Talk:National personification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

Israel

There is a national personification of Israel called "Srulik" (שרוליק), created by the cartoonist Dosh. An article about Srulik the the Hebrew edition of Wikipedia: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A7

Mexico

I don't think the provided figures would fit as national personifications of Mexico. While the china and charro outfits are very traditional and characteristic, I don't think anyone in Mexico sees them as national personifications. In fact, the charro is not a character at all! (more of a profession). While other countries certainly use the charro figure to represent our country, they usually do the same thing with any country with a highly recognizable typical indumentary. The "pelado" is an even worse example (being sort of an old stereotype, nowadays pretty much only known through the character of Cantinflas); I doubt anyone ever(inside or outside Mexico) has associated it as a representation of Mexico. If anything, the only Mexican character that would qualify as a national personification would be "La Madre Patria" (the mother country), though it's not a very popular icon either (even less since "la madre patria" is also a synonym for "Spain").200.23.6.133 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Ni Houlahan

Doesn't that count for Ireland?


Hey, isn't Grandpa Ivan Russia's np? At least I've heard so.

Many of these don't seem to quite fit the "national personification" ideal as much as say, Uncle Sam. Cartoon characters (and to some extent real historical figures) are not at all the same. - M77

Australia

The Little Boy from Manly was mentioned in Bob Carr's eulogy of Sir Arthur Roden Cutler but I've never heard of "Jack Aussie". --AndrewRaphael 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I really wouldn't know, myself not being an Australian, I believe the Little boy was named Jack, I just decided to add the Aussie. I apologize I had no right.Jim Bart

Brazil

Added Zé Carioca. --Ragnarok Addict 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zé Carioca never was a national personification of Brazil. It should be removed from the list. In fact, he was created by Disney to gain the brazilian sympathy for the USA (the US govt was searching for allies to fight in WWII) I couldn't agree more with it! Even if Zé Carioca was a "personification", it would be the personification of Rio de Janeiro, not the whole Brazil. wiki.pt:LeonelSR 201.41.30.10 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Rep. and Poland I added Čech and Lech, the legendary founders of Bohemia and Lechia (today known as the Czech Rep. and Poland). I've been thinking of adding Rus to accompany Mother Russia. -Jim Bart

Texas: Added Hank Hill -Jim Bart

Why were Gracia Tejano and Hank Hill removed for Texas? I understand if you've never heard of Gracia Tejano and Hank was thinking outside the box, or maybe you don't think Texas should be here at all, but whoever did it should've put their reasons on the talk page. Please, speak up, whoever he or she may be. Jim Bart

Germany: Who the heck is Onkel Hans?! I never heard of this before -Brausepaul

Verifiability[edit]

Please don't add unreferenced items in the list. For example "psorokostena" for "Greece" is not a personification: it is an ironic, self-deprecating reference that means "poor relative" `'mikka (t) 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zé Carioca[edit]

I have removed a comment that Zé Carioca is (not accepted by Brazilians) because I don't believe this page is the right place to editorialize on how a personification is perceived. If this personification is viewed as offensive to Brazilians, by all means update the Zé Carioca page to reflect that. If Zé Carioca is simply unrecognized by most Brazilians, I still think it is valid to list it here since its use is notable as referenced on the Zé Carioca page. Ronnotel 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

This article seems to be original research. Are there sources for the identifications?Gobawoo 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the entries link to other Wiki articles that have the outside references attributing these characters to certain countries. Cybertooth85 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell[edit]

I would think William Tell would be considered a national personification of Switzerland, seeing as he can't be considered a founding father becuase he is of disputed authenticity. Should we add it in? Celtic Emperor 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Johann Pferd doesn't give any sense. I have deleted it. This is unknown in Germany and also found nowhere on the internet.--81.173.154.75 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Asena:

As quoted from the wikipedia article: "Asena inspired the name and has been used as a symbol of the Grey Wolves, the youth organization of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party. Asena was also utilized as an ultra-nationalistic symbol by the Turkish Resistance Organization."

It definitely doesn't have to do anything with Turkey as a whole - it's the very biased symbol of the far-right MHP, Turkish Nationalist Movement Party. Removed it.

