Talk:Double-headed eagle

message: Two-Headed Eagle was the name of a monarchist organization and its periodical, associated with the Black Hundreds in the Ukraine.  Members like Galkin (who claimed to be its founder), Golubev, Rozmitalsky, and Father Fyodor Sinkevich testified at the Mendel Beilis trial.  Sinkevich ran for the Duma in 1912; his opponent was Dmitry Grigorevich Barsky, an attorney on Beilis' defense team.  See A. S. Tager's Tsarist Russia and the Beilis Case, and also the trial transcripts at ldn-knigi.
71.163.114.49 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be appropriate for inclusion. Can you provide a little more information to help us find reliable secondary sources, please? I may be able to find Tager's book (written in English, I hope?) but since I can't read Russian, the ldn-knigi web site may be more difficult to use. It helps me that it's also in German, but that's just me, and site searches for Doppeladler found no results, so I still don't see the source there. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  early 1900s 

message: translate https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Двоголовий_орел--Вакуленко-К. Володимир (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello!
You reverted an edit I made recently to the "Double-headed Eagle" page, and I wondered if you'd be willing to discuss it and help me understand why you did so.
I recently heard about President Trump appearing with a fake presidential seal bearing a double-headed eagle, along with some comments about the significance of that symbol. I went to Wikipedia to learn more about the symbol, and found a wealth of useful information. I thought that a notable modern (albeit satirical) use of the symbol was relevant and worth adding to the page. You obviously disagreed, but did not lay out your reasoning. You've got a lot more experience with Wikipedia than I do. Can you explain why you felt my edit was "highly irrelevant"? 
Should I not have gone into a description of all the edits made to the seal? The double-headed eagle was the most prominent edit. The other edits admittedly aren't relevant. Would only referring to the double-headed eagle change, and displaying the edited image would have been better?
Or is the objection that the usage was modern? If so, I'd respectfully disagree.
Or is the objection that it was satirical? If so, can you point me towards Wikipedia guidelines for dealing with that?
Thanks!
DaBunny42 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a minor incident is certainly not important enough to be mentioned in this article. It does not help at all in the understanding of this topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated comment. This incident is described in some detail at Seal of the President of the United States#2019 spoof incident. I agree that it's not sufficiently noteworthy or relevant to be reported here. GrindtXX (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reversion on Double-headed eagle page 

message: Footnote 30 links to a non-scholarly fundamentalist Christian source rife with the usual tendentiousness and conspiratological musings characteristic of such sources. It's not something that should be included as a legitimate source for an article whose main purpose is to inform the general reader. The linked article can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/9062169/The_Double_Headed_Eagle_Scottish_Rite_Freemasonrys_Veneration_of_Nimrod if anyone wants to judge for themselves. The purpose of the essay in question is clearly not to inform the general reader, but rather to ask: "...whether Christians should belong to such a fellowship," which clearly has no place in an encyclopedic article. The statement in question ("The so-called Double-Headed Eagle of Lagash is used as an emblem by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry") should have a citation linking to information from either the Scottish Rite itself or from a reputable scholarly source that doesn't have a sectarian axe to grind with Masonry. Because I don't want to mess up the structure of the citations due to my lack of expertise in making such edits, I wanted to post this before attempting to change or even remove the citation in case anyone with more knowledge of how to make such edits wants to weigh in. Mpaniello (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the cited source is tendentious and prejudiced. However, the basic point for which it's being cited – that the Scottish Rite uses the double headed eagle as an emblem – appears to be an uncontentious fact. If you'd like to replace it with a more authoritative print or online source (and there seem to be several possibilities on the Scottish Rite page), please go ahead, or make some suggestions here. If you lack confidence in your abilities to format the reference correctly, other editors will be happy to help, or to tidy up after you. GrindtXX (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I see you've done it. That's fine. GrindtXX (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalist/Conspiratological Source Citation 

message: There is an article on gandaberunda. Shouldn't the reference here link to that page? 72.83.12.17 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the gandaberunda reference not link?? 

message: Both on this article and several that discuss the topic of the double-headed eagle, there are multiple attempts at linking the imagery to something or anything to do with Islam, such as its use by the ottoman Turks in certain functions after they took down the Byzantine Empire. In this article it is oddly referenced as the source of the material on which the Byzantine eagle was represented. The only problem with giving it any kind of context within the Islamic world is that there are no places in the Islamic world where eagles live. They appear in mountainous areas of greece, Montenegro and Serbia and therefore they appear on their imagery. There are no Eagles in the desert. There are falcons and hawks. Historiaantiqua (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributions to Islamic Use 

message: I'm asking because the nominal human faction of Warhammer 40,000 (the Imperium of Man) uses a stylized double-headed eagle as its symbol. 71.247.10.205 (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the Modern Use section have a pop-culture sub-section?