Talk:Triskelion

Triskelion definition

afaik, a "triskelion" is:

1. three spirals or whorls interlocked
2. as a special case, and more recently, the three legs of Manx

the article has it the other way round. dab 22:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's my fault. I'll keep my fingers off it, if you'll fix it. (Any further references?) --Wetman 23:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure now. A google search seems to support my assumption. I attempted a generalisation, although "cyclic group C3" may be going too far. Feel free to interfere again (this is no 'pet article' of mine, I just happened to stumble accross it). dab 09:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We had just put up an article in the Sicilian wikipedia on the Trisceli, when I stumbled across your excellent piece. As a primary reference, I was going to use the address of a certain John Newton, delivered well over 100 years ago, that argues rather convincingly that the Isle of Man Tre Cassyn is not recorded prior to 1266, and explains how it got there from Sicily. All the dates stack up and I cannot fault the analysis. This is the site if you wish to check it out - [1] - I have come across at least one other Isle of Man official site that accepts this account without qualification. On the other hand, most others put forward the theory that it was there since Viking days, and that it ended up in Sicily via the Normans - but that is clearly impossible, since it has been used in Sicily continuously for 2,500 years. That is the version we have in our account. It's here at scn:Trisceli but you will find an english version of the article in the talk page - I was saving it up there to put onto en:wiki, but I won't now that I have found it is sufficiently covered. However, there are some noteworthy elements in the sicilian article that you may wish to incorporate. Cheers and salutamu - --pippudoz 11:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent article by Newton, now among External links, though I haven't used it yet to revise this entry; I made the Sicilianu Wiki connection too. Thanks! --Wetman 13:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see that I may have introduced inaccuracies :( We need to mention the 1266 connection. My understanding is that there was the classical/mediterranean "Triskele", which indeed consisted of three human legs, and all along there was the celtic/germanic Valknut or similar, and in the case of the Isle of Man, the two became associated, viz., the celtic symbol was morphed into the mediterranean one. This should all be made more clear here, I am afraid I muddled the points because I didn't understand them correctly. (cool, I didn't even know there was scn: [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 14:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Newton's essential point is that Alexander III of Scotland introduced the triskele to the Isle of Man when it fell to him in 1266. Alexander's mother, a Norman-French princess, married for her second husband the son of the crusader king of Jerusalem. Sicily was no longer Norman, but until quite recently Hohenstaufen. Cultural connections don't have to be looked for in the Bronze Age after all. :o) --Wetman 15:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the incredibly quick response! Scn:wiki is only two months old, so we're very new and still learning. While we are interested in all things Sicilian, we do wish to become a proper online encyclopedia, and that means getting a lot closer to your more comprehensive article than where we are at the moment. Once you have updated, I will talk with my colleagues about incorporating most of your info, because which ever way you look at it, the triskelion has a prehistoric pedigree, and our version is missing that perspective altogether. As a final point, seeing that so few sites have this subject (and the fact that it is utterly fascinating - who would ever have dreamed of a connection between two small distant islands from opposite ends of Europe!) - would you be interested in a joint nomination for Translation of the Week on metaWiki? Cheers and salutamu - --pippudoz 00:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, yes; what I am uncertain of at this point is whether or not 'triskelion' or 'triskele' is properly applied to symbols not consisting of human legs. I can only say:

• I have heard Viking Age valknuts being referred to as 'triskeles' in university lectures
• On a visit to the Isle of man, I have been told that the 'sicilian version' replaced/was based on such a germanic 'triskele' (which doesn't contradict the 1266 story, it just gives additional motivation to Alexander's move).

[[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 07:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amphora image

I found this image of a black-figure amphora. Unfortunately, I don't know any details of the piece (attic? 4th century?). Also, the image of the entire vessel may be copyrighted, but the cropped image should go under {{PD-art}}.

Mediterranean (legs) vs. Celtic/Germanic (spirals)

See also Spanish use: es:Imagen:Triskel.png. I added a section "spirally triskelion", for lack of a better term, and to remove the Spanish bit from the Manx section. We still mention Newgrange twice; the celtic parts should be conflated, somehow.

Asatru:Which is odd, as Ásatrú is Nordic not Celtic. : not necessarily; it seems the Celts and Germans were confused about which was which themselves in Tacitus' time. There may be germanic versions. see the logo at http://www.odinic-rite.org/ (yeah, not a premier resource, I know).

It was not the Germanics or the Celts who were confused, but modern historians who read Tacitus, and maybe Tacitus himself. I'm sure the Germanics/Nordics and the Celtics knew which other tribes they could communicate with and which had the same gods and which didn't 207.202.227.125 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the Bretagne symbol, I googled that somewhere, but I have yet to see the actual symbol (the symbols on the flag of the Bretagne are different)

[[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 08:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

images

not very important, but I liked the plain symbol better next to the intro (as opposed to the complicated Achilles-Hector image). the amphora itself is not fragmentary, I just cropped the image. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 12:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the vase

I was able to identify the vase now, and the origin of the image: [2]

Boston 63.473: Main panel: Achilles dragging Hektor past the tomb of Patroklos

Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. William Francis Warden Fund

see also [3]: lots of sicilian coins, and 4 black-figure vases. this one [4] is nice, too. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Breton triskelion?

Quote: A triskelion is the symbol of the Bretagne (sic)

What evidence is there that the triskelion is, or has ever been, a Breton symbol? -- /Picapica 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Direction of this article

An article like this one is always great for providing us all with a slightly different point of reference for illustrating in real terms what POV might mean. Being one of the founders of scn.wiki, I don't really feel I can make any changes because I would immediately be labelled as POV. All I can say is this: only one place on Earth is positively known to have used this symbol continuously for over 2,500 years, yet most of the article and talk pages appear to be more intent on coming up with different spirally variants, uses in popular culture and discussions of uncertain misty nordic, germanic and celtic origins (because of course it is absolutely inconceivable that these higher races could ever be influenced by anything emanating from the mediterranean). My experience of wikipedia is that this is soooo typical! As always, those most capable of inflicting the greatest harm on the human race are the ones who get to write the "correct" history and decide what POV does and doesn't mean. NPOV indeed! --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mention clathrin?

The context in which I have actually encountered the word triskelion is as a trimer of clathrin molecules. Should that be mentioned in this article? dsws 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly should. Be sure to describe the molecular configuration that led to this extension of triskelion. --Wetman 10:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because the word was used once to describe something doesn't merit a mysterious link to the clathrin article (which doesn't mention triskelion at all) without any mention in this article. I've removed the link. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Have another look. I don't know how it was 6 years ago, but today the article Clathrin uses the word triskelion or its plural triskelia eleven times. (It is unfortunate that the illustrations do not show the three-legged structure more clearly.) I think each article should reference the other. -- Solo Owl 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Breton Triskelion 2

I note that someone asked about the Breton Triskelion above to which no one had an answer. This is what is near the start of this article: A triskelion is the symbol of Brittany, of Sicily and of the Isle of Man... If you check out the article on Brittany, there is zero reference to the Triskelion, it is not on their coat of arms, nor their flag, nor seemingly anywhere else. If someone cannot show me evidence of the Triskelion being the symbol of Brittany I am going to delete it, and then I might work on bringing some sanity back to the article focussing on those people that do use it as their symbol, have done so for centuries (or millenia in the case of the Sicilians, which the historical records actually prove), and reduce the percentage of the article dedicated to sheer whimsy. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not an official emblem, but it was used by Celtic revivalist culture groups there, apparently (have no idea if it still is). Please don't change this article into a petty nationalist thing. AnonMoos 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked whether it was true that the triskelion was the national emblem of Brittany, but no one answered. I went looking through all the articles about Brittany and all things Breton and couldn't find it, so I am backing up the first person, why is it in here when they themselves do not refer to it. Also, I favour, where at all possible, articles being backed up by hard cold facts and evidence. We know that the triskelion has been used in Sicily for about 2,500 years on a continuous basis, don't take my word for it, look into it yourself. We know that it has been used continuously in the Isle of Man for at least 750 years (maybe longer, but that is a bit more difficult to attest). As to all these other connections - we appear to have zero detail/evidence - just a lot of supposition, wishful thinking, daydreaming, etc. So I do not understand why someone would react suspiciously towards me when I am asking the obvious questions and when there appears to be a lot of fluff in this article that is not based on anything concrete. Yes, I support the article focussing a bit more on Sicily and Isle of Man, but the historical evidence is heavily weighted in supporting that orientation. Why is that you too do not quiz why we mention all this other fluff with zero evidential backing? That's before we even get to the Entertainment section, which is another issue for another day! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I know extremely little about Brittany specifically, but in Northern Europe (often, but not exclusively, the Celtic areas), there was a long tradition of a common use of triskele-ish ornamental motifs of various kinds; these were present in everything from pre-Christian metalwork to Christian illuminated manuscripts. It was rarely used as any kind of political emblem (as far as I'm aware), but it was part of a persisting ornamental aesthetic that was common to the skilled craftsmen, at least... Please don't change this article into a petty nationalist thing. AnonMoos 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not do that, I simply would like NPOV to work across the board and not be employed simply to shore up anglo-american hegemony. For instance, I ask you to look at these two sentences taken from the article:

1. 1. 1. Celtic influences in Anatolia, epitomized by the Gauls who invaded and settled Galatia, are especially noted by students who prefer to see a Celtic origin for the triskelion.
      2. Thus Pliny provided an eminently rational explanation— but for a symbol that must be older than any cartographic conception of the island, surely.

Can anyone look me straight in the face and say these sentences are truly NPOV? The second sentence is referring to the term Trinacria which is redirected to Triskelion. We know that trinacria means triangle or triangular in Greek, is it simply coincidence that the island of Sicily was named thus by the Greeks and the symbol was also named thus, i.e. that they had no idea that it was triangular in shape - that's a lot of coincidences to exlain away! No, much better to imagine a mystic celtic origin - mention the word celtic in an article and seems like you can write what you want, mention the work Sicilian, and it is immediately assumed you are exaggerating, lying, being nationalist - it's a miracle I haven't been accused of being a conman and/or a shyster yet! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I support your Trinacrian triskelion, and I believe that the connection with the Isle of Man is Norse/Norman overlordship on both islands. There might conceivably be some Celtic connivance in that given the historical Norse-Celtic alliance against the Saxons (the plan of the first Norman place of worship in England resembles a Manx cat). The three legs could represent Loki/Lucky, the Norse Mercury, aka 'the Sky Traveller'/'the Sly One'/'the Trickster'(Trickster -> Triskelion? Like Mansk -> Manx?). Or else the sun, shining in Sicily and out of the hilt of the Manx Sword of State. Etaonsh 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Brittany

At least two years ago I questioned the validity of saying the triskelion is a symbol of Brittany when the article on Brittany itself makes no such reference. Has anyone ever been able to find out whether this is a valid statement? If no one can - then surely we have to delete the reference to Brittany. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply of "02:13, 25 January 2006" above. In the spiral form (not the legged form) it's apparently one symbol sometimes used by Breton organizations and individuals (though not an official government emblem). AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. See old explanation at Talk:Triple_spiral#the_triskell.27s_popularity_in_Brittany... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AnonMoos - as an experienced wikipedian, you surely can see that neither explanation is good enough to say up front that the triskelion is a symbol of Brittany. That's a bold statement, and none of the links that you provide to other discussions backs up the assertion in the article. If people can't find even a single reference on this point - I don't understand how we can keep supporting this claim. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a symbol used in Brittany to represent Breton culture. I fail to see much significant difference between this and saying that it's a symbol of Brittany. AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd para begins thus: A triskelion is the symbol of Brittany, as well as the Isle of Man and Sicily (where it is called Trisceli). There is no ambiguity, it says straight out that it is the "symbol of Brittany", despite the fact that no one can find a single reference to this statement anywhere, and even the article on Brittany has nothing to say on the subject. Yet we all know that it is the symbol of the Isle of Man and Sicily (the former for at least 700 consecutive years, and the latter for some 2,500 consecutive years). I'm just curious why we would give such primacy to the dubious contention that the Triskelion is the symbol of Brittany (with no backing) and yet the Isle of Man and Sicily would be added almost as an afterthought, e.g. "as well as the Isle of Man and Sicily". I just can't see any rhyme or reason to it. Shouldn't the para be saying unequivocallly that it is the symbol of the aforementioned islands, and maybe (and it is still a big maybe) it's a symbol "used" in Brittany. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Norse drinking horn triskelion

This article does not mention the drinking horn symbol that is found on the Snoldelev Stone. It's quite triskelion-like and, from my experience, is usually the symbol used by Germanic neopagans instead of the Celtic version. At the very least, it should be added to the "Neopagan" section here. See: [5]. Unless someone disagrees with inclusion here, I'll add it to the article in the appropriate areas. :bloodofox: 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just created that article, and added the reference here, so I don't understand what you mean? This is a single instance of an ornament on a 7th century runestone. Unless it is used repetitively, you cannot call it a "symbol". I referred to it under "see also", but I don't think it would be appropriate to tout it as a "Germanic triskelion". dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That would explain why I hadn't seen it here before but I have seen the symbol used by Germanic neopagan groups before. Is this what the article is referring to or are they referring to scant use by these groups of the Celtic triskelion? :bloodofox: 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of the Snoldelev stone before today, I don't know what this article is referring to, and if there are no sources, you can just strike the statement; In any case, it is simply my own observation that led me to insert "compare triskelion" in the Snoldelev article. I do not claim that the symbol has been compared to the triskelion, that it is or should be called a triskelion or anything. The article is simply saying, hey, there's the triskelion, a similar symbol, check it out if you like". Similarly, we can say "check out the Snoldelev stone" here, but we shouldn't imply that there is any sort of deep connection between the symbols. dab (ᛏ) 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Diane de Poitiers

You need a better description. Is it like the Diana of Poitiers emblem? AnonMoos 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the "three horns" design found on the Snoldelev Stone, which you can see a picture of on the runestone itself here: [6] It is sometimes used by Germanic neopagan groups. :bloodofox: 06:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, if you're comparing it to something else in a Wikipedia article, then you need an image of it OR an accurate description of it in the Wikipedia article -- not on an outside link. In any case, the pattern of interlacing is in fact exactly the same as in the Diana of Poitiers emblem (as I suspected that it might be, based on the extremely skimpy and inadequate description provided at Snoldelev Stone). It's kind of like a triskelion, but not really a triskelion (unless you're willing to call the Borromean rings a "Triskelion"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Since when are external links not allowed on discussion pages? I provided the link so you could see the image for yourself before we added it to any article. Anyway, I agree with what you're saying about comparing it to the rings and the Diana of Poitiers emblem. :bloodofox: 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

both your points are laughable, dude. As for my description being skimpy and inadequate, well, Wikipedia had been going for five years with no description of the Snoldelev stone. If you think the symbol is equivalent to the Poitiers crescents, you are obviously not qualified to improve it; for one thing, the Poitiers crescents have mirror symmetries, while the Snoldelev horns have none. The definition of a triskelion on this article explicitly requires that there is no mirror symmetry. The drinking horns are a "triskelion" in the wider sense, like the triple spirals. A triskelion proper is a depiction of three legs. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again -- the pattern of interlacing is exactly same (that of incomplete Borromean rings -- each element crosses other elements four times, in an over-under-over-under way). If there's going to be a big deal made about the symbol on the Snoldelev Stone (which I never heard of before either), then some adequate description OR representation of it should be given. External links can be great, but they don't obviate the need for doing the basic work of defining something. AnonMoos 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

why "look again"? That's trivial. It still doesn't mean the symbols have the same symmetries. As for adding an image or "adequate" description, {{sofixit}}. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As for adding the image to Snoldelev Stone, I would love to, but I am not sure the drawing is fair use. Are we using any other drawing of runestones? One might compare Image:Maumanorig_drawing.png, but there I gave the exact bibliographical reference; if we can dig that up for the Snoldelev image, I think we might upload it as a fair use image. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, Dbachmann. There's no reason to get sarcastic or trivialize/dismiss someone else's ability to contribute. You've been here long enough to know better, and the point of the Poitiers crescents is that the figure has no mirror symetry, not that the individual arms/components don't. I think you're conflating/overstating the point; there is a compositional similarity between Snoldelev and Diane de Poitiers and (to a lesser extent) a triskelion. Whether it needs to be mentioned or not in this article is still up for debate.... -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparing it to the Triquetra article, perhaps it has more in common there? :bloodofox: 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In modern usage, the word "Triquetra" is basically reserved for things which are knotted like a Trefoil knot. The Snoldelev stone falls into an area of symbols which have a threefold rotational symmetry, no reflection symmetry, but are not classic or typical cases of a triskelion. The Borromean rings and the Diane de Poitiers symbol also fall into that category, and in fact all three are closely related, since the Diane de Poiters symbol and the Snoldelev stone horns each have the interlacing pattern of the Borromean rings, but with open curved shapes instead of closed rings. For citations of other medieval examples of this with snakes and agricultural sickles, see the image description page Image:Three-Crescents-Diane-Poitiers.png. I'm not sure that there's a generic term for "partial borromean ring type things". Anyway, I will grant that the Snoldelev stone horns are closer to being a triskelion than the Diana of Poitiers symbol, just on superficial overall appearance (not looking too closely at all the details)... AnonMoos 05:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Added pic

Snoldelev interlaced horns design

Added a redrawn version of the three-horns design to the Snoldelev Stone page. It's the best I could do in a reasonable amount of time using only straight lines and circular arcs, and with strict three-fold symmetry. To approximate it more exactly, you would have to use arbitrary curves, and allow some departures from three-fold rotational symmetry. AnonMoos 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! :bloodofox: 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Angels and demons

This was mentioned in angels and demons, the book by dan brown. In the book it claims the eye in the triangle on the 1 dollar bill is a trinacria. Now wen i typed in trinacria on wikipedia it took me to page about Triskelion? Now wut a Triskelion definetly not wut the eye in the triangle is. im confused y did wiki direct me to this page do trinacria and triskelion have sumthin to do with one another?

The Sicilian triskelion, is also called the trinacria. The redirect is nothing more than a current convenience, once I get the time, I will do a proper article on trinacria, because it means far more than just the triskelion, but is in fact an alternate name for Sicily itself. In fact, for the whole of the 14th century, following the split of the Kingdom of Sicily (as a consequence of the Sicilian Vespers), the island kingdom was called the Kingdom of Trinacria. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The eye in the trangle is actually called Eye of Providence, and has very little to do with a triskelion, as far as i can tell... AnonMoos 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

The "BDSM" section and the Story of O reference in the "Literature" section are now somewhat duplicative (should probably be merged in one place, but I'm not quite sure how...). AnonMoos 07:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the entry. As Story of O is a literary work, I belive it belongs in that section. The BDSM section could be rewritten to elimenate Story of O , The reason BDSM uses it is because it references Story of O, true. But, Story of O . nevertheless is a work of literature. -- Jason Palpatine 08:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

Nope, the BDSM emblem originates from the Story of O. AnonMoos 08:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. -- Jason Palpatine 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

BDSM Triskelion

It seems we can use the symbol on wikipedia becaues its much older than stated initially. Could anyone please check this website The Myth of the BDSM Symbol and the information given there? --Nemissimo II 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We could always "use" it, it's just that it would be under a fair-use claim. I don't think that it's really our place to attempt to adjudicate a legal dispute, especially since TrueRose doesn't seem to have an obvious "smoking gun", or support from any official court ruling. AnonMoos 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:BDSM Emblem for more on this. AnonMoos 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Political use

The London bomb outrage occurred arguably with three sevens involved, also - 7th July 2005 (2 + 5). Just a coincidence? Etaonsh 20:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.79.40 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hephaestus' tables

The article includes a quotation fom the Iliad to demonstrate that "the three legs of the triskelion are reminiscent of Hephaestus' three-legged tables that ran by themselves." No academic or other source is given for this intriguing claim. I deduce from the quotation that the three legged tables moved on golden wheels, and never 'ran' as the article claims. I am out on a limb and please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but common sense tells me any comparison between a wheeled three-legged table and the Triskelion is lazy nonsense. As I am passing through and speculating I have not altered the article in any way. Jez

I have to admit that I too have always viewed that part as a bit of personal whimsy. I gave up a while ago the hope that this article would attempt to tackle the long history of the triskelion, in particular, that which is actually recorded. But in fact hardly any seems to touch on any recorded history at all, rather, the article has become a place for people to play around with personal whimsies and fantasies. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article records a miscellany of many different usages, since symbols which fall under the word triskelion have been used in many different miscellaneous contexts... AnonMoos 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

OK, I've started the process. We still need more sourcing. Per the current WP policy on trivia, I cut the long lists of minutia. I'd like to see some content, even if very brief, about the additional graphics. I realize some contributors may think I cut too much, but I'm trying to turn this into a worthy article and not OR and cruft. *ducks* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In the part about the "Triquetra" you cut, that was from an old book that actually used the word "Triquetra" to refer to what is now called a triskelion (not a trefoil knot shape). Furthermore, while you could debate whether that quotation should be incorporated into the article page, it was properly sourced and cited material... AnonMoos 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But how do we know the author means "triskelion" not "triquetra" if it says "triquetra"? Are there illustrations in the book? Are they available online? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it says "On the reverse is what is known to numismatists as a triquetra, formed of three human legs conjoined, as on the arms of the Isle of Man." right in the passage you cut... AnonMoos 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Well, yeah, I missed that part. That's worth putting back, then, but could you do something to highlight that bit, or add to the text leading into it so others reading it don't miss it the way I did? Sorry, by the way, I really should have caught that. (Working while tired, my fault.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate, why should the Society for Creative Anachronism be included, when film, comic-book, and TV references are not? We don't seem to have a Wikipedia article on the "Kindom of Trimaris", but we do have an article on Threshold_(TV_series), which featured a kind of Triskelion symbol prominently in its main title screen. AnonMoos 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine on cutting the SCA. I think I just slowed down at that point because I'd cut so much already. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of miss the flag of Ingushetia though. The Sam-Taeguk and Irish roundel are kind of visually the same (except for the colors), while the Igushetia flag was more of a contrast... AnonMoos 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll swap flag of Ingushetia back in, then. I only cut it because the number of images was messing up the formatting. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the trivia that's left, I would have no problem with cutting more of it and, if you think it's notable (especially if it can be sourced) putting back some of the other bits. But, per the WP trivia concerns, I do think we need the goal of integrating any notable bits into the text and sourcing them adequately. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, of what's left in trivia, I think only the Roundel of the Irish Air Corps and the United States Department of Transportation are notable. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We're seeking citations - wonderful! What about one for this for starters: A triskelion is the symbol of Brittany, as well as .... For over three years I have been asking people to show me where it is a symbol of Brittany. It's not mentioned in the Brittany article, it's not mentioned anywhere on their website, etc. One little piece of evidence is not asking too much is it? Also, I 've just always found it odd, that Sicily can have a recorded history of using the symbol for over 2,500 years (but you wouldn't know it from this article), but Brittany is given primacy and no one can come up with any evidence, not even a single picture of it having appeared anywhere remotely close to Brittany! So we say it's a symbol of Brittany first and foremost (with zero evidence of this) and then add as an afterthought: as well as..., which includes the only place with a continuous recorded history of using it for over 2,500 years. I've been accused of being "nationalistic" in the past for pointing out the obvious - one wonders why anyone would be intent on allowing Brittany such primacy? Because they are a Celtic people? ahh, that explains everything! The minute any subject has Celtic or Norse connections - no matter how tenuous - you are allowed to speculate on anything you want! It's the Sicilian that is being unrealistic, biased, unbalanced and nationalistic in the extreme - now I get it! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

