918".( ref2). Also: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent".( ref3) -- Pofka ( talk) 20:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"We do not know on whose merits or guilt such a decision was made, or with what we have offended Your Lordship so much that Your Lordship has deservedly been directed against us, creating hardship for us everywhere. First of all, you made and announced a decision about the land of Samogitia, which is our inheritance and our homeland from the legal succession of the ancestors and elders. We still own it, it is and has always been the same Lithuanian land, because there is one language and the same inhabitants. But since the land of Samogitia is located lower than the land of Lithuania, it is called Samogitia, because in Lithuanian it is called lower land [ Žemaitija ]. And the Samogitians call Lithuania Aukštaitija [ in Lithuanian aukštas means high or tall ], that is, from the Samogitian point of view, a higher land. Also, the people of Samogitia have long called themselves Lithuanians and never Samogitians, and because of such identity (sic) we do not write about Samogitia in our letter, because everything is one: one country and the same inhabitants."
— Vytautas the Great, excerpt from his 11 March 1420 Latin letter sent to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, in which he described the core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, composed from Žemaitija (lowlands) and Aukštaitija (highlands), and its language. [2] [3] The term Aukštaitija has been known since the 13th century. [4]
"This is the peace made by the Livonian Master and the King of Lithuania and expressed in the following words:
(...) Next, a German merchant can travel safely concerning his life and property through Rus' [ Ruthenia ] and Lithuania as far as the King of Lithuania's authority seeks.
(...) Next, if something is stolen from a German merchant in Lithuania or Rus', it must be put on trial where it happens; if it happens that a German steals from a Rus [ Ruthenian ] or a Lithuanian, the same way it must be put on trial where it happens.
(...) Moreover, if a Lithuanian or a Rus [ Ruthenian ] wants to sue a German for an old thing, he must apply to the person to whom the person is subordinate; the same must be done by a German in Lithuania or Rus'.
(...) That peace was made in the one thousand three hundred and thirty-eighth year of the birth of God, on All Saints' Day, with the consent of the Master, the Marshal of the Land and many other nobles, as well as the City Council of Riga; they kissed the cross on the matter; With the consent of the King of Lithuania [ Gediminas ], his sons and all his nobles; they also performed their sacred rites in this matter [ Pagan rites ]; and with the consent of the Bishop of Polotsk [ Gregory ], the Duke of Polotsk [ Narimantas ] and the city, the Duke of Vitebsk [ Algirdas ] and the city of Vitebsk; they all, in approval of the said peace treaty, kissed the cross."
— From the 1338 Peace and Trade Agreement, concluded in Vilnius, between the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas and his sons and the Master of the Livonian Order Everhard von Monheim, establishing a peace zone, which clearly distinguishes the Lithuanians and the Rus' people [ Ruthenians ], and Lithuania from Rus' [ Ruthenia ]. [5] [6]
Pahonia is the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In addition, it was the coat of arms of the voivodeships of the principality, and after 1795 also the coat of arms of many cities of the Russian Empire (most of them are located on the territory of modern Belarus, as well as Russia and Poland). The coat of arms is also princely for the descendants of Gediminas. Pahonia was part of the Great Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire. After the 1917 revolution, Pahonia became the coat of arms of the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics. After 1991, the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics returned the old coat of arms (but under Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus returned the Soviet coat of arms). Based on the foregoing, it is completely incomprehensible to me why Pahonia, which is now used in the patrimonial heraldry of the Gediminovich princes, in the coats of arms of cities and regions of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, Russia and Poland, as a state or national symbol of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, should be considered exclusively the coat of arms of modern Lithuania? -- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The RFC should provide the reference to the previous and actually the main part of this discussion, where the community didn't agree with the proposal solutions: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?. There are provided the main arguments against the proposed solution, and I don't really see any new sound arguments from the initiators, which, in my opinion, is very close to the behavior described in WP:LISTEN. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 09:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Pofka - I don't see any conduct issue about changing the structure of the RFC. I don't see what is wrong with adding subsections at a lower level within the Threaded Discussion. Have I missed something, or has someone else missed or hit something?
As has been noted, Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I will remind all of you that lengthy exchanges have very little effect on the outcome of the RFC even if they make the editor who expends the pixels feel better (or worse). Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pofka: Though, they solved it in 1995 Belarusian referendum when 78.6% of Belarusians said that this symbol does not represent Belarus and Belarusians.
