Talk:Coat of arms of Croatia

first red herring

About the first red herring: nationalist claimed what the field indicated and what it should indicate, and it is not their mistake if new government did things wrongly. Imagine employee who says to employed: "You are saying that your paycheck always arrives at 1st, but that's a red herring as next month it wont". What nationalist were saying would be a RH if there were previous instances of exception to the rule, not if the exception comes after they said it.

By the way, why === on external link? Nikola 04:47, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

First of all, the theory on the first field indicating independence is entirely bonkers, both because there's no proof throughout history of any such thing, but there was hardly anthing independent about the NDH. Perhaps it was independent in the mind of a bunch of fascists, but for anyone else it resembled a dungeon from a nightmare. To consider that change in the NDH a precedent is ludicrous right now because the present independent Croatia's coat of arms certainly does not follow any such "rule".

Well then, write so. But don't say that "What they said was false because it was not done after they said it." Nikola 07:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious. I'll further amend the page. --Shallot 11:58, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You know, it's pretty amusing to see you support both Serb _and_ Croat nationalist nonsense. --Shallot 20:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Support? :) Nikola 07:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to... just don't believe everything you hear. --Shallot 11:58, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

top left square

The illustration of the Austro_Hungarian coat of arms at the top of the page also shows the top left square as white, which would indicate independance. I assume that the Croats did not consider themselves independant while ruled from Vienna/Budapest??? Were the facists trying to establish a link with their regime and the old dual monarchy? Just curious.Zedcaster 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

racist connotations

Reading the article again, I wonder if those "racist connotations" in the third point near the bottom are worth including in the article. Some groups vociferous during Euro 96? I honestly don't recall hearing about this anywhere else, or the relevance of someone saying something that's wrong during a tangentially relevant event, so I don't see why it should remain in the article. --Shallot 17:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

pejorativity of šahovnica

"Its common name is šahovnica, originally a somewhat pejorative name given to it during the communist Yugoslavia."

Any sources for this? It just means chessboard or checkerboard and I thought it's what it's been called since ever. Anyway, "šahovnica" is a Croatian (not Serbian) word and the checkerboard was a part of the Croatian CoA during communist Yugoslavia, so the above formulation doesn't make much sense. Zocky 13:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it must have crept in during the whole Igor affair. The bit afterwards makes sense, but this can go. --Joy [shallot] 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

rising sun

Hmmm... I claim in the article that the rising sun symbolizes a new morning. This is generally true for the sun's symbolism in soicalist coats of arms, and I remember dimly that I have long ago read about this symbolism in the Croatian socialist CoA, but it doesn't make sense geographically. The sun in Croatia doesn't rise from the sea, it rather sets into it. Was there likely another explanation of its symbolism? Are geographic issues a relevant concern in heraldry at all? Zocky 12:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spreading the ideas of Marx westword?Croatnik 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

association with fascism

Removed The šahovnica by itself was indirectly associated with the fascist Ustashe regime which had ruled Croatia during the Second World War and its use as a stand-alone symbol was considered nationalistic and discouraged. because it is too ambiguous & constitutes opinion & is difficult to substantiate. What does indirectly associated mean? - is the writer equating Croat nationalist to Ustasha? - Does the šahovnica by itself include both upper square re & upper square white iterations? Hence the rewrite including: - outlining Ustasha symbology incorporating the šahovnica (if anyone can add a picture it would help); - distinguishing those right wing groups (other than Ustasha) & describing what symbols they tend to adopt; - more substance of the upper square red & white issue.

Also included: - more history on the iterations of the Croatian coat of arms (if anyone can supply picture of St Marks church in Zagreb & the CoA for the Triune Kingdom - that would be great thanx!;

- reference to Croatian Kuna & the Croatian football team;

- additional external links.

croatian_quoll 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of šahovnica as a stand-alone symbol was indeed considered nationalist and frowned upon in the second Yugoslavia. We also have two problems with pictures: the current design should be in intro, and we should find a way to avoid the impression that the CoA of NDH is a part of the legal succession line from A-H CoA to the current one. According to Croatian law, that is not the case, i.e. the CoA of NDH was never the CoA of a predecessor of the current Croatian state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zocky (talk • contribs)

The above claim about the The use of šahovnica as a stand-alone symbol was indeed considered nationalist is utter rubbish. It is just a variation of one of the lines from the Serb propaganda manual - the other line being that the šahovnica is a fascist symbol. The stand alone symbol has existed for centuries in both the upper left square red & white variants - refer to [1]. The Ustashi, followed by the communists tried to politicise the issue of which colour the upper left square should be, & augmented their political party symbology on the coat of arms. croatian_quoll 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to current design in the intro, the problem with this approach is that you get end up with an older CoA in the section titled Current Design'. Maybe have a miniature version in the intro title & a proper size one in the Current Design section? croatian_quoll 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain the last sentence? I didn't quite understand it :-( --Dijxtra 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Croatia is a successor state of the old kingdom of Croatia and of the socialist republic of Croatia, and not of NDH. NDH simply ceased to exist and has no successor state. Putting its CoA in the series with other CoAs like we have it now isn't very NPOV. A country probably has the right to chose which symbols do or don't represent it. Zocky | picture popups 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see... now, that's an interesting point you have there. I fully agree, that Croatia is not a successor state of NDH. But, then again, (if we ignore the fact that NDH included teritory of today's Croatia) the CoA of NDH did compromise of šahovnica, and it would be a bit strange not to mention that in the article... --Dijxtra 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means, it should be mentioned. We should just make sure to visually differentiate it from others somehow, maybe by making it smaller and putting it on the left. Zocky | picture popups 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't change size as this would make the page look aesthetically awkward - an explanatory footnoote would be thebest way to document & explain about the successor state issue. In any case, it is more of a legal technicality, with the reality being that the NDH existed, with initially alot of support from the Croatian people who wanted an independent state. croatian_quoll 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

...aaand, it had a coat of arms which really resembled the one we have now :-) --Dijxtra 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

...well,..it is aesthetically pleasing - even though it was plagiarised from the old Kingdom of Croatia & a U added on top.:-)croatian_quoll 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Whatever we think was the reason for šahovnica on its own being frowned upon in 1945-1990, it's quite a relevant fact that it was and there is no reason not to mention it, as we should mention the fact that the red/white first question was considered an important issue in early 1990s. The first version of post-socialist CoA was the chequered shield with no paraphernalia and white first field. That was very soon changed to red field first, and then after some time (in late 1990 or even early 1991, I'm not sure I remember correctly) to the current design.

I disagree, the standalone šahovnica was never considered a fascist symbol, except during the propaganda war that paralleled the actual war in the 1990's. There was some contention over the standalone šahovnica with upper square white. Such matters, unsourced from reliable sources, represent POV. Such an approach would represent sourcing the views of fringe elements or turning Wikipedia into a platform of legitimacy for propaganda. croatian_quoll 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The other thing, the current design. It doesn't matter if on some screens some images end up in illogical sections - there's no way to ensure optimal layout on every user's screen. Regardless of layout issues, the picture in the intro should be a picture of the subject of the article, and the subject of the article is not the CoA of Austria-Hungary. Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it is less confusing to have the current design in the section with the same title. The artice is about the Croatian coat of arms, not the current design per se. The CoA of Austria-Hungary is probably not the best thing to have up there - I think the CoA of the Triune kingdom fo Croatia, Slavonia & Dalmatia would fit ok in there.

Alternatively, move the current design to be in the intro & have no CoA in the section titled Current Design. croatian_quoll 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, it doesn't matter if we think it was right or wrong, that's just the way it was. Šahovnica was never used by itself in the second Yugoslavia, just like the Serbian shield was never used by itself. It was considered nationalist, not fascist, regardless of which field was the first. Looking back, it was silly, but that's how Yugoslav communists looked on it.

Not a matter is one thinks it's right or wrong - it is a question of POV & whether it is something thta can be sourced. There are many "common knowledge" notions that are either difficult to substatiate or are just urban myths. An abstract example is Tommy Hilfinger being asked to leave Oprah's show for racism. Also, I think the communists tended to blurr the distinction between facist & nationalist. An example was the equating of the notion of Croatian statehood with facism because they viewed Croatian nationalism as the biggest threat to the new states hegemony. Hence the main focus of infiltrating the Croatian dijaspora by the secret services. croatian_quoll 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, the people who equated šahovnica with fascism in 1990s, and continue to do so on countless web forums, do it for Serbian nationalist motives, not communist political ones. Perhaps that deserves a separate mention from what I'm talking about.

I don't care what goes into the Current Design section. The image in the intro is the one people see first, the only one that's on the first screen for all readers, the one that is displayed in navigation popups, the one that would be displayed in a shortened printed or digital version of the encyclopedia which would include just article intros, which are supposed to summarise articles for all those reasons. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Had a look at the page with the enlarged current CoA & the start & nothing in the current design section. Seems to work & actually looks good. croatian_quoll 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

File name

shouldn't the file name be "Coat of arms Of Craotia.svg" rather than "Croatian Coat Of Arms.svg"???

Checkerboard from the 10th century?

Could someone tell me what's the basis for that statement? There are no sources listed in this article whatsoever, but I doubt there any at all to back up this theory. Roda (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)