Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania/Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First page of the copy ofLaurentius (1531) of the First Statute of Lithuania.jpg

Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?
The division is purely for political reasons. It is the one and same thing. For the benefit of those seeking to learn eastern European history, both articles Pahonia and Vytis should be joined, as a major part of the content is identical. It is bizarre seeing that the article about Vytis says Pahonia is a version of it and the article of Pahonia stating Vytis is its offshoot. That only proves they are the same thing and thus provides enough reasons to merge the articles. If you disagree, please do so politely. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pahonia is just a local Belarussian name of the Lithuanian Coat of arms. Makes no sense to have separate article for another language. -- Ke an (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, but only under the name Pahonia. According to the Third Statute of GDL it was an official name of GDL Coat of arms, not just local Belarusian name: Тежъ мы, господаръ, даемъ подъ геръбомъ того паньства нашого, великого князства литовъского, «Погонею» печать до кожъдого повету, на которой естъ написани около геръбу имя того повету. А тую печать писаръ земъский присяжный у себе самъ, а не хъто инъшый, ховати маеть, которою печатью и под тытуломъ нашымъ позвы мають быти печатованы и выдаваны. А иные никоторые листы, выписы и сознанья, кроме только самыхъ позвовъ, тою печатю не маеть быть печатованы (АРТЫКУЛ 12). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. The Statutes were in Polish and Latin languages as well. Should we create separate pages for Latin and Polish names? Also following your logic we should create a separate page for Grand Duchy of Lithuania exactly like it was mentioned in Statutes, because it is an "official name"? Coat of arms of Lithuania defines perfectly the usage and the meaning of the article and comprises all periods of Lithuanian statehood - even more so it was named differently in various texts during the history. Another example - coat of arms of Poland has name "Orzeł Biały", yet no one creates a page just for the sake of the name. -- Ke an (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The state language of GDL was Belarusian and the Statutes were originally (first time) published in Belarusian. But anyway now I see, that there is no need in merging, because Pahonia is as well a historical national CoA of Belarusians, so it should have the separate page, because there is nothing in common with the modern state Lietuva (called "Lithuania" for conjunctural purposes). Strongly Oppose the proposal. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are discussing history, not pseudohistory here. The short-lived Belarussian state was created first in 1918 only. The Belarussian language was adopted in its modern form even later - in 1959. The Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania were written in Old Church Slavonic. I don't see any connections of "Belarus" and Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Coat of arms of Lithuania. The Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania also do not have a term "Belarus". Lithuania is known since 1009, it's statehood and coat of arms are well attested (at least sane historians do not doubt it). So I think the separate page "Pahonia" for the Lithuanian coat of arms is a temporary misunderstanding. -- Ke an (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What I can see clear from here is that I don't want to waste my time on discussing some Samogitian chauvinistic rubbish. And there are no reasons to merge the articles. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your dirty language is not suitable here for sure. -- Ke an (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And once again: I don't want to waste my time on discussing some Samogitian chauvinistic rubbish. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Arguments against merging under the name en:Coat of arms of Lithuania: 1) Belarus and Lietuva (modern Lithuania) are different states and Belarusians and Lietuvans (modern Lithuanians) are different nations. Both of them are the heirs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) heritage. Therefore Lithuania (Lietuva) and Lithuania in the name of merged article en:Coat of arms of Lithuania are not the same. It's clear from here that this merging under the name "Coat of arms of Lithuania" is just an eliminating the mention of Belarusian part in the GDL. 2) In the GDL the discussed coat of arms was officially (in official documents) called Pahonia (in old Belarusian spelling Погоня = Pohonia). In the same time the name Vytis is an artificial word created by Simonas Daukantas in the middle 19th century (after conquering the GDL by Russia) so it has nothing in common with the GDL CoA. 3) Pahonia is a emblem of Belarusian nation (despite current state en:National emblem of Belarus illegally introduced by pro-Russian dictator Lukashenko), so it has nothing in common with Lietuva and Lietuvans. And therefore it can't be describe as a part of article Coat of arms of Lithuania = Coat of arms of Lietuva. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments are here belong to Belarussian pseudohistoric theory "litvinism" which claims that Belarusians are Lithuanians and Lithuania is Belarus in a very clumsy and paradoxical way which is not finally clear :). Since current state of Belarus was established only in 1991 in the former Rhuthenian lands which were occupied by the Lithuanians in the Middle Ages. The former occupied territories were ruled under the coat of arms of Lithuania, but that doesn't make them heirs. And that doesn't make the coat of arms of Lithuania a Belarussian coat of arms -- Ke an (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you have nothing to answer except Samogitian chauvinistic fairy tales. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are aware that Lithuanian possessed all off Ruthenia in the middle ages yes? The two coats of arms are two different thing now despite coming from the same medieval coat of arms. blindlynx (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So in short I think would be nice to merge 'Pahonia' page into the 'Coat of Arms of Lithuania'. Articles about Lithuania or Grand Duchy of Lithuania quite suffer from pseudohistorian 'litvinists' creating alternative or fake history. It's a big problem on Wikipedia. Regarding the emblem of Belarus - the lands, previously known as Rutenia Alba, White Russia or White Ruthenia, from which the name 'Belarus' derived, had their own coat of arms. It is very different from the Lithuanian Coat of Arms. -- Ke an (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) [[Image:Coat_of_arms_of_White_Russia_(Belarus),_1581.jpg|150px]].
 * It looks like the user Kazimier Lachnovič polutes wikipedia by attacking pages related to Lithuania and Lithuanian people. It is a typical and sad example of 'litvinism' on Wikipedia - User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Ke an (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ke an - I see that you can't understand a simple thing even from the second time, so read carefully: I have no time to discuss anything with Lietuvan (Samogitian) chauvinists. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree to merger, sounds reasonable. Gryffindor (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also would suggest to merge these pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo%C5%84_Litewska, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo%C5%84_Litewska to their respective pages (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Litwy and https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1_%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8) too. -- Ke an (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree they are different things despite having a shared history. blindlynx (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree merging them would lead to the erasure of the use of Pahonia in BNR in the 20th century and then as the coat of arms of the Republic of Belarus in 1991 through 1995. Even with just that history it makes no sense to merge the pages because suddenly the coat of arms of Belarus in 1991-1995 is called the coat of arms of Lithuania, and most users won't have the knowledge of GDL and the history of Pahonia's usage in Belarus. Merging the two pages will only lead to confusion, not clarification. Sennowa (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. The Belarusians have these articles: National emblem of Belarus and National symbols of Belarus, which describe these short periods when Pahonia/Vytis was also adopted by the Belarusian state. So the article of Pahonia is completely not necessary as this coat of arms originated in the present-day Lithuanian lands and was always used by the Lithuanians when they were able to and were not occupied. Present-day Lithuania is much closer to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania than Belarus because the Belarusian (Ruthenian) lands were only a land-locked colony of the medieval Lithuanians. It's the same as the British flag in the British India. In reality, Archangel Michael is a much more Belarusian/Ruthenian/Ukrainian symbol than Pahonia/Vytis. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Agree If you look objectively at the articles themselves, both of them have more than half of the same content, some of it word for word identical. Same pictures reused in both, with the Pahonia article having more additional ones, which we would gladly accept into the Coat of Arms of Lithuania. Ke an's points are far more valid than any other I have seen mentioned here. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We should expand them to explain the different uses by different groups then, not simply ignore the fact Belarusian use it as well. blindlynx (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere are we ignoring Belarusian use, that is an absurd proposition. And it is exactly that - the two articles write one and the same thing, hence we should fuse the articles, making sure that all the details remain. Currently, we have two identical articles, which suffer in quality because effort on one object is unnecessarily split into two. The solution to this is making both articles one with a clear lede addressing uses by different groups. That is all -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The current move proposal is to merge Pahonia into The Coat of Arms of Lithuania. This would mean that the article about the Coat of Arms of Lithuania would have a section about Belarusian use of the Coat of Arms of Lithuania. Merging it into a neutral title would be less of an issue. blindlynx (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nowhere are we ignoring Belarusian use" so the coat of arms of Belarus in 1991-1995 is going to be called the coat of arms of Lithuania? It's easy to realize how that would create confusion, as a lot of people looking up the article won't have the knowledge of GDL nor the time to read through the entire article on the Lithuanian coat of arms to get to the part where it mentions the history of its usage in Belarus. I don't think I need to explain why it won't be great when people look up Belarus and read that apparently from 1991 to 1995 the country had a coat of arms of a different country. Not to mention that Belarusian Pahonia in its usage before and now and Lithuanian current coat of arms don't look the same, which is not represented on the coat of arms of Lithuania article that already exists. Sennowa (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Worthwhile objections, but it raises the question of what would be the most fitting title? And anyway, one can redirect both "Coat of Arms of Lithuania", "Pahonia", and "Vytis" to one same article. Perhaps "Pagaunia" be the aptest one for all? The last one was just a suggestion, don't get too heated... As for what to be presented at the top of the article, I would propose the most ancient example of the sign, moving the current infobox to somewhere mid-article, and creating another infobox for Belarusian use (all in one article).