There is no such quote currently in the wikipedia article. The wolf personification is something that is in very wide circulation in Turkey, and is not a symbol restricted to a political party. I am replacing it for that reason. Meowy 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Turkish mythology, the primordial couple emerged from a cave in the Altai Mountains and were led west by a gray wolf. I'll try to run down the reference for that. :) Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Valdez[edit]

The article on him says nothing about him being a national personification, but merely an ad campaign character. Can anyone back up the claim that he is Colombia's national personification? White Lightning 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has defended it, I have removed Juan Valdez. White Lightning 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--J.V. was a figment of a Madison Ave. world view in which the whole culture of Colombia revolved around the periodic visits of the American coffee buyer. Besides, what we get from there ain't coffee any more, ya know? Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Haha how true. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

Sorry guys but "Jacobin" has never been a personification of France. Marianne yes--90.41.156.174 23:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but why didn't you go ahead and remove the Jacobin from the list? Next time please be bold and correct Wikipedia yourself. — Kpalion(talk) 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

I have twice made edits to Canada, citing only the RCMP Officer (Mountie) as a reliable personification. I think a standard of this should be broad recognition within the country, and to some extent outside the country. Previous nominees for Canada haven't met this criterion.Hwhitbread (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada section is all wrong, I don't care what you say. None of the things currently listed are personnifications, the mounties are symbols of Canada sure, but they are not personifications. The same goes for the Quebec things, they're all real people, heroes, but not personifications of Quebec. A personification isn't real, it's an image created to represent the country as the country made material like Britannia. An invented person or thing that is the country itself, not heroes, or reknowned figures, or symbols associated with Canada. None of it is true. If someone were to look here for personnifications of Canada they would get a pack of lies instead of actual works of art or figures made to personify the country (Canada Mourning, Johnny Canuck).--Pentagram16 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, calm down. I also deleted your hysterical comments from my talk page. If you're that convinced, produce some polling evidence. You'll find further information here. Good luck.Hwhitbread (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother if you're going to be so unreasonable, I just made comments stating what I thought. I simply see a lack of distinction between something that personnifies a country and something that is a personification of the country. I should also point out that I kind of resent your telling me to "calm down" and deleting my "hysterical" comments (which you're not actually supposed to do unless it's a personal attack, WP:ATTACK#Removal of text, which it wasn't). But I'm a busy person, if you don't even want to consider someone else's opinion that's just fine. I don't need the grief. Pentagram16 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above commenters who suggest that many of the Canadian entries are not personifications of our country. The last four (Le Vieux de '37, Dollard des Ormeaux, Mufferaw, and Cyr) seem to be Francophone rather than Canadian heroes, and not personifications at all. The Mountie also seems more like a symbol than a personification, and the superhero Captain Canuck also does not represent Canada as a whole. The original Johnny Canuck seems to apply as a national personification. I would also suggest the inclusion of Miss Canada, who was a Canadian personification in 19th century political cartoons. Would someone with more knowledge in this area edit this entry? 99.247.228.104 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the original author. The list for Canada, excluding the Mounties, the Le Vieux de '37, Dollard des Oremeaux (in terms of French Canada) are not personifications, rather they are folk heros. As for the user prior, while the Mounties, as well as the French rebels of the rebellion of 1837 are based off real groups, their image as a whole has been used to personify the country. (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3050-e.html). As for Oremeaux, his image has been used for both World Wars by the government to galvanize the French Canadians to join the war effort. I'm also surprised the beaver hasn't been added, it fits perfectly as a national personification (as defined, giving something inanimate or not human, human qualities to represent the country). The beaver is probably what is used most in international political cartoons when refering to Canada. Nontheless, this article needs to seriously address the differences between a folk hero and a national personification (ex. note how Uncle Sam is a personification and people like Nathan Hale is considered a folk hero). Real Canadian folk heroes such as the strong man (Cyr) are not national personifications. I have never seen these people personified in both my lifetime, as well as anyone else (note how national strongmen are not included. I edited the Canadian list and will continue to, until someone gives me a definite reason as to why the inclusion of a comic book hero, and a strongman are Canadian personifications. I also removed Captain Canuck as a personification. He is the extension of Johnny Canuck, and is a comic book hero. Note how other national comic book heroes are not included here. Johnny Canuck however was the original personification that was used to personify the country. CuffX (talk) 05:05, 01 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Bob and Doug Mackenzie, it is insulting to include them as a personification of Canada, more like caricatures of Canadians, I think they lack the gravitas of the other national personifications, and they are not used in any official capacity Ottawakismet (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this - there isn't "broad recognition within the country" of the Mounties or a Mountie being a national personification. This idea appears to come from Hollywood, although I don't have a cite for that offhand. --Rob Kelk 22:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a recent, reliable source for the Mountie as Canada personified. I'll add it to the article and remove the disputed tag. While I'm at it I'll also source Johnny Canuck. Meters (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diggers[edit]

Diggers as Australia's national personification? From a term that initially referred to WWI veterans, it expanded to all Australian veterans, but national personification? Not all Australians are "diggers", it is in no way the national personification. 59.167.141.67 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Handala.gif[edit]

The image Image:Handala.gif 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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Kangarooifications?[edit]

Sorry, but in my humble opinion, this list is really fuzzy, definition wise. There are "mascots" like the American eagle and the boxing kangaroo. Then there are symbols like Britannia, who is a person, yes, but an abstract if not mythological person. H.G. Wells called these figures "the tribal gods of the 19th century." Finally there are the "typical citizen" personifications, which are not personifications of the nation (Britannia) or the government (Uncle Sam), but of the average citizen. Some regional figures have crept in too.

