Talk:National emblem of North Macedonia

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

North Macedonia

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

CoA vs. Emblem

This looks more like an emblem, not a CoA. should we change the article's name? ES Vic (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia reffers to it as a CoA. Even if heraldry calls it an Emblem this fact could only be a sentence in the article. Not more than a sentence. -- Imbris (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red star was a symbol of Yugoslavism

As I wrote to Neutralista on his talk page the red star is a symbol of Yugoslavia. In addition to what I have wrote to him I have checked that in every constitution of the SFRY and its republics and autonomous provinces the red star is not defined as the symbol of Communism. On what do you base your statements. You acknowledge that Yugoslavia had no Communism but Socialism and yet you insist on defining the symbols of today's Macedonia as being Communist. It is simply not, nor had ever been. The fact that a main political party was called the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia has nothing to do with the symbolism of the red star. -- Imbris (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the red star was a symbol of Yugoslavism, it would have been used in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too and the Republic of Macedonia would definitely not use it today as its coat of arms. the red star never appeared before the creation of the Communist party of Yugoslavia as a Yugoslavist symbol, although there were several political movements in the 18th and 19. century which worked towards the creation of a common South-Slavic country. Cukiger (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire reference you give is historical revisionism. Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a greater Serbian construct rather than a federal state of 6 nations and many nationalities. You and your opinion cannot be referenced as a source. The question of whether the Republic of Macedonia would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't use the current Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia is beyond out debate. The question is why do you insist on claims that cannot be supstantiated by sources (relevant sources from that time period). Why are you defamating the current CoA of Macedonia? If you do not agree with that CoA it is OK, but you simply cannot demand that this communitiy of encyclopeadists on Wikipedia trust you and your emotional discomfort with the current CoA of Macedonia. What would the New Zealanders say about your insistance that the red star is always a symbol of Communism. Everyoune would agree that the hammer and sickle is the No. 1 symbol of Communism and Socialism as well (the "West" doesn't differentiate the two). -- Imbris (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not refer only to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but also to pro-Yugoslav figures and organizations from the 18th and 19th century. I have no problem with the actual coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia. I accept that it is a symbol of the socialist past of the country. You cannot compare the red stars in the flag of New Zealand with the communist red star. Of course, those in the flag of NZ do not represent communism, becuase NZ never was a socialist country. It is pretty obvious (and therefore does not have to be proved) that the red star in SR Macedonia's, SR Croatia's and SFR Yugoslavia's OCA was used because of Yugoslavia being a socialist country. If you want the article to state that the red star in the Macedonian COA does not represent the communist red star, then you have to prove it.. Cukiger (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven that according to the Constitution of that time period the red star was not identified as a solemnly Communist symbol. The hammer and sickle played that role. Also you can look at any official document of the former Yugoslavia and you cannot find any that would identify the red star as being a Communist symbol. It was the symbol of National Liberation and Struggle of Yugoslavia.

When the No. 1 legal document of the land says differently then you are the one who should find a source (of that magnitude) that is contrary towards the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia.

Why do you insist on writing that the current CoA of the Republic of Macedonia symbolise Communism, when in Yugoslavia there were no Communism but Self-Management Socialist rule of Nations and Nationalities represented by the working people and citizens throughout Delegation System in which the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia (and each of the unions of each of the republics and autonomous provinces) and non-party delegats participated.

The Republic of Macedonia is the solemn owner and representant of its current symbols so there is no place for Communism label in the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia or in the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia.

What is your source for such claim that the five-pointed red star (with yellow edging) is a symbol of Communism in Yugoslavia.