 * That is still not ideal, since the language of the title of the main article is influential of its own, and between two sovereign nations with very different languages, there is just no way to not run into a complication with this. On top of that, "Pagaunia" would have very little recognition for most people, googling it pulls up less than a thousand results. Sennowa (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much so, maybe "Vytis/Pahonia" should be the article's title? But I don't think it follows Wikipedia guidelines then (because of the /)... Although I could be wrong on the last one -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Coat of arms of Lithuania is enough because the Lithuanian coat of arms is called differently in other languages (it is called as The Chase in English) and separate articles are not necessary. The Belarusians already have National emblem of Belarus article where they can call it as Pahonia, if they wish to do so. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I noticed that Lithuanian Wikipedia only has lt:Lietuvos herbas about the CoA of Lithuania, but no equivalent of Pahonia. Numerous other Wikipedias, including Polish, seem to split those concepts. I honestly have no strong feelings on this. Ping User:Renata3, I am curious what you'd say here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes because the article of Pahonia is absolutely not necessary in the Lithuanian Wikipedia as it is simply the name of the Coat of arms of Lithuania in the Old Church Slavonic language. In the Lithuanian language it is called Vytis (or The Chase in English). Instead, we have lt:Baltarusijos herbas (equivalent of National emblem of Belarus) to describe the Belarusian coat of arms. If we keep the article of Pahonia, then maybe we should create a separate article for The Chase as well? Redirect page of Vytis already exists and Pahonia should also be a redirect page. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Dismiss the idea of a merger as total nonsense. Despite shared origin, both coats of arms went long way apart to undeniably become separate sharply distinct entities, and this includes periods of being separate official coats of arms of two separate nation-states (Belarus and Lithuania) - and it should be more than enough to quickly and fully dismiss that totally nonsensical idea. Vadzim (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles of Coat of arms of Lithuania and National emblem of Belarus perfectly distinguishes these two entities, so additional articles of Vytis or Pahonia are not necessary. Vytis/Pahonia originates from Pagan Lithuanians who are direct ancestors of the present-day Lithuanians. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Agree because Pahonia (Vytis) always was and always will be the coat of arms of Lithuania/Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so there is no need to divide it into two articles. Coat of arms of Lithuania article also includes its usage history in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Belarus was nothing else than a conquered Rus' lands as the Lithuanians inhabited territories far beyond the current city of Vilnius when they created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (even Lida and its surroundings was mostly speaking in the Lithuanian language back then). Such Belarusians as Kazimier Lachnovič are funny personalities because they try to manipulate history based on the joke-level pseudohistorical Belarusian sources (he is clearly affected by the so called Litvinism, which purposefuly tries to twist history), so I strongly recommend to read his arguments with a lot of criticism. The main and undoubtful argument to smash the Litvinists fake dreams is to ask them how many of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania rulers (Grand Dukes or Kings, such as Mindaugas) were Orthodox as the current Belarusians ancestors adopted Orthodoxy very early. And the answer is: NONE, so Grand Duchy of Lithuania NEVER was ruled by a Belarusian and Orthodoxy never was an official religion of the state. Instead of that, Paganism and later Catholicism were the official religions as the Catholicism was adopted in the 14th century by the Lithuanians, who ruled the country, not Belarusians/Ukrainians. The Lithuanians to this day remains as Catholics. On the contrary, Orthodoxy dominated the Kievan' Rus (Belarusian/Russian/Ukrainian) lands since the 13th-14th centuries and is so today. Belarusian articles of National emblem of Belarus and Belarusian heraldry already describes Vytis (Pahonia) as unofficial symbol of Belarus (also shortly as official) and this is enough. If in the future they will liberate themselves from Lukashenko and adopt the Belarusian variant of the Lithuanian coat of arms, then it will clearly be described in the National emblem of Belarus article, so this article of Pahonia makes no sense at all. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is really funny is the believers in the Great Samogitia which allegedly conquered much bigger and civilized lands. According to Belarusian academic sources (e.g. GDL Encyclopedia), which are totally reliable sources, several Grand Dukes including Vitaŭt the Great, Jagajła and Śvidrygajła got baptized both in Orthodox and Catholic Churches, in the same time Vojšałk and Jaŭnut got baptized only in Orthodox Church. But it actually doesn't even matter because in the late 18th century (before Russification), according to the same reliable sources, more than 90% of Belarusian were Catholics (Greek Catholics are also Catholics). Anyway, nobody can say when Lukashenko's pro-Russian regime will fall, because the regime is beneficial not only to Russia, but also to some countries that prefer to keep Belarusians fight between each other rather then fighting with the falsifications of their history. So the history of National emblem of Belarus can't have main article named Coat of arms of Lithuania defining and showing the emblem of modern Lietuva, that would be complete nonsense. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All these Belarusian Litvinist dreams of falsified GDL history is constantly dismissed not only by the Lithuanian historians, but also by the Polish ones as these Belarusian/Russian sources are quickly crushed after further analysis. Even most of the Belarusians doesn't believe in such dreams ("On May 14, 1995, a referendum was conducted in all regions of Belarus. Out of four questions, one was the following: "Do you support the introduction of the new national symbols?" With a voter turnout of 64.7%, the new state symbols were approved by a ratio of 3:1 (75.1% to 24.9%).", quote from National emblem of Belarus). The Belarusians destiny from the beginning was to serve the foreigners: Ukrainians (Kievan Rus'), Lithuanians (GDL), Russians (Russian Empire), Germans (Nazis) and again Russians (still kneeing in front of Russia, not able to establish a sovereign country). Many Russian sources (on which the Belarusian sources are also based on) are falsified in order to falsely prove that the Lithuanian Grand Dukes were Orthodox and that the GDL lands should belong to Russia (very similar to propaganda which is constantly broadcasted from the Kremlin now which aggressively denies that the Ukrainian/Belarusian nations exists). One of the finest examples of this is the transformation of Grand Duke Algirdas in the Russian (Muscovian) sources from a brutal, cruel Pagan who invaded Moscow into a ruler who ended his life as an Orthodox monk. Funny because it is well known (even in the Orthodox sources) that Algirdas executed Orthodox priests who came to Vilnius with his Orthodox wife for spreading anti-Pagan non-senses (these priests remains are still present in the Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit, Vilnius). So stop reading such pro-Russian fantasy sources and you will feel a relief in your head as even the Russian (Muscovian) sources contradicts itself. Otherwise, you will constantly be ridiculed by those who read broader, reliable sources. A true GDL citizen would throw any pro-Russian source into a trash bin and defend its country from Russia, not knee in front of it. That's what the Lithuanians did all the way throughout the history. By the way, the Lithuanian language was called like that before the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania as well and its general variant (created during the interwar period by Jonas Jablonskis, still used now by the majority of Lithuanians) was based on the Eastern Lithuanian dialect, not the Samogitian dialect which reminds the Latvian language (old Samogitian words are hardly understandable for Eastern Lithuanians). The Goštautai family (whose primary language was Lithuanian, very similar to the current Lithuanian language) originates from Hieraniony Castle and Tykocin Castle, which once more proves that the ethnic Lithuanian lands were much wider in the Medieval times. I understand that it is painful to admit that the Belarusian lands constantly were a land-locked colony of foreign powers, but it is what it is. The Belarusians/Orthodoxes never ruled the GDL, but there were notable Belarusian magnates in the GDL and you can rightfully appreciate them (e.g. it is likely that Lew Sapieha was Belarusian). The Ruthenian Uniate Church doesn't count as Catholic. England conquered India and large Asian/African countries, so not always the smaller is the weaker. ;-) -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Classic Bludgeoning. Just highlight some quotes: The Belarusians destiny from the beginning was to serve the foreigners <...