Talk:Fylfot

message: Previously recollected as wiki source, for the flyflot cross - one association is its representation of the num,ber,eral four formed by the legs of the hanged man; referenced from link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_Man_%28tarot_card%29
Seeking confirmation that antiquities associated the planet jupiter with the number four - 
The fly flot cross, swastika, is fours.
Similar notations of the aforementioned deficiency will be presented to Edit Talk: The Hanged Man tarpt card.
Planets are also mapped to body parts:  feet, hands, ...
???
http://www.mailerindia.com/astrology/astro/index.php?rjupiter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7895223/TRINOSOPHIA-
http://www.decisioncare.org/planets/jupiter-astrology/
???
Sincerely seeking content reset reference recall.
GeMiJa (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Jupiter Mysticism 

message: The image of a shield with a swastika on it looks like a fabrication to me -- it is a depiction of "argent a fylfot azure" if such a thing exists, but I'd like to know if there are any actual shields bearing swastikas. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED's first citation is the Landsdowne MS; their second is a 1842 antiquarian quoting it. I would interpret this as: they didn't find any. More Septentrionalis 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fylfot image

message: I rather object to the notion that the correct, normal, mainstream term for this ancient symbol is 'swastika,' and that the nearest thing we have to a traditional English word for the symbol is now a 'euphemism.' This seems to both play into the hands of the historical Nazis and to overlook the fact that 'fylfot' is a shorter, less politically charged word for the same thing. I can see why it might appear to some, who are deferring to mainstream usage (or ignorance?), as a 'euphemism;' but bear in mind that some of us are thinking about the symbol from the perspective of its innocent use. Etaonsh 08:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all sure what you are saying here. "Swastika" is not a Nazi word (they usually used "hakenkreuz"), but is often mistakenly assumed to be in English speaking countries. The motifs referred to are specifically swastikas (and were called that at the the time - c1880-1920), but how now been "renamed" by collectors as fylfots, purely because of the perceived Nazi associations of the term swastika. Paul B 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolute nonsense.  The term fylfot as used in heraldry predated the existence of Nazi use of the symbol by well over 500 years.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems rather questionable, since the OED has no citation for fylfot between Lansdowne MS 874 ca. 1500 (in which its exact denotation is uncertain) and 1842, and the charge is very rare in medieval armory. I’d want to see an actual mediæval blazon or heraldic treatise using the term. Talan Gwynek (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Fylfot' a 'euphemism for swastika'? 

message: Adhering to the simplest, most plausible, 'fill-foot/-pot' explanation, the truncated swastika in the picture looks highly suggestive of a simple (and topical, in this 'return to renewable energy' era) water wheel. Compare []. Etaonsh 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: Fill-Foot/-Pot? 

message: In the second list item, the material from “The Germanic root "fele"” up to and including “a "many-footed" sigil.” has been put into italics, and I can't see why that should be so. Could the person who added it please fix it, if that's not how it's meant to be? Kay Dekker 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section misformatted? 

message: Is it really a fylfot in this game? That is, is it depicted with the truncated arms that typically differentiate a fylfot from a swastika and  actually referred to by the term "fylfot"? If not, then it is a swastika, and is likely better included in Swastikas in popular culture. --Ant 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia: fylfot in Lumines? 

message: This symbol has been associated with Finland.
https://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&art_id=332&kb_cat_id=27  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland 

message: If the description on this page and on swastika is correct, the first image in the article (the blue symbol on a white shield), is a gammadion, not a fylfot.__Gamren (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First image is wrong 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The image presented as a FylFot (Notional arms—Argent a Fylfot azure (a blue fylfot on a white shield)—exemplifying the design of the Fylfot commonly shown in modern heraldry texts) is a Gammadion.  The distinction is important as the left/right limbs indicate direction of travel (Fylfot travelling (spinning clockwise) forward/future - creating;  Gammadion travelling (spinning anti-clockwise) backward/past - destroying; a cross without arms representing the present.  The (triple) symbol represents the spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) i.e. the creative/destructive agent of creation, which is historically understood in terms of a dragon... i.e St George defeated the destroyer.  Inhabitants of the British isles regularly used the Fylot as a symbol, ergo they thought of themselves as a forward thinking - creative, society.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.94.118 (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for this information. As you may have seen from earlier discussions, there are a number of problems with the images in this article. If you can provide a wp:reliable source that for that information (a citation), then we have a sound basis to make the change you suggest. I look forward to your reply. Better still, you can become an editor yourself as no doubt there are many more loose ends like this that need repair: see Why create an account?. Welcome to Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Image in the article is a Gammadion, not a FylFot

message: Why no mention of the obvious Vielfuß? German viel = many, Fuß = foot 2003:C0:DF37:1C00:6410:8D03:FD83:4BF (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So all you have to do is find a respected source that says so. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I reverted 's bold addition of this symbol, because it does not look like a fylfot (or a gammadion). The distinguishing feature of these devices is that the "forearm" part of each "arm" is significantly shorter than the "humerus": indeed this is what distinguishes it from the swastika. The key feature of the Vainakh device is that the forearms are at least as long (if not longer) and much more ornate. So it seems to me that we would need a reliable source that categorises it as a fylfot. Solar symbol seems to me to be the place for it (and I will now add it there).  
Discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional concern is that, according to the (reliably sourced) list given at Vainakh religion#Pantheon, there is no such deity as "the Sun god Deela-Malkh". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol of the Sun god Deela-Malkh does not look like a fylfot: Bold, revert, discuss