The
1995 Belarusian referendum is not considered to have been a free or fair referendum. It was a forced referendum pushed by Lukashenko at a time when he has consolidating his power. Simply put, the referendum is meaningless.
Just to illustrate my opening statement and perhaps put a new spin on the antagonistic nationalistic debate about I thought it might be interesting for other editors to see an excerpt from a 1997 article in History Today called Belarus: A real or fictitious nation?. Although the author is Belarusian, I think this is a fairly neutral overview article in a respectable general audience publication at a time when Lukashenko had not yet established his dictator reputation.
From the 1230s to the early fifteenth century Lithuanian dukes gradually took over, as apanage, the principalities of today's Belarus. Contemporary Belarusian historians assert that they were not conquered by the Lithuanians, but that the latter were initially mercenaries at the service of Slavonic princes. Whichever is true, the entry of the Slavs in the new state -- the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) -- was of primary importance for the cultural development of Lithuanians. Monetary systems and common law, official language and diplomatic rites were borrowed by them from their new compatriots. Almost all Lithuanian Grand Dukes from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries were brought up in the spirit of Slavonic culture, married Slavonic princesses and were for at least part of their lives, Orthodox. For centuries, the main centre of Belarusian, as well as Lithuanian, culture was Vilnius (Vilnia) until it was handed over by Stalin to the Lithuanian Republic in 1939. The Grand Duchy (Chaucer's Lettow and Ruce) is, therefore, regarded as a dual state, like Belgium or Canada and is called, ex post facto, Lithuania-Belarus. Radical nationalists, meanwhile, deny any right of Lithuanians to the historical heritage of the GDL and contend that, if not Belarusian by name, this state was essentially Belarusian. Oddly enough, both constituent peoples, known now as Lithuanians and Belarusians, called themselves `Lithuanians' in their native tongues -- lietuviai and litviny, respectively; the native language of the latter, however, was called Russian and the feeling of Russian identity remained quite strong, especially among the lower classes. (Medieval and Early Modern Russia proper was generally known abroad under the name of `Muscovy'). But even in the early twentieth century, the rural population had little sense of belonging except to tutejsyja (`local people').
In short, it is a contested history and you will definitely get different answer depending on who you ask. What seems clear to me is that neither party can make a claim to exclusivity of the term Pahonia and the task before us is to strike a balance. -- Jabbi ( talk) 18:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the first images of Pahonia: the seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Tverskoy, 1331. According to the Novgorod chronicle, Prince Alexander became the Pskov prince "from the hands of Lithuania". It can be assumed that the Grand Duke Gediminas was his suzerain and sending him to Pskov, instructed him to make a seal with the Lithuanian emblem - a knight on horseback with a sword.
Source: Белямук М.
Пячатка князя Аляксандра Цьвярскога і пячаткі князёў Гедымінавічаў (The seal of Prince Alexander of Tver and the seal of Princes Gediminas ) – Page 177 --
Лобачев Владимир (
talk)
07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The use of an armed rider as an emblem was widespread in Europe and occurs much earlier than the appearance of the Lithuanian coat of arms. [1] Seals with a secular armed horseman (without a halo) were used by the princes of Lutici and Obotrites, princes of Opole, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy and others. The closeness of the origin of "Pahonia" and the coat of arms of Moscow, known as "Rider" (Dragon Fighter), is noted. At the same time, according to the heraldist Sergei Rassadin , the Lithuanian and Moscow coats of arms were formed independently, although they mutually influenced each other. [2]
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pofka: Pogonia is the only original name. All the other names are nologisms or just translations that appeared later(such as Vaikymas that appeared in XVIII-XIX centuries). Pogonia has slavic roots and slavic name.