I would like to see a purge of the mascots and the strictly regional figures like John Henry and Pecos Bill, and I would like to see a distinction between the superhuman, Britannia-type figures and the "average Joe" type figures.

Along that line, Tanaka-san (Japan), Jacques Bonhomme (France) and Juan Pueblo (Argentina) should be included. Also, if we do Britannia, then Germania should get equal time. Conrad (Germany) was a usage I heard from US GI's who had been stationed in Germany, but I don't known how representative that was. Ivan (Russia) seems to be beyond question, as was Nguyen for Vietnamese, at least among American troops, who also used "Marvin the ARVN." "Johnny Turk" was current among British Commonwealth troops who fought him in WW I.

Back to the topic of fuzziness--are we trying to list characters that originate in the country to which they belong, or British-American coinages to refer to people of those countries? Any way you cut it, this seems like a pretty mongrolly list.

Oh, sorry, "mongrolly" is perhaps a neologism, and that might be that horrid thing, "original research." Talk about fuzzy definitions, that's another, but don't get me started.  :)

Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian bear?[edit]

I saw Mother Russia but was surprised there was no bear listing, especially considering this image posted in multiple places around wikipedia. --98.232.178.38 (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Netherlands[edit]

'Average Joe' is not a personification, it's a collective pseudonym, which is something different. The Netherlands are personified by a lion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.160.224 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a mere farmer. jwz Mallerd (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painting[edit]

I'm looking for this painting depicting all the major European powers as animals, so you'll see the Russian bear etc. Does anyone know which one I am talking about? It's a really elaborate painting and was used in a documentary about the Napoleonic wars once. I know chances are slim, but it was a really good contemporary painting. Mallerd (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States list[edit]

Although I have my doubts that the subject is encyclopedic at all, I do think the US list is rather random and should be pruned unless or until sourced:

  • Lady Liberty - personifies an abstract moral concept, not the nation or its inhabitants
  • Uncle Sam - personifies the federal government, not the nation or its people (various articles say otherwise but this point is not sourced correctly)
  • Yankee Doodle - a song, not a person
  • Brother Jonathan, Columbia - should be in the obsolete category
  • Johnny Appleseed, Pecos Bill, John Henry, Paul Bunyan - mythological folk heroes, some possibly based on real-world individuals or archetypes, others invented out of whole cloth by specific writers, represented concepts and trends but not the entire nation.

Every myth, and work of fiction, in some sense represents a larger group of people - from Charlie Brown to Forrest Gump or Santa Claus. In political cartoons, propaganda, and a very few other applications, authors sometimes embody an entire people in the form of a single everyman persona, then attribute to that character some generic national traits. I'm not convinced that these are all related in such a way that the subject deserves an article, but if there is one, the criteria have to be drawn for when something is called a national personification rather than just a mythological figure or a symbol. I'll remove the ones that obviously don't fit. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lady Liberty, and Uncle Sam are excellent national personifications, and are used as stand-ins for the nation in political cartoons in the same way John Bull does for Britain, Columbia is not obsolete - her image is in many monuments in London; Columbia represents America in sculpture. Appleseed etc...., are not personifications of the nation, just national images Ottawakismet (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is New England a separate country from the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.177.93 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the eagle, as bear for Russia, especially in internet context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.147.249 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic[edit]

I've seen it mentioned here somewhere, and would like to support that opinion. Slavia (also spelled Slava) used to be a real personification of Czech (all Slavic, more precisely) nation. Cech and Libuse had a lot to do with notion Czech people have about themselves. But there surely isn't any link to Svejk. I would really like to see some material link to why Svejk is on this list. Other people would say Jara Cimrman is. I think that Svejk should be either backed up by some evidence, or removed. Slavia herself is discutable, as it is not exclusively related to Czech republic, certainly not in the way Marianne is to France. Kvacek (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal as national personification?[edit]