> [you] still kneeing in front of Russia, not able to establish a sovereign country <...> Belarusian lands constantly were a land-locked colony of foreign powers. A good example of a true Lietuvan. And one more remark about A true GDL citizen would throw any pro-Russian source into a trash bin and defend its country from Russia, not knee in front of it. That's what the Lithuanians did all the way throughout the history. Thanks for the quite honest recognition that Lietuvans who decided not to defend their country during Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) are not historical Lithuanians. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You sure? To begin with, the Lithuanians defended Lithuania from the Bolsheviks, Bermontians, and Poles during the Lithuanian Wars of Independence in 1918-1920 (at the same time the Belarusian People's Republic quickly surrendered). Then we had a very successful 1941 June Uprising in Lithuania during which we killed thousands of occupants (including Belarusians, such as the nasty Soviet partisans) who dared to step onto our land. Later, we fought in the forests from 1944 to 1953 and had the largest military resistance among the Baltic states (see: Lithuanian partisans). With a population of only 3 million we did a lot and much more than the Belarusians who surrendered after having independence for about a year. Let me remind you that most of the Belarusians are still clapping when they see hammer & sickle, which replaced Pahonia (Vytis) and the majority of the population was happy. Same like in the 1990s when 3/4 of the population said that Pahonia (Vytis) is a Nazi symbol and supported reintroduction of the USSR-themed symbols. Moreover, the Belarusians DEMOCRATICALLY elected the only parliamentarian who voted against the independence of Belarus from the USSR in the 1990s - Lukashenko, and removed the dreamer Stanislav Shushkevich who is currently irrelevant and almost went broke. Now you just walk with flags in the streets and do not dare to step into your tsar's palace, who doesn't care about his country's citizens complains and beats non-stop. Every time the Lithuanians succeed with their decision - the Belarusians at the same time failed badly because of lack of true identity. When you call us Lietuvan/Zmud/Samogitian do not forget that your cherished Belarusian People's Republic founders rejected to name the state as Lithuania/Litva and chose Belarus/White Ruthenia instead - that's who you truly are and you will never change that. Stop dreaming about creating a fake history. You was the first one who called Lithuanians as rubbish, so now do not complain when you received a blow back. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Dismiss as per Vadzim. Glide08 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Vadzim edits are based on Belarusian Litvinist flawed dreams which are full of twisted history. He even tries to include an absurd illustration of Lithuania proper included into Belarus, as depicted in a map by the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. So not a good example to follow, unless you are one of these Litvinists who are desperately trying to steal another country's history. :) -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dismiss. The Republic of Lithuania does not have exclusive rights to the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania is not the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The legal successor of the principality was the Russian Empire, whose emperor bore the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Лобачев Владимир: Does that also mean that Mongolia has exclusive rights to the coat of arms of Russia as present-day Russia was fully conquered by the Mongol Empire? Actually, Russia did not existed when the Mongols were living in Moscow, so about what kind of Russian (Muscovian) history we are speaking before 1368? On the other hand, Lithuania (Litua) was first mentioned in 1009, so it had a statehood nearly 400 years earlier. By the way, such theories as "legal" annexation of Crimea are unanimously rejected by the international community. Injustice does not create justice. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These are words, words... Just give an authoritative source talking about the exclusive rights of the Republic of Lithuania to the coat of arms of Pahonia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Show me another Lithuania with capital Vilnius, inhabited by the speakers of a Baltic language (the language of the Balts, who created Lithuania) and we might discuss. For example, show me a legal document from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania period which said that Pahonia primarily is the coat of arms of White Ruthenia (Belarus) or other country. Your other arguments of legal annexations are an absurd arguments because this way France (because of Napoleon) and Germany (because of Adolf Hitler) would have the legal rights to almost all the European coat of arms. Such original research has nothing to do with the Neutral point of view rule. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Dismiss. Pahonia/Vytis is an ancient symbol with its own history, while the Coat of arms of Lithuania is only one of its adaptations. Similarly as Double-headed eagle is pre-modern nation symbol with various posible later adaptations. Hugo.arg (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please show me at least one example of a country which uses Pahonia (originating from Grand Duchy of Lithuania) as its national coat of arms. If you compare it to the Double-headed eagle which is used on the Coat of arms of Serbia, Coat of arms of Russia, Reichsadler (Holy Roman Empire), Coat of arms of Albania, Byzantine flags and insignia, Coat of arms of Montenegro, Gandabherunda, etc. then there must be some examples. The Belarusians in a 1995 Belarusian referendum (78.6%) said that it is not their national coat of arms. So who wants to use it besides Lithuanians? You should be able to find at least one example if you are that sure. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are tons of examples of its use in the article Pahonia. Dismissed or not, it is still an important cultural artefact of Gudians. Hugo.arg (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So at least one country, please? There must be at least one if that's so wide spread. If the Belarusians cherish it, then why they voted it out with an absolute majority? There was a lot of negativity towards it to be exact and they were happy to get rid of it. Whatsoever, I'm not trying to deny that they cannot write about Pahonia in the article of National emblem of Belarus. But Pahonia is an article which is a mixture of two separate countries history, so I suggest replacing it with a disambiguation page with links to the coat of arms of Lithuania and national emblem of Belarus. This way it will be equal. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Deeply suprrised by this proposal. It is inappropriate to merge official symbolics of the suvereign country with anything else, reagardless, similar or not. Would not merge Americal and UK flags just because of having comparable colors? Audriusa (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * American and UK flags are not similar, so there is no need to merge them. On the other hand, Pahonia is a term used to describe the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (read this article by the Rector of the Vilnius University). So when we have this article (coat of arms of Lithuania) and National Emblem of Belarus (with a seprate section National_emblem_of_Belarus) for what we should use the article of Pahonia as it results in a mixture of these two articles (which cannot be mixed because Lithuania is not Belarus and Belarus is not Lithuania)? -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It is a good idea to replace it with a disambiguation page as proposed by Pofka as well, taking into account the arguments of those who disagree here. But, in that case or if to leave it as it is now, the name of the article Pahonia should be changed. I don‘t know the most common term in English, but using the Belarus term for coat of arms of Lithuanian origin leads to misunderstanding. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pahonia this is not a Belarusian term. This is the official name of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation page is the most neutral variant to solve this red-hot dispute as Pahonia is the coat of arms of Lithuania and shortly official coat of arms of the state of Belarus (as we know, now it is an opposition symbol). I see absolutely no point to have a mixture of two articles into one. Pahonia is an Anglicized (Americanized) term of Pogonia and Pogon (which is primarily a Polish word, first used in 1551 by a Pole Marcin Bielski, but has a variant in the Lithuanian language as Pagaunė and as Пагоня in the Belarusian language). Disputed terms shared by more than one subject are always made as a disambiguation page, so in case of choosing between merging and a disambiguation page – I chose a disambiguation page as a fully neutral variant in this red-hot dispute. An agreement which would suit both sides will never be reached in a discussion whenever Pahonia is Lithuanian or Belarusian. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pahonia is the coat of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Belorussia even didn't exist in this time. In Grand Duchy of Lithuania lived Lithuanians, Ukrainians, pre-Belarusians, and other nations. Why the coat is linked to Belorusians only? By the way the statutes weren't written in Belarusian language because language of statutes doesn't have the main linguistic characteristics in which Belarusian language differs from other East Slavonic languages. That is why language of statutes named just East Slavonic language or Ruthenian language.--Ed1974LT (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting that this discussion has been superseded by the broader RfC at Talk:Pahonia. Klbrain (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Arms of "Belarus" circulating around, including this page