Imbris (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is too simple. Yugoslavia was a Socialist country with a one-party system (the party was the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia). Yugoslavia was a pro-Stalinist (that means hardcore-communist) country until 1948, before Tito broke with Stalin. The fact that workers' self-management was invented in Yugoslavia at the beginning of 1950ies does not mean that Yugoslavia was no more a Socialist country. Tito himself always referred to the political system in Yugoslavia as socialism. There is no doubt that the red star also became a Yugoslav patriotic symbol. But primarely it was the symbol of Communism, invented by communists. I'm not insisting on the coat of arms of Macedonia to be described as Communist, but it simply is a true fact. If it was different I would accept that, too. Cukiger (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what was different you would accept... Yugoslavia in 1945 had numerous political parties. Sadly enough the elections held on 1945-11-11 were won by the National Front of Yugoslavia with candidates on:

The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Croatia
The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Macedonia
The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Montenegro
The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Serbia (Jaša Prodanović)
The candidation list of the Land for the National Front of Serbia (dr. Siniša Stanković)
The candidation list of the Region for the National Front of Kosovo & Metohia
The candidation list of the Region for the National Front of Vojvodina
Socialist Party of Yugoslavia 88/45
Social-Democratic Party of Yugoslavia 97/45
Independent Democratic Party 7/47
Democratic Party 73/45
National Peasant Party 78/46
National Radical Party 78/45
Yugoslav Republican Democratic Party 86/45
National Front of Yugoslavia 77/45
United Alliance of Antifascist Youth of Yugoslavia 81/45
Yugoslav League for Peace, Independence and Equality of Nations 42/59

The numbers beside the name of the party represent No./Year of the Official Gazette of the SFRY. -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The country imployed certain politics like the land nationalisation. This policies were active for a brief time between 1946 and 1948.

The symbols were created in the time of the National Liberation War (1941-1945) before the application of those policies simmilar to Soviet Union policies.

Why do you keep on insisting that current symbol of the Republic of Macedonia is Communist is beyond my comprehension.

Please stop.

Imbris (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources which claim that the symbols in the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia do not represent the Communist it has been described in the Constitution.

Also I have provided a source where all of the flags of national minorities have to had a red star as a symbol of being minorities of the SFRY.

What more do you need?

Imbris (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source(s)

ORDER on Hoisting of Flags

Nations of Yugoslavia went into struggle and fought unyielding battles against the enemy, carried their National flags with the five pointed Star as symbols of the National Liberation Struggle.

At the Historical 2nd Session of the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia, held in Jajce on 29th of November 1943, at which the foundations of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia were laid, the State Flag became the symbol of strength of all Nations of Yugoslavia.

The five pointed Star on flags is the star which has shined to us and gave us strength and belief in hardest times of national uprisings and enemy offensives, it instil unshakeable confidence that the Nations of Yugoslavia, under the leadership of the National Hero Marshal Tito will enjoy days of liberty, happiness and fortunate existence.

Regarding all of the above, the duty of each individual is to respect these sanctities, and therefore I

o r d e r :

1. In all occasions when the National flags and the Yugoslav flag are hoisted or carried, these must only the flags with the five pointed Star on the middle field, laid in a way that the peaks of the points of the five pointed Star grasp other fields. This is the only form of our State flags and other flags i.e. the ones without the five pointed Star are not to be displayed.

2. At all of the State Institutions in the area of the Federal Croatia, it is obligatory to fly the Yugoslav State Flag and the Flag of the Federal Croatia.

This order is valid immediately from this moment on.

Death to Fascism - Freedom to the People!

Ministry of Interior Affairs No. 1644.-45. 26th of May 1945.

Minister of Interior Affairs: Vicko Krstulovic, m. p.

Source: Proceedings of Laws, Decrees and Orders (Zbornik zakona, uredaba i naredaba), the Official Gazette of the Federal State of Croatia (Narodne novine), Year I, Vol. II, No. 30, Page 87, Issue 25th September 1945, Zagreb.

This is an interesting source on the flags of the Federal State of Croatia (1943-1945) within the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. But also this is a source on the Flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-1946).