Gedzimin (
talk) 17:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Striking sock comment
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
20:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Coat of arms of Lithuania Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
For Lithuanian users: provide facts, but not your own point of view; don't delete facts; read provided sources. 82.135.217.176 ( talk) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand You. How the name of coat of arms is related with the name of country where lived Ruthenians? Second, the name Vytis is invented by Simonas Daukantas in 1845 - this is the fact. It's important to note, it's ahistorical use this term for events prior 1845. So why You claim Vytis existed in the Battle of Grunwald? [1] Third, the user who claims that Pahonia wasn't coat of arms of Belarus is a liar. [2] The fact, Pahonia was the Coat of arms of Belarus in 1918, and in 1991-1995. It's historical symbol of Belarus - so was written. Passed years are history. What's wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.217.240 ( talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nowaday Belarusian lands once were called Litva/Lithuania and the lands of nowaday Lithunia were called Zmud. The name Belarus appears only in 1840, when Russian Emperor ordered to rename litvins into "belarussians" and to name Lithuanian lands "Belarus" or "North-western lands". Remind you that after 1795 when Russian Empire destroyed The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, most part of the duchy was annexed to Russian Empire. And then this part was renamed as I've already said. In fact, it's Belarus must be called Litva today, but post-soviet and pro-russian politicians prevent litvins (belarusians) from returning their real name - Litva/Lithuania. That's why, Pahonia is a belarusian symbol, moreover "Pahonia" is a slavic word. read more here:
http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/pahonia.html
Litvins or belarussians had never been ruthenians. It's a lying stereotype which were thought up by pro-russian politicians and historians. As you see, litvins were renamed in 1840. Beldame ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Beldame
Lithuanian never been a "zmud" or samogitian samogitian is only a part of lithuanian people 91.196.249.4 ( talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:BIA Lipniszki COA.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pahonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article for the history of the National emblem of Belarus, i.e. the traditional Belarusian historical coat of arms Pahonia, obviously should be illustrated with File:Coat of arms of Belarus (1991–1995).svg, not File:Coat of arms of Lithuania.svg. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Opinion. I'm from Russia. Regarding the coat of arms Pahonia: to which country should he be attributed? The national elites of both countries claim the inheritance of the Grand Duchy. I think that legally neither the Republic of Lithuania nor the Republic of Belarus are the legal successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, it is wrong to consider the symbol as Belarusian or Lithuanian. Moreover, the Pahonia existed before the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in addition to the state emblems, the Pursuit is the patrimonial emblem of the Gediminovich princes and the emblem of the regions and cities of modern Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine and Poland.
There is, for example, article
Double-headed eagle on the heraldic symbol, and there are articles on the coats of arms of specific countries:
Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire,
Coat of arms of Russia,
Coat of arms of Montenegro. I think that the same should be done in this case. Otherwise, any preference of one of the parties will be wrong and cause controversy on the other side. --
Лобачев Владимир (
talk)
14:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
According to Encyclopedia Britannica's article ( link), written by vexillology expert Whitney Smith, Belarus had no national symbols until the 20th century as it was ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. So there is no place for pseudoscience in Wikipedia as it violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Lithuania is one and indivisible. Just because some individuals are not satisfied with their own country's history, it does not mean that it can be rewritten as they wish. -- Pofka ( talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please solve your differences on the talk page rather than edit war. I have protected the article and restored it to the status before the start of the edit war. My protection of the version is not an indication of supporting this version. In fact it appears to me that since we have a separate article on the Lithuanian coat of arms then this article should concentrate on Belarusian aspects of the symbol and this might be more interesting to the readers due to connection with the current events in Belarus Alex Bakharev ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev: see also Pogoń. -- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 06:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit It looks to me like the information about the possible connection between Pahon and different emblem of Rus princes is notable and referenced to academic sources. It is also presented in neutral point of view: both views are presented. The only problem I see is that emblems of questionable connections to the subject are mixed with the emblems where the connections is obvious. Maybe we have to move the images in a separate gallery? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result if the discussion is - Option A With modifications as per Pofka. - And yes, I read it all, including the DRN and other discussion pages. And yes, threaded discussion receives as much (or as little) weight as all other comments, whether they are after a bullet point or in a subsection. WP:CON, as always.
Now I'm going to say this several times, as it apparently needs to be said -
Ok with that done...
Please feel free to implement this close in a collegial, collaborative, and civil manner.
And please consider this fair warning - If edit warring or other types of disruptive editing starts appearing, please don't be surprised if sanctions (such as blocking) start happening at this point. We are all here to collaboratively produce an encyclopedia.
And with that, I hope you all have a great day. Happy editing. - jc37 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the Pahonia article be made into a redirect or a disambiguation page, as described below? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
A. Make Pahonia a redirect to Coat of arms of Lithuania, and move any information from Pahonia that is not in the coat of arms article into the coat of arms article.