Did animal or national animal passed to be a National Personification? For example that Boxing Kangaroo for Australia. Nobody will doubt that Uncle Sam is USA National Personification, but how about Bald Eagle? also UK's Lion and Unicorn. If animal is not valid, I suggest to remove all animal-based National personification since it is about person.(Gunkarta (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Definition - Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to animals or non-living things, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts. In this case it would seem that animals should be included. Fattyjwoods Push my button 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also adding the Kiwi into the New Zealand category as the link between New Zealanders and the Kiwi is so much more distinct than the others which are mentioned. Fattyjwoods Push my button 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa[edit]

Van Der Merwe is a caricature of the rural Afrikaaner, not a national personification of South Africa 92.232.88.242 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Efígie da República[edit]

AFAIK, the name of the figure appearing on Real banknotes (and on a series of other symbols, both in Brazil and Portugal) is just “The Republic” (A República). In Brazil it was adopted in a nod to France. The word "Efígie" means "effigy" and is somewhat cumbersome as the name of a figure that is actually a character (in France they call it "Marianne").

Here is a series of documents, of insuspect origin, in which the phrase always occurs with "República" capitalised, but with "efígie" in all-lowercase:

Having sufficiently established that the name of the character is merely "República", I suggest you change all references accordingly.

But there is more to it.

In fact the woman appearing on the Real banknotes is NOT a national personification of Brazil (as you may have guessed from above). That woman is a symbol of the Republican ideal. A beautiful woman with a phrygian cap = Republic. A stern-looking woman with a sword, a scale and the eyes covered = Justice. You know what I mean. No national representation, just as the Statue of Liberty is NOT a national personification of the U.S. (and if it were, you would not call the representation "Statue of Liberty", but "Liberty"). BTW, I have been told many Americans actually call it "Lady Liberty". Which makes a lot of sense.


jggouvea (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National personification of Pakistan - Incorrect term added in this list[edit]

From what I see in this source & this one, the term "watan" originates from Arabic and means "country" or "homeland". It does not represent a human entity which personifies Pakistan, so calling this as a national personification is WP:OR by the editor who added it. Every country has terms of endearment such as "watan", but only if it is represented as a human figure can it qualify for this epithet. Requesting opinions of neutral editors on my interpretation and whether his material should remain here. AshLin (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. the country's actual personification need to be found out from a valid source to update the article. Needs experts in the domain from the region. Anu Raj (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of OR & lack of RS, am deleting the entry. AshLin (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted un discussed edit by a user. Editors, every article has a talk page. discuss your view points there. It's an encyclopedia. It's unfortunate experienced editors forget what WP:NOT.Anu Raj (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was discussed at Talk:Pak Watan. Please don't make false assertions. I've explained why this is considered a national personification. All the usages listed in that article refer to it in a way that a person is referred to in Urdu language. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think the entry is valid, keep it in the article. but what's the point in discussing about it in another talk page. What we gonna tell the other confused editors - "Guys we are discussing about another article here". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuandraj (talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which talk page it is discussed on. You are the one who started a discussion there, so I asked to keep the discussion in one place. Anyway, the entry is completely valid. The sources in the article indicate that. You should put it back. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the discussion in the talk page is about having the word 'Pesonification' there in that article, not here. right now am searching magazines and cartoons for a valid entry. It should be an anthropomorphization. If I find one I'll insert it in the article. I'll leave a not if I find one. I may need your help in finalizing. Anu Raj (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if it is in that article, it has to be here too. This was what I meant. This article is simply listing all those articles or terms. Watan actually means country or land, but the way it is being used here is as you refer to a person. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Entries[edit]

The article requires cleanup to remove dubious entries which are incorrect or does not qualify as national personification. Among the entries which are not being discussed in separate sections- Uncited entries added against Honduras,Romania and Venezuela are removed. entries against Hungary,Slovenia,South Korea are doubtful or original research and needs additional citation to keep them in the article. Anu Raj (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for the vatican is JESUS CHRIST?! I'm not Christian but I'm pretty sure thats sacrilegious for Christians.... St Peter with his keys might be appropriate, but I think this needs either to be proven and validated or removed. Ottawakismet (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan dela Cruz.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Juan dela Cruz.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Juan dela Cruz.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

israel[edit]

in regards to israel, i highly doubt that either srulik or king david are national personifications-rather the Jewish People are the one national personification. This is due to the unity that Jews need to have see maharal meprague in netzach yisrael. If i were you i would simply put Israels natl personification as Knesset Yisrael (not israels parliment, rather the term is used to describe the national and combined soul of the jewish people which is connected eternaly with God).--129.98.209.135 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

