Talk:Pahonia

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:BIA Lipniszki COA.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pahonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202144845/http://www.arche.by/by/page/reviews/15682 to http://www.arche.by/by/page/reviews/15682
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510122312/http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/belorus_91_2.htm to http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/belorus_91_2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main article for the history of the National emblem of Belarus, i.e. the traditional Belarusian historical coat of arms Pahonia, obviously should be illustrated with :File:Coat of arms of Belarus (1991–1995).svg, not :File:Coat of arms of Lithuania.svg. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can definitely agree that it can not be simply described under the name Coat of arms of Lithuania (or Coat of arms of Belarus, even when it becomes an official state coat of arms again). So the separate article will be needed anyway. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pahonia illustration and other issues 

message: Please solve your differences on the talk page rather than edit war. I have protected the article and restored it to the status before the start of the edit war. My protection of the version is not an indication of supporting this version. In fact it appears to me that since we have a separate article on the Lithuanian coat of arms then this article should concentrate on Belarusian aspects of the symbol and this might be more interesting to the readers due to connection with the current events in Belarus Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex Bakharev. Actually, edit war started from this non-consensual edit, so it looks like this version should be restored. And I agree that as the main article for the history of the National emblem of Belarus, it should focus on Belarusian aspects of the symbol, which I can add from the corresponding featured articles of the both Belarusian Wikipedias. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: Regarding this edit It looks to me like the information about the possible connection between Pahon and different emblem of Rus princes is notable and referenced to academic sources. It is also presented in neutral point of view: both views are presented. The only problem I see is that emblems of questionable connections to the subject are mixed with the emblems where the connections is obvious. Maybe we have to move the images in a separate gallery? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish word Pogonia (anglicized as Pahonia) is a term used exclusively for the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (before the 20th century), which was created by the Lithuanians. So just because you see a familiar knight riding a horse in French, English, and Rus coat of arms or seals, it does not mean that it is Pahonia as well. The difference is that the Lithuanian coat of arm Pahonia (also called as waikymas in the Lithuanian language during the same period) had to be decorated with the ruling dynasty's dynastic symbol (mainly Columns of Gediminas or the Double Cross of the Jagiellonians). According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Belarus had no national symbols until the 20th century (see this article). While the Ukrainians (who were also incorporated into Lithuania as Ruthenians, same as Belarusians) uses a Tryzub (trident) symbol, dating to the Kievan Rus', and Pahonia is a foreign Lithuanian symbol to them. The problem with Belarus and the Belarusians is that they had no own state until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article about Belarus), unlike the Ukrainians (see: Kievan Rus' with its capital in Kyiv, Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, and Cossack Hetmanate), so as part of a nation-building process in Belarus, they attempt to rewrite history, but such falsification of history is limited to a fraction of ultra nationalists (just like Kazimier who actively participated in edit warring) who are not satisfied with the completely recognized fact that the foreign powers ruled the Belarusian territories until 1918, but they did and probably still do (see: Union State). The edit warring performed by them was nothing else than an attempt to legitimize original research and pseudoscience. Lithuania has no relation with the East Slavic entities Novgorod Republic or Grand Duchy of Moscow. These two entities were enemies and rivals of Lithuania, so mixing their symbols with the Lithuanian ones is simply an absurd. -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Rus coats of arms 