From this source it could be clearly understood that even in this initial period the five pointed red star ought to be displayed with three of the peaks of the points entering into the red and blue stripes of the flag. This source also defines that all of the Nations of Yugoslavia have the right to display their flags if and only if the five pointed red star is presented on them.

In that time there were no definition of nations and nationalities but all of the different ethnicities of Yugoslavia were considered as nations, especially when combating was involved.

We can find various announcements and pamphlets during the National Liberation Struggle which support the claim that in times of battle all the nations were equal in their right to fight for Yugoslavia.

This source is also especially important to describe that the five pointed red star is not just the symbol of certain ideologies but more important the symbol of Yugoslavian National Liberation during the World War II and also the symbol of brotherhood of Nations of Yugoslavia.

How much of that brotherhood was in practice and how much in theory it is not up to us but historians. Even in case that there were no brotherhood it remains that we have a source that claims the five pointed red star as a symbol of the National Liberation Struggle during the World War II.

Imbris (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not just the symbol of certain ideologies but more important the symbol of Yugoslavian National Liberation. That means 'it is the symbol of Communism'. You're waisting your time, brother. Yugoslavia was Communist, SR Macedonia (as a part of it), too, and of course also their symbols. You cannot change the history the way you like it. MACEDONIA HAS A COMMUNIST PAST. Cukiger (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who cannot change the past. Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was not a Communist state and the Federal State of Macedonia as a federal unit of the DFY was not a Communist state. You are waisting your time with this insistance on disregarding sources and using just your and Revizionist socialist beliefs. You are the one who is prepared to edit-war without serious contribution to this discussion and who cannot belive that the five pointed red star was a symbol of the National Liberation Struggle in the World War II. -- Imbris (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The continuation of our discussion

The red five-pointed star of Yugoslavia is not the symbol of Communism. The red five-pointed star of Yugoslavia is a symbol of Yugoslav patriots during the National Liberation War (1941-1945) and the symbol of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was not a Communist state but a federal republic with a system of self-government and could be considered socialist (Socialism with a Human Face). Look at this sentence from this source "All nationalities in Yugoslavia have equal right to hoist their national flags, but with the red five-pointed star in the middle, as common symbol of belonging to SFR Yugoslavia.".

Look at the the excerpt from the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (Article 8^th) which goes like this: "The coat of arms is framed by a garland of ears of wheat, tobacco and poppy, tied by a ribbon with the pattern of a traditional costume. In the centre of such a circular space there are mountains, rivers, lakes and the sun; where the ears join there is a red five-pointed star. All this represents "the richness of our country, the struggle and the freedom".

The source is http://flagspot.net/flags/yu_fy-mk.html#coa

You can also find excerpt from the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (of the time) which describes the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. Janko Ehrlich-Zdvorak home page and his page dedicated to Croatian flags.

You are very well aware that the Republic of Serbia continued using as the official Coat of arms of the Republic of Serbia the CoA of its predeceesor the Socialist Republic of Serbia but the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (1990-2006) did not describe the CoA (as had been in the past) this has not stopped to affect the description of the Coat of arms of the Republic of Serbia as regulated by the Law on the usage of the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Serbia.

Thus even if the Republic of Macedonia has not described the CoA of the Republic of Macedonia the description is used from the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (the predeceesor of the Republic of Macedonia).

In light of these facts I hope that you would reconsider and not insert "symbols of Communism" in the article Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia.

Please stop reverting and this defamation of the symbols of the Republic of Macedonia.

