Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) →Connection to Rus coats of arms: new section |
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e}} |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{WikiProject Lithuania}} |
{{WikiProject Lithuania}} |
||
{{WikiProject Belarus}} |
{{WikiProject Belarus}} |
||
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e}} |
|||
For Lithuanian users: provide facts, but not your own point of view; don't delete facts; read provided sources. [[Special:Contributions/82.135.217.176|82.135.217.176]] ([[User talk:82.135.217.176|talk]]) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
For Lithuanian users: provide facts, but not your own point of view; don't delete facts; read provided sources. [[Special:Contributions/82.135.217.176|82.135.217.176]] ([[User talk:82.135.217.176|talk]]) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Same applies to you: as for usual objections - newer heard of Belarusian language in 15th century, never heard of Belarus in 15th century (White Ruthenia anyone?). |
:Same applies to you: as for usual objections - newer heard of Belarusian language in 15th century, never heard of Belarus in 15th century (White Ruthenia anyone?). |
Revision as of 04:37, 23 April 2021
Heraldry and vexillology Redirect‑class | |||||||
|
Lithuania NA‑class | |||||||
|
Belarus NA‑class | |||||||
|
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)
- Same applies to you: as for usual objections - newer heard of Belarusian language in 15th century, never heard of Belarus in 15th century (White Ruthenia anyone?).
- Daukantas did not name the COA, it was Akelaitis. Check with sources provided on Coat of arms of Lithuania, please do not mislead readers.--Lokyz (talk) 13:11, 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)
- Personal translation and interpretation of original text is simple OR, also added information about other COA is not relevant here. Therefore per WP:V and WP:RS I removing this info. M.K. (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)P.s. and presented "info" contradicts to Rimsa assessment...
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 people91.196.249.4 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
File:BIA Lipniszki COA.png Nominated for Deletion
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) |
External links modified
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202144845/http://www.arche.by/by/page/reviews/15682 to http://www.arche.by/by/page/reviews/15682
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510122312/http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/belorus_91_2.htm to http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/belorus_91_2.htm
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: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Pahonia illustration and other issues
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)
- For the record, adding one variation of which is the current coat of arms of Lithuania is obviously redundant to existing The variation of the historical coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the current coat of arms of Lithuania. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is irrelevant as the same topic was already discussed since 14 May 2020 at the talk page of the article of the Coat of arms of Lithuania – here. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- No. Your obviously chauvinistic bludgeoning has nothing in common with the proper discussion according to Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is irrelevant as the same topic was already discussed since 14 May 2020 at the talk page of the article of the Coat of arms of Lithuania – here. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 5 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)
- I can definitely agree that it can not be simply described under the name Coat of arms of Lithuania (or Coat of arms of Belarus, even when it becomes an official state coat of arms again). So the separate article will be needed anyway. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent edit war
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. Actually, edit war started from this non-consensual edit, so it looks like this version should be restored. And I agree that as the main article for the history of the National emblem of Belarus, it should focus on Belarusian aspects of the symbol, which I can add from the corresponding featured articles of the both Belarusian Wikipedias. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev: see also Pogoń. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Connection to Rus coats of arms
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)