This is the change I made: Revision as of 01:19, 5 October 2007 vs. 01:55, 5 October 2007. The software didn't inform me about any subsequent edits you made to the page, or that I was overwriting them -- which is a bug. AnonMoos 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the diff. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I was just freaked at all the image formatting and one of the images disappearing. :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Klingon Triskelion

I have long believed something I read years ago, that the Klingon Triskelion represents the Klingon need to expand to survive. The circle in the background is Qo'noS and the points represent the direction of expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.23.97 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the paragraph about the Klingon symbol:
"the producers of the original show chose it because it was vaguely reminiscent of a Nazi swastika, thereby implying the Klingons were the 'bad guys' without being too obvious about it."
I deleted this bit because the Klingon Triskelion wasn't developed until The Next Generation. And incidentally, in TOS, it was always understood that the Klingons were "the bad guys" -- they were an allegory to the Soviet Union. In TOS, no subtlety was needed – they were baddies, period. In TNG, they weren't baddies anymore. —Micahbrwn (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that TOS used the word as the name of a planet: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Gamesters_of_Triskelion_(episode) The episode does not feature the symbol, however, substituting a much simpler tripartite pattern on floor of the climactic arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.67.2 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DFBTriangles.svg

The image Image:DFBTriangles.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contempory adoption of the Triskel as national symbols

it would be good to precise that the Triskel has began to be a national simbol in Brittany and later in Asturias and Galicia through the popularization made by the artist Alan Stivell ( a big triskel around his neck in TV programs, big concerts, festivals, on magazines and newspapers) in the late 60s and the 70s.82.126.121.10 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article puts Brittany on par with the 2,500 old symbol of Sicily - which I have imagined for a while is a case of gilding the lily - especially since no one has ever been able to come up with a single reference mentioning the triskelion and Brittany in the same breath - and I have been asking this question for 3 years now. But as I have said before, in Wikipedia it's ok for people to speculate with no limits when it comes to all matters Celtic and Norse. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, see File:Bagadou stourm.jpg , File:Yann goulet.jpg , etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Triskelion in Brittany

we know that, as a part of the Pre-Celtic and Celtic civilisations, Brittany used the triskelion in the remote times. One can look at it in the Gavrinis cairn (even if it's not that obvious). We see it more clearly in the Celtic times on coins. We can see it later in churches, etc. Later again, he has been used by cultural and political movements since the early 20th century. But only a minority of people could notice that. It is only when Alan Stivell ( since the mid 60s, but more in the 70s) modernised and popularised Breton and Celtic music, and, speaking of our subject, because he has been wearing a big triskelion around his neck, in front of millions of people, that many people began to wear it, first as a fashion, later as an opinion; this, not only in Brittany, but as well in Spain and Italy, for exemple, after his big concerts there. One could even find the exact period when it occured. It is easy to find the references (TV, Rock festivals, Folk festivals, press cuts). Don't you feel interesting to show how the triskelion as been popularised, not only in Brittany in the 20th century, and this in a peaceful way (opposite to the far right wings movements you quote)? 82.126.111.66 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't quoted anything - I have been asking consistently for 3 years: where is the source to say that the triskelion is the national symbol of Brittany (on par with Sicily and the Isle of Man). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but had the feeling that a big place was given to political uses of it compared with the popular use. It is true to say that the Triskelion is not an official symbol in Brittany as it is in the Ile of Man. But if you come to Brittany, you will see its huge presence as one of the two or three main Breton or Celtic symbols (business, tourism, music, etc.), this since february 1972 (first big Alan Stivell's concerts). 82.126.52.241 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular use (Brittany)

I want to bring this lacking information, but did not succeeded to bring into the article. Could you so kind to do so (perhaps after some English corrections)?

As soon as the late 60s and the 70s, the triscele became very fashionable in Brittany, and, to some extent, in France and Spain, after Alan Stivell was wearing it around the neck on TV shows and magazines. THe fasion has extended then to commercial, political and cultural fields.81.48.173.148 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What triskelion means in Greek

Triskelion is indeed a Greek word comprised of tri (three) and skeli which means sides and not legs. Hence the words isoskeles, anisoskeles (equal sides) (unequal sides) referring to triangles (geometry). This is my comment on the subject

Τρία = three

Σκέλη = sides

p.s. the word skeli is used also for legs but it is a slang word for legs. Alice Joan BaldesseraAJBaldi (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The ancient Greek word for "leg" is skelos σκελος, a neuter s-stem, as you can see at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2394678 . And isosceles means "equal legs" -- i.e. the two sides other than the base of the triangle being equal. It does not mean equilateral (i.e. all three sides equal). AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If the etymology of the word traces back to three human legs, then the pictures in the article should be shuffled to have the human legs pictures go to the top. Just my 2 cents. Kowloonese (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some might say that's the genetic fallacy... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually,the Greek word for "side" is pleuros (пλευρος),not skeles (σκελης). Sochwa (talk)

Fraternity mention edit conflict

The use by Philipino fraternities seems to me as relevant, if not more, than the mention of a Star Trek episode named after the triskelion.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe -- millions of people have seen the Star Trek episode, while probably relatively few other than members and people in the nearby vicinity have heard of the fraternity. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion over whether the Philippines reference should be included or not, but it's been added and taken out and re-added before, and I'm kind of curious as to what reasons people have for doing that... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that there are rivalries between fraternities. The IP editor also deleted mentions of certain fraternities from the article on University of the Philippines ‎.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad to see fraternities outside of the US. Whatever the case, it is unreferenced and so it needs to go until it has a reference. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Proof can clearly be seen by clicking the links in the text, and in the case of the Irish roundel, by looking at the picture. I'm reverting your edit, as your statement "Sad to see fraternities outside of the US" proves that you have some kind of POV on the subject. You've disqualified yourself from editing the part of the article concerning fraternities.

Regarding the relevance of mentioning the Philipino fraternities, since they have an article they are clearly notable, and this consequently makes mention of them in this article perfectly in line with Wikipedia's guidance notes. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, my comment was in reference the absurd frat edit war we're seeing here. This does not invalidate basic policy. References are not optional but required when information is challenged. I'm challenging it. Find references for the trivia or leave it out. Here's the policy: WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PROVEIT: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and EXPECTED BEHAVIOR of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources ONESELF that support such material, and cite them."

Have you been looking for references? The burden lies on you first. I might require proof of your search.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice caps and bold there. Anyway, the policy couldn't be anymore direct; the burden lies on the editor who restores the material (in this case, yourself). The very first sentence of WP:PROVEIT reads:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Not my italics either. This is elementary Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia has plenty of pop culture lists lacking any sort of citations that get pulled every day due to this policy, particularly when there's some sort of dispute going on about it or evidence of, say, sparring fraternities. "Obviously true" isn't good enough; information here requires references. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Prove to me that you deleted the info after you could not find any evidence supporting the claims.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Find references. Add information with references. Do not add information without references. It's pretty simple. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to avoid future problems. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I want proof that you cannot verify what is stated by just clicking on the wikilink. Also, there are no references to the statements that triskelion means three-legged and that it is a symbol, why not delete those statements?.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you; find some references. Why not delete those statements? Go ahead, it might cause someone to get some proper references on this article. It's long over due. My attention is currently elsewhere, but I'd like to take a crack at it here sometime. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I actually agree that sweeping claims of ancient mystical sigificance should be kept to a minimum, but I'm afraid that you're being a little bit silly on some aspects of the "Other uses" section. If we have a separate article on The Gamesters of Triskelion Star Trek episode, then common sense would suggest that we don't really need a reference for it here, if its role in this article is pretty much a bare minimum mention accompanied by the appropriate link. Similarly, the article Threshold_(TV_series) has a photo of that show's logo and discussion of its meaning; the place to ask for references is really over there. The "other uses" section can certainly be periodically pruned back if it becomes a de facto semi-pointless trivia section, but please discuss that idea on its own merits, instead of trying to get the whole thing abolished through highly selective demands for rigid compliance with theoretical sourcing ideals (which are currently fully implemented in a relatively tiny fraction of Wikipedia articles). AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to dance around that there are no references for the information provided. If there are no references in the pop culture articles provided, they need to be deleted, and if there are, then the references need to be brought into this article. This isn't a "theoretical" policy we're talking about here; this is a straightforward requirement per the policies cited above. It frankly doesn't matter how crappy other articles are; we're discussing this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- the policy can be applied with full rigor to excise truly controversial and dubious pseudo-information, but as a simple matter of practicality, extremely few articles fully satisfy the full criteria at every point, so that a certain amount of ordinary common sense and discretion needs to be exercised when dealing with material which is not open to serious legitimate dispute. Since no one seriously contends that there never was any "Gamesters of Triskelion" Star Trek episode, deleting a reference to it for alleged lack of sourcing would appear to partake more of the nature of bureaucratic petifogging wikilawyering than legitimate application of Wikpedia policies with the real goal of improving the quality of articles. Furthermore, I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether the The Gamesters of Triskelion and Threshold_(TV_series) articles are "crappy" or the reverse -- what I actually said was that the most appropriate place to fully request sources concerning those topics is gnerally on the articles specifically devoted to them. And I also really doubt whether grouping the Nazi army together with the Irish air force adds anything whatsoever to this article! AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Then all but those "extremely few" Wikipedia articles need to be very heavily pruned by anyone who cares to do it so that they meet with basic Wikipedia policy. If you don't want to dig for the references when someone challenges a piece of information, then what can I say? Let it go until someone does. It doesn't help anyone for Wikipedia to consist of a bunch of unreferenced, half-assed lists. That's not what we're here for. Furthermore, like it or not, both the Waffen-SS and the Irish army are (or were) both full-fledged militaries and, to point out another basic policy, Wikipedia is neutral. "Extremist" is not. Find a better header. The policy is a policy; tiny pop culture references or not. Removed unreferenced material is always an improvement. If it needs to be there, it needs to be referenced. It's that simple. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the purpose of all Wikipedia policies is to further the goal of improving articles, not to allow you to run rampage on some kind of personal little power trip (or whatever this might be)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no more power here than you do, nor would I want to. On the other hand, I seem to be a little bit more interested in article quality. We need references, what is offensive about that? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to improve the quality of the article, then why not focus on taking actions which actually do improve the quality of the article — instead of somewhat arbitrarily hacking out large sections (which are not especially controversial or disputed) on purely technical-bureaucratic grounds, while leaving intact other sections which equally fail to jump through the same technical-bureaucratic hoops?