Imbris (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, if the symbolism of the red star in the COA of Macedonia was different than Communist, I would accept that, too. I must say , I even love your idea that the red star was a Yugoslav patriotic symbol and has no political character (communist ideology), but it is not. Your 'facts' are not facts. You need a source that clearly says that it is a non-communist symbol, what meaning/symbolism the red star has, why it was used by the Partisans (which were overwhelmingly Communists) since 1941, ... I tell you what a 'Yugoslav patriotic symbol ' is, it's the blue-white-red tricolor. That's a Yugoslav patriotic symbol (with no political background)! The red star was used by the Partisans because they where overwhelmingly Communists and aimed to build Socialism in Yugoslavia. Cukiger (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Cukiger --- Plain dark blue-white-red tricolour is not a symbol without political background. It could not be considered as a symbol of Yugoslavia because it symbolized the Karageorgievitch Regime and the national and social oppressions and inequalities of that Regime. It symbolizes the Serbian and Montenegrin attempt to rule Yugoslavia by forced installing puppet governments in Novi Sad, Pristina and Titograd. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia symbolises unsolved national questions of many nations, unconstitutional laws, exploitation of many regions (especially Vojvodina), military rule in Kosovo, negation of ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Montenegrins, rigged elections, murders of political opposition leaders and academics involved in Albanian language and culture (Milan Schufflay). The blue-white-red tricolour could not ever be considered a Yugoslav patriotic symbol (even current Serbian greater-nationalists call it a symbol of delusions). -- Imbris (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Yugoslavism. There is Yugoslav model of Socialism, but no sauch thinkg as Yugoslavism. The Red Star found on the Coat of Arms or the R.Macedonia is the same red star found on the Coat of Arms of the other federate republics, and same with the red stars found on all former Soviet republics. The red star on the Coat of Arm is a symbol of Socialism/Communism. --Revizionist (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have first and foremost stated that the five pointed red star is a symbol of Yugoslavia. Then I mentioned Yugoslavism with respect to a fact that in Yugoslavia there was a nationality which was called Yugoslav(s). If there is Titoism then there is also Yugoslavism as a social, political or even anthropological fact. I have stated this as a way to explain to Cukiger that the five pointed red star was a symbol of Yugoslav National Liberation Struggle during the World War II. It is a simple fact that the National Liberation Struggle was lead by members of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (at the time consisted of only two subsidiaries - the Communist Party of Croatia and the Communist Party of Slovenia, since others were founded after the World War II). But it is also a simple fact that guerrilla combatants were not all Communist nor Socialist but simple workers and peasants which represented a sub-class during the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (latter Kingdom of Yugoslavia).

The entire debate on ideologies and partisans (firstly calling themselves guerrilla) and Communism and Socialism mean nothing with respect to the symbols of the Republic of Macedonia of today.

The red star has always been a symbol of the National Liberation Struggle common to all of the Nations of Yugoslavia. It has been decided that the five pointed red star would became a symbol of the National Liberation Army and Partisan Units of Yugoslavia at the military-political meeting in Stolice, a small mining village near Krupanj in the vicinity of a larger town of Valjevo. Up to the end of October 1941 it was a Supreme Command which entered into history at the 26th September 1941 (in the morning) when the famous Military-political Consultations started in Stolice. It was the first meeting of the functionaries of the National Liberation Struggle since the Historical Session in Belgrade when it was decided to star the National Uprising (latter National Liberation Struggle).

Among other (even more important) decisions it was decided as early as then that the five pointed red star is a symbol of the National Liberation Partisan Units, and that it be placed on the National flags of all the nations participating in the National Liberation Struggle.

Your opinions may be invalid because Cukiger and Revizionist insist the five pointed yellow hemmed red star is a Communist symbol in order to further up their own morals upon historical facts.

It is not I who should prove that it was not a Communist symbol but you are the ones who should prove that it was something. It is error in logic to force someone to determine that something was not something. It is just not possible to work this way. I have tried to grant your wishes and found this information, now you are the one who should (if not satisfied) found sources that further your belief that the five pointed red star was a Communist symbol in Yugoslavia.

