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 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)

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)

• 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)

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 official coats of arms of separate nation-states (Belarus and Lithuania) - and it should be enough to fully dismiss that nonsensical idea. Vadzim (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)