B. Make Pahonia into a disambiguation page with 2 or 3 targets.
C. Leave as is.
I think that sections and information from Pahonia about Belarus (e.g. section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" and information related with Belarus from section "1990–present") should be moved to National emblem of Belarus, not Coat of arms of Lithuania. Section Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus is enough to describe the brief history of the Belarusian CoA. I don't think that it would make sense to have a section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" in an article about the CoA of Lithuania. -- Pofka ( talk) 07:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: by initiator of a case at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pahonia with relevant information mainly from
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Pahonia mainly is just a Belarusian language name ( romanized) of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and since 1918 of the National emblem of Belarus, but other names exists (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Origins of the word Vytis and other names). Most notably there are equivalents in the Lithuanian language: Vytis, Waikymas and the earliest known written variant of it is in Polish as Pogonia by Marcin Bielski from 1551. English: Chase. This symbol is the official CoA of Lithuania since the 15th century, first adopted by Gediminids.
The early statehood of Lithuania was created by Lithuanians (same as the modern state), who expanded their territory into the Ruthenian territories and ruled them. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times".( ref1)
While Belarus according to Encyclopedia Britannica is: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918".( ref2). Also: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent".( ref3) -- Pofka ( talk) 20:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"We do not know on whose merits or guilt such a decision was made, or with what we have offended Your Lordship so much that Your Lordship has deservedly been directed against us, creating hardship for us everywhere. First of all, you made and announced a decision about the land of Samogitia, which is our inheritance and our homeland from the legal succession of the ancestors and elders. We still own it, it is and has always been the same Lithuanian land, because there is one language and the same inhabitants. But since the land of Samogitia is located lower than the land of Lithuania, it is called Samogitia, because in Lithuanian it is called lower land [ Žemaitija ]. And the Samogitians call Lithuania Aukštaitija [ in Lithuanian aukštas means high or tall ], that is, from the Samogitian point of view, a higher land. Also, the people of Samogitia have long called themselves Lithuanians and never Samogitians, and because of such identity (sic) we do not write about Samogitia in our letter, because everything is one: one country and the same inhabitants."
— Vytautas the Great, excerpt from his 11 March 1420 Latin letter sent to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, in which he described the core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, composed from Žemaitija (lowlands) and Aukštaitija (highlands), and its language. [2] [3] The term Aukštaitija has been known since the 13th century. [4]
"This is the peace made by the Livonian Master and the King of Lithuania and expressed in the following words:
(...) Next, a German merchant can travel safely concerning his life and property through Rus' [ Ruthenia ] and Lithuania as far as the King of Lithuania's authority seeks.
(...) Next, if something is stolen from a German merchant in Lithuania or Rus', it must be put on trial where it happens; if it happens that a German steals from a Rus [ Ruthenian ] or a Lithuanian, the same way it must be put on trial where it happens.
(...) Moreover, if a Lithuanian or a Rus [ Ruthenian ] wants to sue a German for an old thing, he must apply to the person to whom the person is subordinate; the same must be done by a German in Lithuania or Rus'.
(...) That peace was made in the one thousand three hundred and thirty-eighth year of the birth of God, on All Saints' Day, with the consent of the Master, the Marshal of the Land and many other nobles, as well as the City Council of Riga; they kissed the cross on the matter; With the consent of the King of Lithuania [ Gediminas ], his sons and all his nobles; they also performed their sacred rites in this matter [ Pagan rites ]; and with the consent of the Bishop of Polotsk [ Gregory ], the Duke of Polotsk [ Narimantas ] and the city, the Duke of Vitebsk [ Algirdas ] and the city of Vitebsk; they all, in approval of the said peace treaty, kissed the cross."
— From the 1338 Peace and Trade Agreement, concluded in Vilnius, between the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas and his sons and the Master of the Livonian Order Everhard von Monheim, establishing a peace zone, which clearly distinguishes the Lithuanians and the Rus' people [ Ruthenians ], and Lithuania from Rus' [ Ruthenia ]. [5] [6]
Pahonia is the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In addition, it was the coat of arms of the voivodeships of the principality, and after 1795 also the coat of arms of many cities of the Russian Empire (most of them are located on the territory of modern Belarus, as well as Russia and Poland). The coat of arms is also princely for the descendants of Gediminas. Pahonia was part of the Great Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire. After the 1917 revolution, Pahonia became the coat of arms of the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics. After 1991, the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics returned the old coat of arms (but under Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus returned the Soviet coat of arms). Based on the foregoing, it is completely incomprehensible to me why Pahonia, which is now used in the patrimonial heraldry of the Gediminovich princes, in the coats of arms of cities and regions of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, Russia and Poland, as a state or national symbol of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, should be considered exclusively the coat of arms of modern Lithuania? -- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The RFC should provide the reference to the previous and actually the main part of this discussion, where the community didn't agree with the proposal solutions: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?. There are provided the main arguments against the proposed solution, and I don't really see any new sound arguments from the initiators, which, in my opinion, is very close to the behavior described in WP:LISTEN. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 09:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Pofka - I don't see any conduct issue about changing the structure of the RFC. I don't see what is wrong with adding subsections at a lower level within the Threaded Discussion. Have I missed something, or has someone else missed or hit something?
As has been noted, Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I will remind all of you that lengthy exchanges have very little effect on the outcome of the RFC even if they make the editor who expends the pixels feel better (or worse). Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pofka: Though, they solved it in 1995 Belarusian referendum when 78.6% of Belarusians said that this symbol does not represent Belarus and Belarusians.
The
1995 Belarusian referendum is not considered to have been a free or fair referendum. It was a forced referendum pushed by Lukashenko at a time when he has consolidating his power. Simply put, the referendum is meaningless.
Just to illustrate my opening statement and perhaps put a new spin on the antagonistic nationalistic debate about I thought it might be interesting for other editors to see an excerpt from a 1997 article in History Today called Belarus: A real or fictitious nation?. Although the author is Belarusian, I think this is a fairly neutral overview article in a respectable general audience publication at a time when Lukashenko had not yet established his dictator reputation.
From the 1230s to the early fifteenth century Lithuanian dukes gradually took over, as apanage, the principalities of today's Belarus. Contemporary Belarusian historians assert that they were not conquered by the Lithuanians, but that the latter were initially mercenaries at the service of Slavonic princes. Whichever is true, the entry of the Slavs in the new state -- the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) -- was of primary importance for the cultural development of Lithuanians. Monetary systems and common law, official language and diplomatic rites were borrowed by them from their new compatriots. Almost all Lithuanian Grand Dukes from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries were brought up in the spirit of Slavonic culture, married Slavonic princesses and were for at least part of their lives, Orthodox. For centuries, the main centre of Belarusian, as well as Lithuanian, culture was Vilnius (Vilnia) until it was handed over by Stalin to the Lithuanian Republic in 1939. The Grand Duchy (Chaucer's Lettow and Ruce) is, therefore, regarded as a dual state, like Belgium or Canada and is called, ex post facto, Lithuania-Belarus. Radical nationalists, meanwhile, deny any right of Lithuanians to the historical heritage of the GDL and contend that, if not Belarusian by name, this state was essentially Belarusian. Oddly enough, both constituent peoples, known now as Lithuanians and Belarusians, called themselves `Lithuanians' in their native tongues -- lietuviai and litviny, respectively; the native language of the latter, however, was called Russian and the feeling of Russian identity remained quite strong, especially among the lower classes. (Medieval and Early Modern Russia proper was generally known abroad under the name of `Muscovy'). But even in the early twentieth century, the rural population had little sense of belonging except to tutejsyja (`local people').
In short, it is a contested history and you will definitely get different answer depending on who you ask. What seems clear to me is that neither party can make a claim to exclusivity of the term Pahonia and the task before us is to strike a balance. -- Jabbi ( talk) 18:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the first images of Pahonia: the seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Tverskoy, 1331. According to the Novgorod chronicle, Prince Alexander became the Pskov prince "from the hands of Lithuania". It can be assumed that the Grand Duke Gediminas was his suzerain and sending him to Pskov, instructed him to make a seal with the Lithuanian emblem - a knight on horseback with a sword.
Source: Белямук М.
Пячатка князя Аляксандра Цьвярскога і пячаткі князёў Гедымінавічаў (The seal of Prince Alexander of Tver and the seal of Princes Gediminas ) – Page 177 --
Лобачев Владимир (
talk)
07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The use of an armed rider as an emblem was widespread in Europe and occurs much earlier than the appearance of the Lithuanian coat of arms. [1] Seals with a secular armed horseman (without a halo) were used by the princes of Lutici and Obotrites, princes of Opole, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy and others. The closeness of the origin of "Pahonia" and the coat of arms of Moscow, known as "Rider" (Dragon Fighter), is noted. At the same time, according to the heraldist Sergei Rassadin , the Lithuanian and Moscow coats of arms were formed independently, although they mutually influenced each other. [2]
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pofka: Pogonia is the only original name. All the other names are nologisms or just translations that appeared later(such as Vaikymas that appeared in XVIII-XIX centuries). Pogonia has slavic roots and slavic name.
Gedzimin (
talk) 17:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Striking sock comment
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
20:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)