Hammer and sickle was the Communist symbol all around the world and not the red star. Flag of Vietnam has a yellow star, Flag of Angola a five-pointed star within half a cogwheel crossed by a machete (in the style of a hammer and sickle), People's Republic of Bangladesh has a red disc (the red sun of freedom represents the blood shed to achieve independence) or Flag of Zimbabwe (…red five-pointed star in the centre of the white triangle, which symbolizes peace and red which symbolizes blood shed to achieve independence…)

If Revizionist would dignify to look at the question of reverting he would notice that I changed the wording from a Communist symbol to a National Liberation symbol during World War II. What is wrong with that?

Imbris (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Provide one - please, just one reliable sources about the lion. The Macedonian Heraldic association site is laughable at best. --Laveol ^T 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian section has not a single whatever source. Yes, laughable just like Bulgarian historiography. Cukiger (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I has some doubt as to how to add a ref to a section that is bellow the refs, but let's say this will suffice. Is this ok or you want the other 40 sources as well? Seriously, there are 40 at least. A couple for every image. Bulgarian, Arabic, Russian, German - any problem with those?--Laveol ^T 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a source and there you have it. If it was for me, it is silly to source these pictures. Cukiger (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause the site is at amateur level at the least and it claims a continuity which obviously isn't there. Or in other words it makes laughable claims with no references behind them. --Laveol ^T 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I use the word 'why'? No. Cukiger (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know you meant it ;) --Laveol ^T 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to judge and disrespect another's nation historical symbol. And why does your land use our lion? Provide a source for that (teritorial claims it seems to me), but us we already know none realizes his own sickness. Tell me please, in which way this lion is not representing macedonia? Vlatko (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pfff, how about you ask a real question and stop with the fantasy allegations. --Laveol ^T 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't answer any of the above stated, after all. Probably because you don't think only repeat. What are you doing here?

Pff, I must note this is the smartest word in your dictionary. Stop loosing the time here, it's better.85.187.224.169 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the POV concerns

Laveol? You refer to the lion or to the red star? Cukiger (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious. I haven't raised any questions about the star. --Laveol ^T 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. You wanted a source for the lion. Now we have two. That's not enough for you? As I said, I think it is silly to source these pictures of the lion with the inscription 'Macedoniae', but anyway. There you have your compromise. So the tag should be removed. Cukiger (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of what?

Coat of arms of Bulgaria by Zhefarovich 1741. His version of the arms of Macedonia (region) is heraldically almost the same, with inverted shield and lion tinctures]]
Coat of arms of Macedonia (region) 1620

Look, I hope I'm not expecting too high a level of comprehension when I mean that those are coats of arms of the region. I'm not saying they're not relevant: your country is in the region so they are relevant, and I have nothing against the gallery remaining in the article. But the corrections that I'm inserting have a very solid base: the user has to be reminded that these are not arms of a country but arms of a region that also spans Greece and Bulgaria. Simple as that: a country that has been independent since the 1990s and has been an entity since the 1940s can't have a coat of arms from the 16th century, okay? It's called anachronism and it's not something to eat.

Now, why the coat of arms of the region of Macedonia has a lion rampant on it and a symbol of what population that is, I'll not discuss because I'll risk being flooded with personal attacks like "nationalist friend". But I think it's quite clear the heraldists had the correct idea about the ethnic population of the region: the lion has been an attested Bulgarian heraldic symbol since the 14th century. No offence meant, but by adding those old arms of the region you're simply confirming your Bulgarian past. You don't want that, do you? :) Todor →Bozhinov 17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, How do you explain "coat of arms of the region", any source for that, since when it is a region? You try to convince even your self whats up to me in a (by your way) "clear belief". And how did the lion became a coat of Bulgaria? I must agree its a good pic (but that must not be the reason for being a coat ). Vlatko ^T 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian past :) :) Aha, so that's the reason for adding your contributions. So it is not that wrong if someone calls you a 'nationalist'. Take a look at the coat of arms of Nemanjic (from the beginning of the second mil.), the Macedonian coa is clearly different from the bulgarian one. The bulgarian lion is red on a yellow background in the coat of arms. