Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania

Vytis

Does Vytis really mean "the Charge"? I thought it meant "the Chase", like after a victorious battle. Appleseed 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

it means "Chase" as it said in the top line of articale.

---

"Some linguists believe that Daukantas invented the word by translating Polish pogoń. However, other disagree because Lithuanian language has a common verb vyti meaning to chase."

This needs clarification IMHO, because in the current form these two clauses taken together make little sense.

Namely, the _disagreement_ of some linguists to the theory expressed by the first sentence cannot be based on the fact, that the Lithuanian language does have a native word meaning "to chase", and therefore that "vytis" as "the chase" cannot be a translation of the Polish "pogoń". This does not follow; contrary, the fact that the term has appeared fairly recently, and it is not a common, but rather a bookish (or litterary) word, clearly points to the translation, or at least to the word formation _based_ on the Polish "pogoń" (which means "the chase" and, apart from being a name for the Lithuanian coat of arms used yet in the times of the commonwealth, it is a common noun). The arguments of the opponents must be different, then, as I believe, and so this part of the article should be provided with more detailed information on this controversy, if there's indeed any serious one. 82.210.159.30 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Daukantas really liked to invent new words like a little kid, but mostly all of them are widely used now, like LAIKRODIS (The Clock)

These versions above are clearly new-age myths derived from popular explanation tries. Let's try to analyse ethymology of this word more seriously: Vyti by it's old meaning is really similar to ginti, compare these sentences: Vyti priešus and Ginti priešus (both mean to hunt away enemies - not to pursue), also, see for comparison lithuanian names Vyt-tautas (Vytautas, Witold), Gin-tautas (Gintautas), Taut-ginas (Tautginas) all those with the only meaning: protector of the people, so there are clear linguistic fact that word used with this meaning long before Daukantas. Compare this also with words such as vaitas (leader of the community) and kalavijas (kala-vijas - kind of sword named like strike-pursue). Also compare this with names of medieval lithuanian rulers: Vytautas and Vytenis. The other relation - with the slavic word витязь (vityaz) is also clear linguistically - this word simply has no surroundings in slavic languages, so this shows that vityaz in those languages is loanword, derived from the outside, and the only source for this seems to be baltic languages. So, old existence of that word in Russian language is also clear proof of Vytis as the natural baltic word with the meaning of knight. So, as the conclusion we may only suppose that Daukantas at most used this word (vytis as the knight) with the modified meaning - vytis as the Kinght in lithuanian coat of arms and this meaning lasted in Lithuanian language up to now. --Gvorl 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement (and especially the last sentence of it) proves, that I am right: even if the word existed before (it is not attested as is, however, and the derivatives you cite may well be coined from the temporal; verb, and not the noun), it wasn't however, according to your own words, used to denote the Lithuanian Coat of Arms or its Knight. This however was long before called "Pogoń" in Polish, so if you state that Mr Daukantas used the word "vytis" in this new meaning, that obviously means that he "translated" it (made a loan translation, if he didn't create the noun, or full translation, if he did) from Polish in this manner. 82.210.159.30 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Vytis prior 1845?

How could Vytis be used to denote the coat of arms of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when the term Vytis was created only in 1845? It's pure nonsence use this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.217.87 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Vytis and Pagaunia or Pagania or Pagynia is one and the same - SYNONIMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.106.29 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Zikara's design is the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.106.29 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

smaller design

In , the second image in this article, there is a smaller geometric emblem (both on the rider's shield and in the helmet above), which can also be seen in the emblem of Lietuvos Skautija Image:Wosm-lithuania.gif. What does it signify? Chris 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) see: Columns of Gediminids Iulius 11:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice article

Logically the part of this article which describes the events prior to 1845 when the word "Vytis" was invented has no sense. It is very "historical" to apply a newly-invented word to the past. We can similarly talk about typewriters calling them computers.

What about Juozas Tūbelis' statement dated back to 1935 on the non-Lithuanian (i.e. Slavic) origins of the so-called "Vytis"? Why had the government of the 1st Lithuanian Republic been working on the new coat of arms? CityElefant (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, they probably were trying to make their language more accurate and logical. Otherwise they would followed the example of the Polish "invention" for the name of a bicycle, rower, instead of using dviratis (two-wheeler) as their basis. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ViTeaZ= brave, courageous, fearless, valliant...VoDa/VoieVoD=king

In romanian language and mythological traditions, the vord ViTeaZ is connected with Hercules. In greek myths, the gods were born in the northern parts of Danube river-today, Romania, in Carpathian Mountains. He, "the brave" Hercules, "the thracian knight", it's ussualy depicted as a knight with a dog at the feet of the horse and a bird above his head. Somethimes he has a lance or a sword in his hand. We call him with many names such as Iovan-Iorgovan, Praslea, Saint George, FaT-Frumos(beautiful child-"prince charming"), but also BaDea Troian...BaDea is similar with english "BuDDy", and it's a form of respect for an elder man. Badea Troian (sometimes "Badica"-diminutive) it's responsable for what is known as "Brazda lui Novac"-"Angel's(Novac's) Furrow", a strange 7500 years old "ditch" that has the lenght of more than 300 kilometers and it's crossing(from west to east) in the SW-S part of Romania in the region oLTeNia. Bigshotnews 03:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent blazons

The blazon listed in the info card is different from the one in the opening passage of the article. Someone needs to find the actual blazon and change them to match. AFSeabrook (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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:

• First page of the copy ofLaurentius (1531) of the First Statute of Lithuania.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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) .

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)

@Sennowa: 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. -- Pofka (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)

@Itzhak Rosenberg: 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. -- Pofka (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| reply here} 08:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: 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. -- Pofka (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)

@Vadzim: 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. -- Pofka (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. -- Pofka (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)

@Kazimier Lachnovič: 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#1995 referendum). 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. ;-) -- Pofka (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)

@Kazimier Lachnovič: 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. -- Pofka (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Dismiss as per Vadzim. Glide08 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Glide08: 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. :) -- Pofka (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. -- Pofka (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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule. -- Pofka (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)

@Hugo.arg: 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. -- Pofka (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. -- Pofka (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)

@Audriusa: 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#Pahonia) 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)? -- Pofka (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. -- Pofka (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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noting that this discussion has been superseded by the broader RfC at Talk:Pahonia#RFC: 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? ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: 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). -- Pofka (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. ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Pahonia

There is an RFC at Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_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)

 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:

• Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine (2020).jpg
• Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine 2020.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Nieszczarda2: 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)

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)

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)

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)