I'm removing Saudi Arabia and Muhammad. That's not even a picture of Muhammad and he's not a national personification.123.231.225.201 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

I don't think that Japan has any personificated national symbol. In Japanese political scene, national personification of Japan (or any countries) are not used. Also in news media. Sometimes samurai has been used as Japan's national personification in some old caricatures or cartoons, but he is not a particular character and he has no names. Amaterasu? that's nonsense.--Nopira (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220603013811/https://symbolsage.com/amaterasu-japanese-goddess/ is not a good information source. I will delete Amaterasu in a month if any good and reliable source is added.--Nopira (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Ireland´s Personifications[edit]

User 176.61.3.37, you can´t remove items from the web page by saying:

"Ireland's most recognised personification is Hibernia. There were too many here before"

This view constitutes your opinion and not by a reliable source and as such violates WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia does not censure WP:NOTCensored because it strives to be a encyclopedia of fact. There are many resources that support Ériu, Banba, Fódla, Scotia, Granuaile, and The Old Woman of Beare as personifications of Ireland. For instance, the name of the country in Irish Éire is derived from Ériu, just as is the case from many other countries like Polonia for Poland, Germania for Germany and Britania for Britain. Each of the other names listed (Banba, Fódla, Scotia, Granuaile, and The Old Woman of Beare) were equally personified to represent Ireland by many peoples, such as the Romans and Greeks and by native Irish through the ages in books and songs. Removing factual reliable sourced information based on your opinion constitutes vandalism under WP:VAN. Please do not do it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:7967:ED46:EA14:8ECF (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Éire is indeed derived from Ériu, that makes it starkly different from Polonia for Poland, Germania for Germany and Britania for Britain, all of which are personifications of an existing national/geographic term. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content[edit]

User:Staszek Lem removed quite a chunk of text in these edits.

Making a talk page entry for this so that it can be discussed. Has it been checked?

--Fixuture (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia and Brazil?[edit]

I did see on Google Images a 1920 Estonian Propaganda when i searched by "Female Personification of Estonia"

Also i am not sure but a 2nd Female Personification of Brazil existed from 1822 to 1889 is "the Monarchy" A Brazilian Mapper called "Estonian Mapping (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Darussalam[edit]

While originally created as the mascot for the 1999 SEA Games, "Awang Budiman" is arguably the closest Brunei has to a national personification. "Awang" is a Bruneian honorific for males, while "budiman" is a Sanskrit-derived Malay word meaning "wise."
The government publication Pelita Brunei calls the character a "national mascot" (maskot kebangsaan) in this article, which talks about the inclusion of Awang Budiman (and a newly designed female counterpart called "Dayang (or Dang) Budiwati") as children's costumes worn during the 37th National Day ceremony. The 20th SEA Games website also referred to Awang Budiman as the embodiment of the "traditional cultural identity of the Sultanate." Various local artists and businesses have incorporated Awang Budiman in their work, such as the NBT Brunei billboard that promoted public health awareness during the pandemic.
Though considering the relative recency and nicheness of the character, I'm hesitant to add it in, but I'm quite curious to see what others think about its inclusion here Syphrose (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture of Bangamata[edit]

I am resident of West Bengal region of India, a proudly Bengalee, and never heard of Bangamata. The painting drawn by Avanindranath Tagore is well known as 'Bharat Mata' (Mother India). Even the image's description says so. During the Indian independence movement the freedom fighters had no idea or intent to separate Bengal as a different nation. Even freedom fighters from the region which is now Bangladesh, such as Surya Sen or Pritilata Waddedar fought for freedom of India, not for a separate Bangladesh. (I am not going to the debate that whether it was justified to separate Bangladesh as a different country. If they are happy with this, let them be). So it is very unlikely that, during a time period when average Bengalee had not any idea that Bengal could be a separate nation; a painter would draw a personification of Bengal apart from India. Therefore I request the admins or editors to not misrepresent Avanindranath's artwork to represent Bangamata. Since it is a historically important artwork, you can use it to represent Bharat Mata for the row specified for India.

It had not escaped my sight that there are some recent political arguments regarding why the entire Bengalee community is ethnically or culturally different from rest of India, or there are emerging narratives that Bengal province was never a part of Indian subcontinent; I won't go into debate regarding if this view is valid or invalid, we must remember that it is only one of the new political view, and there are lot of opposing views and factual evidences too, from linguistics, art and culture, religious traditions, archaeology etc. There are still many many Bengalees in West Bengal and some Bengalees in the Bangladesh who do identify their history, tradition, and culture to be continuous with India. 2409:40E1:100E:AE:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_personification&oldid=1220080362"