To Ke an. This. is NOT the arms of "White Russia (Belarus)," but instead the arms of one of the Reuss principalities: Hinter Reussen, Recht Reussen, Roth Reussen, Weida (not Weiss-white) Reussen, etc - in the Schrot book the arms are located within precisely the arms of states of the Holy Roman Empire ("Wappenbuch des Heiligen Römischen Reichs"). The fact that it is a Reuss family arms can be further seen from the Swan and the Lion. As you know, such arms were never used in any sources in reference to actual Belarusian lands - thus, I will go ahead and remove them from all Belarus-related pages on Wikipedia the file is associated with. Also, for future reference, the Latin words "Ruthenia, Ruthenorum, Ruthenus" are not only applied to anything "Russian/Ruthenian/Belarusian/etc" but also to Latin form of the German place/family name Reuss (Reuß). Best wishes, A" Anchorite (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ares
Hi, re "Other nations have lions, ares, or other symbols of power in their flags" ares is obviously a typo, but of what?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a direct translation of a quote. There is no mistake in it. I believe he used this Greek god Ares name to refer to the old civilizations (e.g. Ancient Greece, Roman Empire, etc.). Ares's helmet is a quite popular symbol even today (google search). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case it would be capitalised in English - Ares the god as opposed to other meanings of ares.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Pahonia
There is an RFC at Talk:Pahonia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021
The article states: "The coat of arms of Lithuania is one of the oldest national coats of arms in Europe.[4][13][14]". That is simply not true Vytis as a coat of arms of a Lithuanian entity emerged in 14th century, which does not make it one of the oldest national coat of arms in Europe. The listed sources support my point [4][13][14], and also are not credible sources, just some articles from Lithuanian websites which talk in general about Vytis and not that it is one of the oldest national coat of arms in Europe. Vaidenisvienas (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine (2020).jpg
 * Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine 2020.png

The article does not adhere to NPOV
The article has major problems with WP:NPOV. It sidelines everything but the Lithuanian storyline (WP:WEIGHT, WP:STRUCTURE). This is detrimental to the article’s quality taking into account that Pahonia redirects to it. The bias is manifested particularly strongly in the Belarus section which fails to explain the reasons and events of Pahonia becoming the symbol of the movement for national self-determination and the first state emblem of independent Belarus (WP:BALANCE). The movement for national self-determination is attributed to a "a small group of Belarusian nationalists", while the same aspirations of Lithuanians are not labeled in the same manner (MOS:LABEL, WP:IMPARTIAL). The bias is manifested also in the fact that the article fails to acknowledge that the coat of arms was known as Погоня (Pogonia) since the 16th century and until the end of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; instead, the 19th-century term Vytis is used for the primary name of this coat of arms throughout the article. It does not have a single reference to a monograph or academic article by a Belarusian historian or heraldist, nor to other historian specialising in Belarusian studies (WP:BESTSOURCES). - Nieszczarda2 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is so problematic, especially the Belarusian part. The whole section is about how Belarusians were never sovereign and they owe everything to Lithuanians. It basically should be deleted and written anew Marcelus (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918" (Encyclopedia Britannica). Here is another statement: "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" (Encyclopedia Britannica). So about what kind of sovereignty before 1918 you are speaking? If you don't like facts from the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is not a valid reason to remove/rewrite it. This article is based on the POV of Encyclopedia Britannica, which unquestionably is a Reliable source and complies with the WP:NPOV, thus any attempts to twist facts will be fruitless. This article has no NPOV issues. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Britannica’s history section in the article about Belarus predates 2007 (the earliest traceable edit), it’s at variance with more recent scholarship (Oleg Łatyszonek, Andrew Wilson, Timothy Snyder, David Marples). This out-of-date article is the only source you quote repeatedly from one article to another as if such repetition can add to the validity of your claim. Any other sources? --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Truth does not change over the years. We do not rewrite history every decade. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What's the topic of this article?
The article is really hard to follow. And it's hard to say what's the main topic. Is it about current coat of arms of Lithuania? Or about all historical coat of arms used by Lithuanian state in the past (Columns, Double Cross etc.)? Why there is so many about history of Lithuania? Why Belarusian part is so short? Marcelus (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Coat of arms of Lithuania covers precisely what similar Coat of arms articles address, e.g. Coat of arms of France, Coat of arms of Spain, and Coat of arms of Germany. It looks at what coat of arms have been used by the Lithuanian state in all its incarnations, just like in those articles, although the Lithuanian article goes into more detail. Furthermore, it is impossible without the Columns of Gediminas, Jagiellonian Double Cross, and others, because they themselves were depicted on the main Lithuanian Coat of arms, the galloping knight. So much is written about history because without this necessary context, few will understand significant parts of the coat of arms' development and beginning. The subject at hand is complexified by the fact that currently there are a lot of holes with regards to knowledge about certain rulers, e.g. The coat of arms, seals or symbols of Traidenis are unknown, Grand Duke Gediminas's authentic symbols did not survive and The most mysterious heraldic symbol of Lithuania is a spearhead with a cross and etc. Of course, mentioning this does not detract from the article's value, but this article reflects what is known about this topic and so these mentions are very important. As for Why Belarusian part is so short?, I checked, and the exclusively Belarusian part is a thousand words. That is a pretty decent size and by no means short on Wikipedia, although it might look small compared to the rest of the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Belarusian part isn't really about the meaning of Pahonia for Belarusians, but it sounds more like a libel of Belarusian nationalist movement, it presents them as an artificial creation, that was really subjugated to Lithuania and nothing more. Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland - why even mention some alleged desacralization of the flag in this article? It's completely off-topic. Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten. Marcelus (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LIBEL says: The goal of Wikipedia is to create an information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with referenced information through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. The passages in question clearly follow everything mentioned here (the references, citations and the NPOV of sources which are all WP:RS). It is nonsense to say that a text which is based on writings by respected authors like Leszek Bednarczuk, Jonas Palionis, Rawi Abdelal, Clive Cheesman, Dr. Jonathan Williams (according to WorldCat), Whitney Smith and the institution of Encyclopedia Britannica would be in anyway libelous.
 * Nowhere in the article is it written that Belarus is an artificial creation or etc. That is your impression.
 * Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland - nowhere is it written that Poland is bad. Mentioning bad acts from the past that you interpret as "badmouthing" is not all "badmouthing", because Wikipedia has many articles on bad acts from the past - e.g. Circassian genocide or List of massacres in Russia.