message: The RFC should provide the reference to the previous and actually the main part of this discussion, where the community didn't agree with the proposal solutions: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?. There are provided the main arguments against the proposed solution, and I don't really see any new sound arguments from the initiators, which, in my opinion, is very close to the behavior described in WP:LISTEN. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the results of previous discussion didn't even mentioned, I believe that all its participants should be informed about a new attempt of changing the consensus: , , , , , , ,  --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pay attention that Kazimier Lachnovič was tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators (Barkeep49, Ymblanter) already, so his arguments are completely biased and unreliable. In the past, the removal was opposed by Belarusians for obvious reasons as it is a Belarusian term, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV rules. On the contrary, the Lithuanians did not created article named Vytis or Waikymas and did not presented it as the "real" name of the alternative 1918+ Belarusian CoA with a horseman as well. Neutral (non-Belarusian, non-Lithuanian) users in this discussion and in the previous discussion support that this article should be removed/remade. For example,  (edit). By the way, Kazimier purposefully ignored to ping users who previously agreed that article Pahonia should be modified, so they should be pinged as well: , , , . -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Pofka colleague, when he has no arguments, begins to discuss the participants, which is unacceptable for a constructive dialogue. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm also very concerned about  behaviour in this discussion page, he is accusing everyone of being anti-Lithuanian etc. while he himself is clearly pushing his own agenda. I hope modes can reprimend him or something Marcelus (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you was the one who excluded the Lithuanian language names (Waikymas and Vytis) and aggressively attempted to present them as irrelevant, despite the fact that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by the Lithuanians, who obviously spoke the Lithuanian language and first created this CoA in the Middle Ages (ref1). Also, you supported the Belarusian language name's superiority, thus ignoring the fact that the Belarusians created their first state and national CoA only in 1918 (ref2, ref3). So it is not questionable that you are Belarusian-speaker or are from Belarus as well, same as users Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič. The Belarusian term is fairly represented at National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia. Let me remind you that articles in Wikipedia are written according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule, therefore all languages are respectable and this CoA has no "right" name in the English Wikipedia. Neutral users opinion in the survey shows that. By the way, this subsection "Reference to the main discussion" was created without the approval of Robert McClenon or any other administrator. Just another example of superiority act. -- Pofka (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's relevant here, but I am from Poland. I didn't exclude Lithuanian names of the CoA, just pointed out that Vytis is 19th century neologism coined by Simonas Daukantas and Waikymas wasn't used as the name of the CoA, but as a translation of Polish word pogonia (meaning pursuit or pursuer) noted by Szyrwidas in his Polihs-Lithuanian dictionary. Pogoń/Pogonia/Pahonia are historically accurate name, because they were used to actually denote the CoA. And please try to be civili and polite, and don't use ad personam arguments. Marcelus (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Lithuanians were calling it as Waikymas at least since the early 17th century and your statements are just a baseless WP:OR because the Lithuanians spoke the Lithuanian language and it would be a complete non-sense to use foreign words among the Lithuanian language speakers. By the way, even you mentioned that all three names Pogoń/Pogonia/Pahonia are equally accurate to describe this CoA, but in the survey you support the superiority of the Belarusian term Pahonia. It seems to me that you are lost in your own arguments and for some kind of reasons show your hate towards the Lithuanian language and want to discredit it, despite the fact that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by the Lithuanians, who spoke the Lithuanian language. I strongly recommend you to read about the WP:NPOV rule, which prohibits any kind of superiority. -- Pofka (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to the main discussion 

message: User:Pofka - I don't see any conduct issue about changing the structure of the RFC.  I don't see what is wrong with adding subsections at a lower level within the Threaded Discussion.  Have I missed something, or has someone else missed or hit something?
As has been noted, Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.  I will remind all of you that lengthy exchanges have very little effect on the outcome of the RFC even if they make the editor who expends the pixels feel better (or worse).  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User Kazimier Lachnovič, who was tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators already (Barkeep49, Ymblanter), inserted a new section "Reference to the main discussion" above the main discussion section "Threaded discussion" in an attempt to overshadow arguments presented by other participants there. According to WP:NPOV, I believe new statements by participants should not be placed above the main discussion section "Threaded discussion", therefore I moved it to this section and remade into a subsection. Now I see no violations of WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Five pillars, but it would be a really messy discussion if every new participant would create a new, exclusive section above the main section "Threaded discussion" and this way present their arguments as superior. -- Pofka (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pofka - No.  Before you say that an editor was tagged as a disruptive user, read the exact wording of the template.  If it says, "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date", that does not mean that there are any identified issues with their editing.  Sometimes a template means exactly what it says.  It means that they are being cautioned that special rules can be used if they are disruptive.  It doesn't say that they were disruptive, and it says that it doesn't say that they were disruptive.  It does mean that, if you think that they are being disruptive, you can report them either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement, not only at WP:ANI.  Read the exact wording of the template.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trust me, I know what type of user he is. These templates were placed on him exclusively due to his personal POV, WP:OR pushing. If you would check out his edit history, especially since the beginning, you would quickly notice that he was single-handedly removing content he doesn't like and pushing his WP:OR. He is just a Belarusian ultra nationalist with an enormous hate towards the Lithuanians and their modern state (a few examples when he called us as rubbish: 1, 2, 3). It is related with the fact that the Belarusians had no state prior to 1918 and all the time were ruled by foreigners (ref1, ref2), so certain Belarusian individuals show an extraordinary hatred towards their neighbors. -- Pofka (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pofka - That may be.  That doesn't change the fact that the template does not say that he is a disruptive user, and that you misstated what the template says and does.  If you think that he is being disruptive, you may report him at Arbitration Enforcement with evidence of his disruption.  But that does not mean that you can state that those two admins said that he was being disruptive.  They notified him of special rules.  Do not misstate what the template says, even about a nationalist user.  Accuracy is a duty, not a virtue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: More Comments

message: Deleted Image
One of the first images of Pahonia: the seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Tverskoy, 1331. According to the Novgorod chronicle, Prince Alexander became the Pskov prince "from the hands of Lithuania". It can be assumed that the Grand Duke Gediminas was his suzerain and sending him to Pskov, instructed him to make a seal with the Lithuanian emblem - a knight on horseback with a sword.
Source: Белямук М. Пячатка князя Аляксандра Цьвярскога і пячаткі князёў Гедымінавічаў (The seal of Prince Alexander of Tver and the seal of Princes Gediminas ) – Page 177 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian sources are not reliable when we speak about a Lithuania-related topic. Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. And your statements like: "It can be assumed" is just a WP:OR because reliable encyclopedias are not written on assumptions (see: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia). -- Pofka (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Image  

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion