Talk:Fylfot

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Fylfot is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Category Jupiter Mysticism

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)[reply]

Fylfot image

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)

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)

Yes, it is a "fabrication" - I fabricated it! - but one meant to illustrate how a fylfot is depicted in modern heraldry texts. Yes, it would be great to have an image of "the genuine article" - but in the absense of that, having a "fabrication" is better than having no image at all! I've also found a reference to genuine arms with fylfots - no original image, so I've redrawn it, but again better than nothing. --Ant 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image of 'the genuine article' - but I'm not sure whether it constitutes 'heraldry:' [[1]]. Etaonsh 08:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen years later and the image for "fylfot" is still a gammadion? Down below the page shows a proper flyfot followed by a gammadion, why isn't THAT image used for the primary image instead of an incorrect one? --2600:8801:1E88:A500:6C05:41A9:F15D:8098 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Fylfot' a 'euphemism for swastika'?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Etymology: Fill-Foot/-Pot?

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 [[2]]. Etaonsh 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conjecture. Any references? I'm not sure of an words that have mutated "p" ==> "f"... ? --Ant 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section misformatted?

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)[reply]

Trivia: fylfot in Lumines?

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)[reply]

So moved. --Ant 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fylfot information

Should this information be added?

A find of a fylfot carved into an ancient cave in Scotland led to Scots designing Swastika kilt pins. ^{[citation needed]}

Located on the Woodhouse Crag, on the Northern edge of Ilkley Moor in West Yorkshire their is a fylfot shaped pattern engraved in a stone. IMAGE. In the figure in the foreground of the picture is a 20th century replica; the original carving can be seen a little further away, at the centre-left of the picture. [3]

Finland

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)[reply]

First image is wrong

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)[reply]

Almost every image on this page is wrong. But I don’t have correct replacements and don’t want to just delete all of them… Ianpaschal (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ethiopian-Eritrean cross 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the article is a Gammadion, not a FylFot

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I removed it. Not only because of the objections raised here but because it caused the article to contradict itself in the span of a few lines. It presented the first image as a "fylfot", then its mirror image also as a "fylfot", and finally a figure identical to the first that is specifically called something other than a "fylfot". If anyone more knowledgeable about this subject plans on putting it back, kindly do not make the article look ridiculous by leaving contradictory material in place when you do. 100.40.29.68 (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of claim attributed to outdated sources

WP:AGEMATTERS states that "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.".

This article specifically states that the etymologies proposed by Day and Wilson (1874 & 1896(!)) are outdated, though without providing a source to back this up. Therefore, with regards to the above, Day and Wilson are not reliable sources and the proposed etymology should not be included, especially given the article specifically states that it has been superseded. The opinion that these definitions are outdated may be WP:OR, or it may be taken from a more modern source. An etymology this old would require commentary from a more modern source to be included, if you can find such a source, there is no reason not to include the comment attributed to the writer of the more modern article. But for the meantime, it is better to exclude the text, as it is not supported by RS and it is possibly OR.

I have reverted your change, as the onus is on the person who wishes to include the text in the article to provide sources to justify this.

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The onus is on YOU to justify removal of material that has been in the article for a very long time. It is properly sourced in a scholarly journal. Wilson's paper is widely cited, extensively researched and we cannot pretend that it does not exist.

The disputed sentence reads Thomas Wilson (1896), suggested other etymologies,^{[3]: 769 [a]} now considered^{[by whom?]} untenable. So there is no evidence that the alternative etymologies are not reliable: if anything should be deleted, it is that untenability assertion. The only reasonable basis for removal of the sentence is to produce reliable sources that say that it is discredited – your opinion (and mine) is irrelevant. Greg was a racist so I would not be sorry to see the reference go, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough justification for either of us.

Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted it and now we discuss it. In the meantime, I will revert per WP:STATUSQUO. Please do not try to force your change by edit warring. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can resolve this amicably. I have replaced the disputed sentence so that it now reads Thomas Wilson (1896), suggested other etymologies,^[3]: 769 though these appear to be nineteenth century inventions.^[4] [Thus deleting the footnote since the text is now supplied from archive.org which is a lot more accessible than Google Books.] Ref 4 is Wordsworth (see next). Can you live with that? I really can't see how we can just pretend that Wilson never said it or that it was unimportant that he did so. I'm not entirely convinced that Wordsworth's opinion is final but it will do for now.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Untenable"

The best rebuttal I can find is this by a Spectator columnist in August 2000:

People used to think that in the Middle Ages they ordinarily used the word fylfot. But it seems that this was hardly a word at all and, if it was, it meant something else. The sole source for fylfot is a manuscript dating from about the year 1500 which gives a man's instructions for making a stained-glass window. (It is Lansdowne MS 874.)
`Let me stand in the medyll pane,' it says, `the fylfot in the nedermast pane under there I knele.' With the words is a sketch, which shows a pattern of broad fillets, with tricking apparently intended to signify the heraldic fur ermine.
But in 1842, in a book on monumental brasses, J.G. Waller took the word fylfot for the shape of the pattern in the picture; hence a swastika. In reality fylfot seems to derive from words meaning 'fill' and 'foot' - meaning nothing more than a filler at the foot of the window. Yet, as the 19th century went on, the word was copied from book to book. Sabine Baring-Gould (1834-1924) throws fylfot about as if it were the regular mediaeval label for a swastika.
— Wordsworth, Dot. "Mind your language". The Spectator. Vol. 285, no. 8977, (Aug 26, 2000). London. p. 14.

I suggest we need to do better than that. ~~Does anyone have the long OED?~~ --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But let's use it for now, it's better than nothing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you haven't made any comment on WP:AGE MATTERS, what is your justification that 130 year old source might be considered reliable? The current edit is really indefensible OR. It seems to be your synthesis of two texts that don't mention each other. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes age matters when it matters. A modern RS carries vastly more weight than a Victorian one. But here we don't have any such competing narratives. Wilson remains a reliable source unless and until a more recent RS of similar status discredits his work or at least reaches a more respected analysis. Wordsworth is not one such. The mere fact of being old is not of itself reason to discard early work. We would need evidence of fabrication or ideologically motivated analysis (such as the work of Gage). We don't have that.

As earlier editors have posted above, the OED has no record of any use between the 16C MS and the 19C brass-rubbing book. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So the real question, it seem to me, is whether inclusion of the Wilson reference is WP:DUE. Since his report is so extensively cited, it looks to me that not only is it DUE, it looks WP:POINTY to omit it.

I suggest that we both now stand back for a few days to see if there are any new opinions. This is not exactly the most visited page on Wikipedia, so we need to give it a while. ==𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tbh, I can't really agree with you. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a 19th century source might be relevant, and this is not one of them. There are modern theories, which should be mentioned, and 19th century ones which, unless mentioned by something more modern, should be assumed to be unreliable. Given our views on this source are incompatible, I would say a visit to the reliable sources noticeboard would be the most effective way forward. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring it to RSN is the last resort IMO, for far more substantial disagreements than this one is. If the majority consider it undue, then I'll give way. Wilson is cited at another point in the article, is that to go too? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would scrap every source prior to about 1950, so yeah. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

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)[reply]

So all you have to do is find a respected source that says so. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol of the Sun god Deela-Malkh does not look like a fylfot: Bold, revert, discuss

I reverted RootOfAllLight'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).~~ Struck plan to add to solar symbol until provenance resolved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]