 * The excerpt about the Belarusians in Lithuania's Army is not completely off-topic, because it shows how these signs were treated at the time. Perhaps some content could be moved to separate articles like 1st Belarusian Regiment or Belarus–Lithuania relations, with the articles being included in the "See also" section at the subsections top.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918" (Encyclopedia Britannica), so there are absolutely no issues with WP:NPOV in the Belarusian section because the current Belarusian territories were part of other countries in the past: Lithuania, Russia, Poland. However, since this article is related with Lithuania, we are only interested why and when the Lithuanian coat of arms was used in territories which now are part of a modern state called Belarus.


 * This article describes the history of the coat of arms of Lithuania. Medieval seals of Mindaugas, Gediminas are closely related with this topic because the Lithuanian coat of arms undoubtedly evolved into coat of arms of the state from the ruler's seal at the time of Jogaila and Vytautas the Great, however Grand Duke Algirdas also had used the horseman on his seal, thus this symbol has a much older history in Lithuania (e.g. other sons of Gediminas also had used it). Removing content about earlier Lithuanian symbols would result in a false approach that the Lithuanian state had no symbols before Vytautas and Jogaila. That's false. For example, "The German Imperial Eagle (Reichsadler) originates from a proto-heraldic emblem believed to have been used by Charlemagne, the first Frankish ruler crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope in 800, and derived ultimately from the Aquila or eagle standard, of the Roman army." (see: Coat of arms of Germany), thus medieval rulers symbols/seals are important in coat of arms topic.


 * As for the Polish part, these are facts that the Poles were disrespecting Lithuanian symbols in Grodno, thus it also do not violate the WP:NPOV. For example, there are many negative facts in article Soviet Union and Political repression in the Soviet Union. It is an unquestionable fact that the Poles performed repressions against a Lithuanian-Belarusian unit and its symbols in Grodno and there are absolutely no reasons to hide it. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all it suppose to be "Belarusian" not "Polish part", secondly the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda. I seriously doubt if you are able to be impartial enough to write articles on Wikipedia Marcelus (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What propaganda? These actions of Polish soldiers in Grodno was a fact, recorded in documents sent to the Lithuanian temporary capital Kaunas. The Belarusian-Lithuanian unit reported what the Poles were doing with the Lithuanian coat of arms in Grodno. It is not an interpretation by some kind of authors. These are authentic documents, preserved in the Lithuanian archives. These events are notable in Lithuanian-Belarusian-Polish relations context as the Belarusian-Lithuanian unit in Grodno was one of very few Belarusian units which had used the Lithuanian coat of arms and identified themselves as part of the reestablished Lithuania, thus it is related with its CoA history. It does not mean that mentioning such facts is a propaganda or a violation of WP:NPOV because the Polish soldiers had really performed these acts against Belarusians and Lithuanians in Grodno. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic statements

 * Therefore, Grand Duke Vytenis' reign (1295-1316) is also associated with the word Vytis as the Ruthenian Hypatian Codex[1] mentions that after beginning to rule the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 13th century, he came up with a seal with an armored horseman and a sword raised above his head (in the Codex's original Old Church Slavonic it is written that Vytenis named it Pogonia[2])

The whole sentence is overly complicated. But most importantly it’s not clear how it proves connection between Vytis and Vytenis if Hypatian Codex calls his CoA „Pogonia”; what’s more this part of the Codex is from 15-16th century, when Vytis was well-established in Grand Duchy of Lithuania


 * Wythes Hof, which means Vytenis' Court in German

Are we sure of that translation?


 * In 1629 Konstantinas Sirvydas used a toponym Vutec Kalnsь (English: Vytis'/Vyties' Mountain) on the basis of a document from Kęsčiai [lt], Karšuva County [lt] and associated it with personal names Vygailas, Vytenis, Vytautas.

I don’t know what that means


 * and this expansive Lithuania was soon conveyed in the coat of arms of Lithuania which is a galloping horseman, a former woodland warrior who later perfected the western armourers techniques

That's pretty controversial statement. Do we have Lithuanian CoA with a "woodland warrior"?

Marcelus (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * it’s not clear how it proves connection between Vytis and Vytenis if Hypatian Codex calls his CoA „Pogonia” This paragraph concerns the prevalence of Vytis/Vytenis/similar names. As the Lithuanian Court undoubtedly used the Lithuanian language during Vytenis' reign (it was used into the 16th century, if I remember correctly), it is most likely that this term was originally Lithuanian instead of Slavic.
 * 16th century codex isn't reliable for 13-14th century situation, it's also very possible that the coa if already existed at that time, simple didn't have a name. Overall CoA is mentioned or depicted since the end of 14th century, but the name for the first time appears in 16th century Marcelus (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Coat of Arms, which clearly had a prestigious place, had no name, is a preposterous claim. There is no reason to think that a symbol's name appeared suddenly two centuries after its use by the rulers of the state. A lack of writings for something does not necessarily mean that something didn't exist, i.e. the name in this case. There are ways around it (which is a major part of the historian's job) and toponomy, rules of languages, meanings of words, and many other approaches are part of the process.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it didn't exists, I am saying we don't know if it existed. Also it's not uncommon for CoA to don't have a name, actually it's other way around. How many CoAs do have a historical name? Not so many. They are blazoned, not named. Marcelus (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes common sense that people would have a name for something they draw. No one draws things that they don't know how to call.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, buy this comment shows how little you know about heraldry and historical studies. Marcelus (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me that people drew things they didn't have names for? Nonsense. There would have been a name, regardless if it was e.g. French coat of arms, Flor de Loys, Flor de Lys, fleur de lys or whatever. There would definitely not have been a nameless object, floating out there with context and meaning, but which no one had a name for. If anything, this demonstrates your lack of logical reasoning.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vytis is in use since the late 14th century, it's called "Pogonia/Pahonia" for the first time in early 16th century, before that it was simply described: "vir armatus" and so on, most coat of arms don't have specific name. Marcelus (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it had a generic name like "vir armatus" and so on, it would still qualify as a name, even if it was not specific.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Are we sure of that translation? In the Scriptores rerum Prussicarum (the source is linked in the sentence), it is written ...ein fleischen vellet yn czu Kirsmymmyl, do etwen des Wythes [Witens?] hoff gewest ist. As for the translation "Vytenis' Court", it is clearly given in this article from the Vle.lt.
 * I don’t know what that means The mention of the toponym Vytis mountain is another example that Vyties/Vytis was prevalent centuries before the 19th-century.