Also, as a matter of perspective, keep in mind that there are many people who are just as contemptuous of neo-paganism, and dismissive of its encyclopedic value, as you seem to be towards "pop culture" and Philippino fraternities... AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the neo-paganism stuff isn't referenced, it needs to go. I regularly cite out pop culture references (and create sections handling them), and for that matter delete dubious unreferenced material handling neo-paganism. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. Anyway, what I'm saying here (and what I've been saying this entire time) is that the article needs to be referenced out, and cutting a bunch of unreferenced trivia is a good place to start, as well as any unattributed theories. Once again, you are most welcome to reference deleted material and bring it back. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if your programme were followed for Wikipedia as a whole, the practical result would be that at least 75% of articles and article text would be immediately deleted, waiting for the addition of references to "bring it back". As much as it is highly desirable for assertions to be sourced, things don't really work that way around here... AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You probably would have generated significantly less antagonism here if you had explicitly argued for the deletion of the "Other uses" section (or most of it) on the grounds of its being a pointless pop-culture trivia section, and had given good reasons for doing so -- instead of appealing solely and exclusively to a highly selective and quasi-capricious application of general Wikipedia sourcing rules (as you did), without bothering to offer much real explanation of why you invoked the rules in some cases but failed to invoke them in others (other than letting fall the occasional snide and unhelpful remark of the order of "It's too bad that there are fraternities in the Phiblippines"). AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So all of this nonsense goes back to my comment about how absurd it is for fraternities to war over Wikipedia? Your quote is wrong. Yet frankly, none of that matters; the golden rule is to find a source for a claim or that claim will eventually be deleted, better sooner than later, and by any one for any reason whatsoever at any time. It's simple and there's good reason for it. Again, it doesn't matter how unsourced other Wikipedia articles may be, the same policy applies universally. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- your remark was actually about your personal aversion to and/or detestation of fraternities, and conspicuously failed to add anything constructive to the discussion. For me, this whole thing is mainly about your fairly pointless tendency to indiscriminately delete whole sections, even when they have not been particularly controversial or disputed (in fact, I was never either strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to keeping the fraternity mention in the article, and I took less exception to your remark than Brutaldeleuxe seems to have done); however, your remark was somewhat emblematic of your problematic attitudes in this incident. AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter if I declared a world-wide hatred for all mailmen; if the information deleted was unreferenced, it needs to stay out until it is referenced. I know you've had a hand in this article, but you're going to have to swallow the fact that it badly needs some references and that, in the mean time, it's fair game (as any other). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It "matters" insofar as it was an example of your unnecessary display of unnecessary attitude (and presumably part of why the admin you complained to about Brutaldeluxe said you were also at fault). If you wanted to work cooperatively to make significant changes in this article, then you would have done a lot better to approach the whole thing in a completely different way, as I already explained in detail above. AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the admin in question had zero reason to "fault" me. I broke no policy. All it takes to add to this article is to dig up referenced information to add to it. This is all very simple. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do it then? You shouldn't be editing if you're not willing to make an effort. What exactly is your contribution to the article?Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted a bunch of unreferenced information. I'm currently rewriting a few other articles. Anyway, it's a shame you guys have taken me as such a super-dick here (or "bloodofucks," if you prefer, brutaldeluxe). I'm really not, nor do I like to come off as one. It's hard to say "we need a reference" without getting the people who've added the unreferenced information into the article in the first place annoyed—I know it takes some time to add it in—but that's the requirement. Obviously, it's crucial to say where information comes from. Especially when there's a dispute about content, it's easily solved by simply snipping it and telling whoever wants the content in that they need a reference for it, and a solid one at that. Following this with a check over of the reference cited and presto, success! When someone removes unreferenced content from an article, they can do so for any reason; it's a good motivator for people to add it in with a reference... if a reference can be found, that is. If there's no reference, it doesn't need to be in. Come on guys, if you think about it, I am sure we can all agree how important that is. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[Deindenting] Bloodofox -- what seems self-evident and uncontroversial to you has not turned out to be so for other people, so you really need to come up with a strategy for dealing with this disagreement other than repeatedly insisting ever more loudly and forcefully on its inherent self-evidentness and uncontroversiality. I'm fully prepared to work with you in improving this article, but deleting large sections of the article (which are not particularly disputed or controversial) apparently rather arbitrarily and capriciously (since other sections which equally fail theoretical rigid sourcing requirements are left in place), has been shown by experience NOT to be a productive starting point for constructive and fruitful collaboration on this article, so it would be very helpful if you could come up with a different starting point for article improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Bloodofucks, as you seem to be so proud of certain articles, is this your work (talk)?[7] If so it is not allowed on wikipedia, as it is classed as original research.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Extremist use

I am not sure if SS-volunteer division was extremist. It was just a military unit which had nothing to do with nazi extremism.--82.131.19.59 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was an SS unit, not ordinary German army, and it seems more convenient to group together the SS division and the AWB (leaving the Irish air force to be discussed separately), rather than group together the SS and the Irish air force (leaving the AWB to be discussed separately). AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of its use by the AWB and so on in the article? There's no mention of it at the moment. Although personally I think they only used the symbol for its similarity to the swastika...VenomousConcept (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Triskelion molecule

See File:Tris-(benzyltriazolylmethyl)amine.png... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands Flag & the Tomoe

I think if the flag of the Ryukyu Islands is going to be shown in the gallery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskelion#Gallery), there should be some reference to the use of Tomoe and how that it isn't a triskelion per se. If there is to be no mention of the Triskelion's relation to the Tomoe, there shouldn't be any representation by a design that is clearly based around the Tomoe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoe (Pardon my poor formatting, I don't edit Wikipedia often.)

Pizzini3000 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't a three-fold Tomoe a triskelion? AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Congo emblem 2003-2006

Recent adoption as part of a country's official state emblem or coat of arms

Just now became aware that the Democratic Republic of Congo included a form of triskelion in its 2003-2006 arms.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism

This symbol is used in Buddhism as well.70.27.147.248 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitsudomoe, Sam-taeguk, Gankyil... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Participaction.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Participaction.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning: Unsourced Material

As per WP:PROVEIT, I've pulled all unreferenced material from this article. Let's be perfectly clear here; any reintroduced or newly introduced material must contain an appropriate reference. If this article is going to get any better any time soon, it must first be stripped of this issue. Second, a lot of the references in place currently are pretty bad, and there are plenty of works discussing the historical uses of the symbol that need to be brought in for further expansion. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's wrong with symbols.com, which is the website version of the book ISBN 9197270504, which my local University library owns two copies of an earlier edition of, and which I've held in my hands and turned the pages... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The website entries are essentially useless (i.e. comments like "This sign is associated with progress and competition" and "the sign is associated with migrations and independent movements"—according to who? Why?). Perhaps the published work has more to offer for the purpose of this article, but the website appears to be little more than an ad for the book combined with some unattributed speculation. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2013

I'm concerned that the page is still prone to original research &c. If an image looks vaguely like a triskelion then it gets added to the article, usually without a source to confirm the relationship or to support any useful text for readers... bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If an image has three-fold rotational symmetry without reflectional symmetries, then it fulfills the major prerequisite for triskelion-hood. I don't think we need sources as to whether something has three-fold rotational symmetry (which is an objectively-defined abstract geometric property). However, if you were to remove the images of commercial organizations (File:En_Avant_de_Guingamp_logo.svg, File:SpringAirLogo.svg) from the image gallery, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with that... AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The definition in the lede which might permit anything with threefold rotational symmetry is unsourced; not a surprise because few sane sources are likely to describe, say, this or this or this as a triskelion. This source describes the triskelion as having three legs. On a broader point, it's not a good idea to let editors decide for themselves whether or not an image is a triskelion; can't we just rely on what sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the most vexing bit of the definition, although the remainder would still benefit from better sourcing. Have also removed the Spring Airlines logo, because (a) using it here is probably outside the FUR, and (b) there was no source calling it a triskelion. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Washing_machine_agitator.JPG&action=history for the first image you linked to! The other two would probably not usually be called triskelions, but not because they lack literal legs -- the presence of literal legs is not necessary... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Triskelion on artifacts from Jinshacun site in Chengdu, Sichuan Province in China

Yesterday I visited the Jinshacun Museum displaying artifacts from the Shu Kingdom period, ca. 1000. B.C.E. I came across two golden disks with three triskelion cut-outs. I wonder if this merits merits mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.249.99.166 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible Merge?

Should this be merged with Triple spiral? They are on the same topic, and have the same media.

there is a problem of terminology vs. article subject. The triple spiral is not necessarily related to the triskeles, and there is almost no topical (or chronological) overlap.

the triskeles is also known as triquetra, so part of the topical material for triskeles will be found with the search term "triquetra", while at the same time the search term "triskele(s)" will yield unrelated material treating the "triple spiral".

--dab (𒁳) 08:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Triskelion. 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/20070510212828/http://www.gov.im/isleofman/facts.xml to http://www.gov.im/isleofman/facts.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030202145/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/symbols.htm to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/symbols.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusions in sub-section "Neolithic to Bronze Age"

The first paragraph runs:

The triple spiral symbol, or three spiral volute, appears in many early cultures, the first in Malta (4400–3600 BCE) and in the astronomical calendar at the famous megalithic tomb of Newgrange in Ireland built around 3200 BCE,as well as on Mycenaean vessels.

Malta is not the name of a culture, but of an island; an astronomical calendar and a vessel are not cultures, either. Since the symbol appears only on artefacts, it is simply not true that it appears "in" Malta—it must appear on something in Malta. What was it? The significance of the dates is unclear: does the 800-year span of 4400 to 3600 B.C. indicate the estimated date of the earliest evidence of the symbol, then the 3200 B.C. date the next identifiable and datable occurrence? Why is no date given for the Mycenaean evidence? The first sentence of the next paragraph runs:

The Neolithic era symbol of three conjoined spirals may have had triple significance similar to the imagery that lies behind the triskelion.

This sentence is meaningless. What is the "imagery" that "lies behind the triskelion"? Can a triple significance be similar to imagery? If the author means, "similar to the triple significance of the imagery," what is that triple significance? And why is that significance triple? Is it triple because the one signifying element is tripled? And what justifies the conjecture that the earlier symbol had anything at all to do with the later one? The last sentence of the second paragraph runs:

It is carved into the rock of a stone lozenge near the main entrance of the prehistoric Newgrange monument in County Meath, Ireland. Newgrange, which was built around 3200 BCE.

We were told earlier that the symbol appears on—not "in" as was written—an astronomical calendar, but now that it appears carved into "the rock of a stone lozenge"; which is it? Since a stone is not made of two materials, one of which is rock, the expression "rock of a stone lozenge" is pleonastic.

A revision with more specific dates, consistent information, and without solecisms is necessary. Wordwright (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Antahkarana

Hi, the Antahkarana symbol here (linked the Antahkarana) is labeled 'for computer radio waves protection' I had a quick search and cannot find any information about it being used for that, my thought was that perhaps this was a constructed Antakarana for the purpouse of 'computer radio waves protection' but the only information I'm seeing about the use of this symbol for protection / healing is placing it on various chakras etc. obviously this is spiritual but I'm just not sure that the symbol needs that extra part attached. Further it's the only rainbow-coloured one I have seen online, this doesn't feel very true to other sources? Maybe I'm wrong. Snus-kin (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Gold cup

Gold cup from Mycenae decorated with triskelions, in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

The second picture in the article's gallery does not appear to have any triskelions clearly delineated from the rest of the pattern. I think it should be described as a form of Meander (art) decoration, that may be seen as being composed of a series of overlapping triskelions.--Nø (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"animals" section for gallery

I think that having a section showing animals which have a similar body plan to this shape would show more examples of this shape(Mainly animals like Tribrchidium and others). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

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:

• Flag of the Isle of Mann.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)