 * As for the last one, the statement is that the coat of arms of Lithuania which is a galloping horseman. There is no mention of the woodland warrior being a coat of arms. It does not say that there was a transition between two different coat of arms. What it says is that the coat of arms, the galloping horseman, was the result of the woodland warrior perfecting western techniques.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not encyclopedic statement, it suggest that Lithuanians were using a woodland warrior as their symbol and that there was an evolution between one and the other. It's irrelevant and misleading Marcelus (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement is not irrelevant as you suggest. And your view of it, that the sentence clearly implicates a woodland warrior, is based on an imprecise and so incorrect reading of the quote. With regards to this edit, the individual referred to is not a legend, but it is actually Narimantas, a real-life individual.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, go and read chronicle if don't believe me, the person referenced here is a legendary Narimantas. The legend explains why Grand Dukes were using Pogoń/Vytis and other knyaz families Kitawr/Hippocentaurs Marcelus (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is you who is incorrect, for the source provided states: Lietuvos ir Žemaičių kronikose, rastose Tobolsko archyvuose, apie kunigaikštį Narimantą (1300–1348) rašoma: „…tas Narimantas savo antspaude turėjo herbą, kažkokį Raitelį, kurį padarė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ženklu. Jame buvo pavaizduotas narsus vyras ant balto žirgo raudoname dugne, apnuogintu kardu, lyg kažką vytųsi…“ It can't be "a legendary Narimantas" because the source states the years of life.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is incorrect, it not only confuse two persons of the same name, but it also mistakingly calls Bychowiec chronicle as being found in Tobolsk (it was actually Vawkavysk), also the quote isn't faithful. It's a bad source. You should really use written sources, written by respected historians Marcelus (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is really bizarre, that you would say a source 1) gets the name of the text wrong 2) gets the location of the text wrong 3) gets the quotation of the text wrong. A parallel would be taking Mao's Little Red Book, published in China in 1964, which says ABC and saying that it is actually Marx's Das Kapital, published in Germany in 1867, which says XYZ. Regardless of how unfounded your actions are, considering that Juozas Galkus' book says the quote and the book is clearly the privileged source over the museum's website, it is better to include what the book says. Nonetheless, it is certain that the Chronicles of Lithuania and Samogitia (mentioned in the source), are distinct from the Bychowiec Chronicle, as the Vle.lt separates Chronicles of Lithuania and Samogitia and Bychowiec Chronicle. Your incompetency, e.g. in this case by thinking two different historical writings are one, is only worsened by your hubris in these matters, as evidenced in this edit.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are two redactions of Lithuanian Chronicle. Both sources were quoting two different redactions, I fixed it, so the text is now clear which is which Marcelus (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Gumowski's forgery
I think that it's unfair to accuse Gumowski of forgery. He ascribed four seals to Algirdas, and it seems that none of them is considered by contemporary historiography as actually his, especially by Edmundas Rimša. But even when Gumowski published his paper in 1930 he wasn't that sure if it really was Algirdas' seal, he said: ''The location of this seal is unknown, as we know it only from the collection of seal castings left behind by Professor Piekosiński. The drawing of its coat-of-arms and letters is very clumsy, so it rather resembles the seals of the boyars of Halicz. The inscription is so worn that it is impossible to guarantee its proper reading. Only due to the similarity of the emblem do we place this seal in this place'' ("Ateneum Wileńskie" 1930, no. 3-4, p. 709). In my opinion, calling it "forgery" is unfair. What actually would be a goal of such forgery? Marcelus (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody can identify his aims why he created a forgery. Probably in order to showcase a complete heraldic book without leaving any gaps. The conclusion that all the alleged seals of Algirdas are fake was made in 2020 by the Lithuanian Institute of History (https://www.istorija.lt/): "Algirdo antspaudų tyrimai nuvainikavo dar vieną istoriografijos sukurtą mitą. Iš 4 Algirdui priskirtų antspaudų neliko antspaudų su dviejų sujungtų ir perkryžiuotų strėlių motyvu, trečiasis Algirdui priskirtas antspaudas iš tikro priklausė Aleksandrui, abejonių kelia ir T. Čackio aprašytas 1366 m. raitelio tipo antspaudas. Antspaudai su strėlėmis buvo laikomi seniausiais valdovų heraldikos pavyzdžiais, pagal juos identifikuotos monetos su ietigaliu, kurti heraldiniai ženklų ciklai ir t.t. O iš tikrųjų vienas 1372 m. antspaudas su strėlėmis priklausė Algirdo žentui (Agripinos vyrui) Gorodeco kunigaikščiui Borisui Konstantinovičiui, kilusiam iš Suzdalės Monomachų. Kitas – Algirdo sūnaus Kaributo vasaliniam kunigaikščiui Davidui Dimitrijevičiui, kuris jį prikabino 1388 m., tai yra praėjus 11 metų po Algirdo mirties." (source with these conclusions). Use google translate if you do not believe. No authentic seals of Algirdas survived in a visual form. Source from lrytas.lt states the same that it is a forgery (lrytas.lt article). I wish there would be at least one surviving seal of Algirdas, but there simply isn't. STOP MAKING EDITS WITHOUT DISCUSSING AND DOING RESEARCH IN PROVIDED REFERENCES! -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read all the references. The .doc file isn't an article but a report made by Vilnius Historical Institute, it's not a signed article. What's more there is no mention of forgery there. Also, your claim that the conclusion was made in 2020 is wrong since the article published on lrytas.lt is originally from no. 10 of "Kultūros barai" from 2008, what's more author is quoting Rimša published in Polish in 2002 (E. Rimša, Pieczęcie Olgierda, wielkiego księcia litewskiego - dane historiograficzne a rzeczywistość, in: "Heraldyka i okolice", p. 201-215).
 * What's more, nothing that I have written goes against the references, I just avoided the word "forgery" because nothing in the quote of Gumkowski I published in my first comment suggests he was deliberately making a forgery, that's all. As I said it's unnecessary to accuse him of one. Marcelus (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Waikymas problem
Pofka started to include word "Waikymas" everywhere the word Vytis is used in the article. According to my knowledge Vytis is a 19th-century word, but there are some historical pieces of evidence it was used before and probably it was an original name of CoA. But what about "Waikymas"? As far as I know there is no proof it was ever actually used as the name of the Coat of Arms. It's mentioned by Konstantinas Sirvydas as a Lithuanian word for Polish "pogonia", but not a CoA, but an act of chasing. Which is clearly stated in the dictionary (as you can see on the image). None of the sources mentioned in references states that Lithuanian CoA was ever called "Waikymas". I am afraid it's not historically accurate to call the CoA this name Marcelus (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This article: https://alkas.lt/2020/05/27/j-galkus-apie-vycio-pradzia-ir-varda/ doesn't say anything about "Waikymas"
 * This one: https://kulturosuostas.lt/2019/12/17/paroda-vytis-istorijoje-ir-daileje/ states that: Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštystės kunigaikštis ir Lenkijos karalius Žygimantas Augustas (1520 – 1572 m.) lietuvišką herbą su raiteliu pavadino žemaitiškos kilmės žodžiais: „waykitoias“ (vaikytojas) ir „waykimas“ (vaikymas); which of course completely untrue, because there is no source stating that, what's more Sigismund August most likely didn't know Samogitian language. Author is obviously referring to Sirvydas dictionary but completely misrepresent it.


 * Waikymas is a historic name of the coat of arms of Lithuania in the Lithuanian language. Stop attempting to discredit the Lithuanian language. I added screenshot from a German book which used it as well. Quote from Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija: "Ieškant lenkiškam terminui Pogonia lietuviško atitikmens jau 17 a. K. Sirvydo siūlymu atsirado Vaikymo, vėliau – Vaiko vardas" (article widely used as a reference in this wiki article). English translation: "In search of the Lithuanian equivalent of the Polish term Pogonia already in the 17th century K. Sirvydas suggested the name of Vaikymas, later - Vaikas name". Vaikymas/Waikymas is equal to Pogonia. Since Konstantinas Sirvydas is a well-known author, it is absolutely certain that this term was widely used in spoken language and later evolved to Vaikas, Vytis. All of them more or less means CHASE.
 * Sigismund II Augustus had a Lithuanian-speaking court in Vilnius in addition to the Polish one. Both of them were equally important and large. Here is source supporting this (page 52). You really should do more research in non-Slavic history of Lithuania. Konstantinas Sirvydas (1579-1631) and Sigismund II Augustus (1520-1572) are nearly from the same period of time. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But as you can see Sirvydas never called that coat of arms, Polish word "pogonia" is recorded for the first time in 13-14th century, but the coat of arms started to be called that way in mid 16th century. As you can see the existence of the word does not prove anything. There is no source stating that Sigismund called Lithuanian CoA "Waikymas", that's the whole point Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [[File:Coat of arms of Lithuania name in the Lithuanian language – Waikymas, mentioned in Aegidius Kibler's book, 1700.png|thumb|100px|Waikymas, 1700]] That's non-sense. Konstantinas Sirvydas translated word Pogonia in order to Lithuanize the name of the coat of arms (that's scientifically accepted approach). Word Pogonia was already present in the Statute. Aegidius Kibler used this Lithuanian term Waikymas in 1700 because of that as well, so it proves that this term became widespread as even a German-speaking author used it in his German-language book 69 years after the death of Konstantinas Sirvydas. Modern term Vytis means CHASE, so it can be used to describe an action or a coat of arms/knight. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a WP:OR on your part. First of all can you read latin? In Sirvydas book it's clearly stated that he translates "pogonia" in two aspects de personis - person, riding knight and actio - action of chasing; there is nothing about coat of arms. Secondly in what context Aegidius Kibler is using this word (if he is really using it)? Can you provide any source that clearly states that Aegidius Kibler used word "Waikymas" as a name of Lithuanian CoA? Because right now it seems that you have found some book on your own that used this or similar word and you are using it as a backup of your theories. All google results let to this Wiki page. I am really serious right now Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok dude, I am removing it, after closer inspection it's impossible that this word means "waikymas"; first of all there is no "y" letter there, but a "/" sign; secondly in your reading "w" and "m" are represented by the same sign, what's more the letter you read as "k" is actually double "ss". The whole text looks like some prayer. This is a huge misconduct, that's not only WP:OR that's basically forgery and vandalism Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Marcelus and Pofka Can we get translation of that page some how? At least first few paragraphs? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella You can try yourself it looks like this is some kind of religious text; something about raising soul from inner troubles and so on; it looks like Pofka simply googled randomly the word "waikymas" and that was the only result on google books. This is just outrageous. And he built the whole theory around it Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Marcelus - Why would that book surfaced in search returns if searched for the word “waikymas”? It does not when I search. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella Hard to say, maybe google engine is better now, but his link looks like this: https://books.google.pl/books?id=2uA8AAAAcAAJ&q=Waikymas&pg=PA10&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Waikymas&f=false ; so he clearly was looking for "Waikymas" in the google. BTW he added this OR on 3 May 2021 Marcelus (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pofka - could you please clarify how you landed with that book? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pofka, when you get a moment, I would like to hear from you regarding the above question. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I inserted it on 3 May 2021 when the Google search engine was still finding it as Waikymas. I don't know why it does not anymore, but it is a hand-written text, so probably Google modified something in their system in the past months. I would have not inserted it on 3 May 2021 if I would have not been able to verify it back then. This link is also provided in this discussion (I believe I found it there, but I'm not a participant of that forum).
 * WAIKYMAS HAS ALL THE MEANINGS OF POGONIA. IT IS A DIRECT TRANSLATION OF A TERM. THIS DISCUSSION IS AN ABSURD, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO DENY A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pofka so you just admitted it was your own research? And your only basis was google search and some forum? Marcelus (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I verified it on 3 May 2021 before inserting it. It really was finding WAIKYMAS at the time in the page 10. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pofka you must understand that google result is not a prove or source for anything Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not read Old German myself, but what I do know is that there clearly is no word Waikimas in the Old German. Whatever, I give up with this book. Let's keep this source removed for the sake of WP:NPOV because nobody will be able to translate this hand-written Old German text. Always start discussions here before removing content and dragging me and other users into unnecessary edit warring. It is much easier to remove content than to restore it following long discussions and other edits in the article. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not Old German, it's German language just written in Schwabacher. The part about the book is obvious WP:OR and such thing should be removed immediately. Marcelus (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pofka Thank you. Regrettably, in my opinion, we are unable to verify the word Waikimas written in that old German book. Please act accordingly.
 * PS - Try to find additional sources maybe to get it back into the article? GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * For the word Waykimas/Vaikymas, it is included in the article written by Edmundas Rimša on the Vle.lt, which Pofka already mentioned. Such mentions are definitely worthy of inclusion. Moreover, the thing you are writing about is already in the article - Sirvydas also indicated its two meanings: waykitoias (English: pursuer) in the case of a person and waykimas (English: pursuing) in the case of an action.[48]. Those align perfectly. Just as you included the first overall mention of Pogonia in Poland, which had a sense of pursuit/chasing, so too should the Lithuanian equivalent be stated.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there should be no mention of Sirvydas and how he translated "pogonia" to Lithuanian, my point is that the CoA shouldn't be called that, because it's not historically accurate. Pofka isn't a trustworthy user Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis I see you added new sources, but it doesn't change the fact that Sirvydos didn't call that Lithuanian CoA, he never mentioned it in fact Marcelus (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources say it, and whether we like it or not, Wikipedia prioritizes sources over users' opinions and their findings, however well-founded they may be. As for Pofka's trustworthiness, I would point out that he has reliably contributed to Wikipedia over the past DECADE, substantially improving many articles by a lot, as you can see on his userpage. There is no need to jump immediately to conclusions about a person regarding one sentence and one picture which they inserted that could be dubious, negating hours of work in creating/forming such a large, well-sourced and informative article, in addition to all of his other work.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis Well yeah I get that, although I am surprised that such a renowned historian like Rimsa, jumped to that conclusion. Nonetheless it's a historical name so there is no reason to use it the way Pofka was doing, describing images as depicting Vitys/Waikymas. I don't have a lot of trust in Pofka edits, so I think most of them should be reviewed. Marcelus (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that more than one historian has reached the same conclusion, I would not say that this is jumping to conclusions, as they would be able to justify it, because the same was said by Lietuvos Heraldikos komisija prie Respublikos prezidento - the Lithuanian Heraldry Commission near the Republic's President - and also someone in a writing edited by Stanislovas Balčiūnas (I can't check who the author is because the book is locked). Considering different people reached the same conclusion, it is reasonable to conclude that they have reason to say what they are saying regarding Waykimas. As for Pofka's edits, you are definitely overreacting, most of his edits are neutral and concern a variety of topics related to Lithuania, e.g. architecture and basketball, and him being an established editor over the past ten years without problem means that his edits follow Wikipedia guidelines.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis Really there is no need to add every books that mentions the same conclusion as Rimsa, one would be enough, the article is already overflowed with references, 3 or more references to one sentence is too much, the article is hard to read and hard to edit. I encourage you to limit the number of references.
 * I have only bad experiences with Pofka, he constantly calls me Polish chauvinists and insults me on every occasion. Not every edit is as bad as the one about Kibler's book, but a lot of them are problematic. Just look at his edits in the article Name of Lithuania, he simply copy-pasted the entire paragraph from the Coat of Arms of Lithuania about the Gediminas seal. It makes no sense in the context of the article. The only valuable information is that Lithuanians were spelled LETHWINOR on it, that's all. Plus he added: Following the Union of Lublin, the Lithuanians and Grand Dukes of Lithuania also called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Lithuanian Republic and considered it as a separate entity from the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, which is some fringe fact he recently found about and is copy-pasting it into many Lithuanian articles. How is that related to the article about the meaning and etymology of Lithuania? Marcelus (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to be a constant mediator here... so I will use a smaller font for this comment.
 * Marcelus, I'll quote you here first:
 * I have only bad experiences with Pofka, he constantly calls me Polish chauvinists and insults me on every occasion.
 * 1st - this talk page is not where you should discuss the user's conduct. Use an appropriate board
 * 2nd - however, if you already posted it here, then at least, at minimum, include the diffs supporting those accusations for your own good . -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella Well I'm talking about Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis or Talk:Pahonia. Marcelus (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding references, three on a sentence is OK according to Wikipedia guidelines. As for Marcelus saying that there is no need to mention all of the books with the same conclusion as Rimša, that is unconvincing, because he portrayed Rimša's statements "as jumping to conclusions", which was not the case considering other sources say the same.
 * Pofka's edits are overall unproblematic as their essence is correct, although sometimes they just might need some refining. Copy-pasting the whole paragraph about Gediminas' seal is justified, because it would be incorrect to not state how the LETHWINOR in it is known. Furthermore, it is very necessary to state that it is known from a notary's transcript of Gediminas' Seal, although the precise phrasing used should have been changed somewhat. Also, there is nothing against pasting from one article to another in Wiki guidelines. As for the Lithuanian Republic being separate from the Polish Kingdom, that is relevant, because it is in the section of "Historic usage" (not etymology or something where this would be out-of-place), and the use of the name of Lithuania in naming a distinct Lithuanian Republic within PLC is precisely an example what should be there. In addition, that is not a fringe fact, because it doesn't match the meaning of fringe - fringe meaning something marginal, peripheral - while this fact is not widely known, but still important, because it highlights the distinctness of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis More references to the same statement doesn't change my opinion that Rimsa as I said "jumped to the conclusion", but that's me, I won't remove information because I think personally they aren't justified; more references doesn't mean that the fact is stronger or better protected. Only the quality of the source can be impactful, and Rimsa without a shadow of a doubt is an authority on the matter. I wasn't talking only about this part. But take a look at the lead, for example, there is a simple statement: Grand Duchy was created by the initially pagan Lithuanians, in reaction to pressures from the Teutonic Order and Swordbrothers which conquered modern-day Estonia and Latvia, forcibly converting them to Christianity, but 4 references to different Britannica articles. That's absolutely nonsensical. Such a statement, which is an easily verifiable fact doesn't need a reference at all, in my opinion, and one is more than enough. We should together agree on that, because I don't want to delete references on my own. Because it will cause probably outrage.
 * I'm not against copy-pasting paragraphs, but they need to fit the subject of the article. Wikipedia is an interlinked encyclopedia, there is no need to repeat entire paragraphs, but the essential part that is relevant for the article. Plus there is no name of Lithuania on the seal, but the name of Lithuanians, which isn't exactly the same. Using the name "Lithuanian Republic" (in org. Rzeczpospolita Litewska) is an interesting fact, but the usage was rather fringe, and it's unrelated to the history of the usage of the name "Lithuania". Marcelus (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For that one sentence, four references to Brittanica is a bit much and is visually unappealing, so it would be a good idea to remove two of the four Britannica sources which are not "essential", i.e. the ones that only tangentially address the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, like the sources about Baltic religion and the Baltic States. I would personally leave the ones about the Balts and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because of their relevancy and if someone was hypothetically checking whether the sources back up the sentence, then it is very clear that it is indeed the case. Some people, like the Litvinists, would actually deny that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian state created by Lithuanians, so it should remain sourced.
 * As for the second part, sometimes there is a need to repeat entire paragraphs, and a lot on Wikipedia is actually repetitive, in one shape or form (no matter it is in a shorter or longer format). Moreover, your statement about the Lithuanian Republic is contradictory, because the term was actually not as fringe as you pretend it is, considering that the term was used for many centuries by multiple generations of intellectuals, nobility and etc. So, it is incorrect to pretend that something that many people knew and believed in is somehow fringe.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis thank for understanding. I noticed that a large part of this article is written in the counter to Litvinism. If you will find a moment please remove unnecessary references, I am afraid I will be accused of bad intentions if I'll do that.
 * Well "Rzeczpospolita Litewska" was very sporadic, more common, but still rare was "Rzeczpospolita [Wielkiego] Księstwa Litewskiego", to quote a Polish historian (my translation): The functioning of the term "Rzeczpospolita Księstwa Litewska" or "Rzeczpospolita Litewska" was already pointed out in the literature by Henryk Wisner and Przemysław P. Romaniuk. The first of the authors indicated the spread of these terms in the 60s of the 16th century. In the examined instructions of sejmiks, the term "Rzeczpospolita" appears several times in this meaning, limited to Lithuania [...] However, these uses are sporadic, which corresponds to the conclusions of P. P. Romaniuk, who, admittedly relating to the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, claims that the term "Rzeczpospolita Litewska" did not come into common use in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, it is likely that when using the term "Rzeczpospolita" in the sense of a state, the authors of the instruction, first of all, had in mind the Polish-Lithuanian state, and probably were not aware of the complexities and problems of interpretation indicated here. It also seems likely that the term "treasury of the Rzeczpospolita" was formulated as a mental shortcut and did not mean a narrowing of the meaning of the term "Rzeczpospolita" to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (link) Marcelus (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is becoming an off-topic hell.
 * First of all, the discussion about removal of Waikymas as a name of the Lithuanian CoA is a non-sense WP:OR idea by a Wikipedia user. Rimša is a much bigger authority than any Wikipedian, so I did not invented this scientific approach myself. Terms waykitoias and waykimas were also published in the official website of the President of Lithuania when describing the history of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. So it is truly a non-sense when a Wikipedian attempts to censor such highest-level Lithuanian sources.
 * Secondly, protection to this article was applied due to attacks by Litvinists, who attempted to remove the same references Marcelus is pointing to. So mass removal of them will be regarded as an equally disruptive editing in a vital article which suffered from massive attacks. These references are absolutely necessary due to these sentences: "In reaction to the Teutonic pressures, the Lithuanians consolidated themselves into a powerful state and, allied with the Poles, checked the German expansion" (1), "The less-accessible Lithuanians, living in dense forests and swamplands, managed to withstand the foreign incursions and preserve their independence. In 1236 a chieftain, Mindaugas, united several tribes into a Lithuanian political entity." (2), the article about religion supports the fact that they were pagan and not Orthodox (3), and reference from Europe.eu is necessary to ensure WP:NPOV with different reliable sources in addition to the Britannica.
 * Thirdly, this sentence: "Moreover, the pressure stimulated Lithuanians to expand their lands eastward into territory of Ruthenian Orthodox in the Dnieper's upper basin and that of the Eurasian nomads in the Eurasian Steppe between lower Dnieper and Dniester, vanquishing present-day Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian lands in the process." is also multireferenced from different reliable sources in order to ensure WP:NPOV in a topic which suffered from attacks.
 * Overall, I see no problem in including 5 references to two sentences which were part of an aggressive edit warring. It will ensure stability in the future and will not allow to insert various fringe theories about GDL being non-Lithuanian state. I will tractate attempts to censor these absolutely reliable sources as a continuation of edit warring which resulted in increased protection of this article. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this approach by Cukrakalnis and preserve reference about Mindaugas. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis provided goog enough source for Waikymas being considered a name of Pogonia in Lithuania and that's it. Still your Kibler's book is unverifable own research. Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Had Po  fk  a  told his reasons for inclusion of all of the sources a bit earlier, I would have most likely kept the sources. However, as we reached a certain consensus between the three of us, let's keep it just to the references that remain. At the very least, it is good that Pofka clearly wrote why he included the references, as it could (and probably will) be beneficial for future reference.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis not really, these are simple, easily verifiable statements. Secondly why even include such information in the article about Coat of Arms? Just take a look at the lead it's almost nothing about the CoA itself there, but a lot about how expansive Lithuania was. Marcelus (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Marcelus Your two-faced behaviour of questioning basic material (like here) and then on the other side seeking to reduce references for basic statements is certainly worrying. As for how much of the lead is about the CoA, then I would say that two-thirds of the lead is specifically concerning the CoA and the remaining third is the context to understand why it is important. Your statement of "Just take a look at the lead it's almost nothing about the CoA itself there, but a lot about how expansive Lithuania was" is obviously false.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Marcelus "Powerful and vast" is not a basic material, but a puffery. It's not encyclopedic language Marcelus (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are essential sentences for understanding why the Coat of arms of Lithuania was so widespread in the region and summarizes the expansion of Lithuania. By creating quality content we do not remove quality references from essential material. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)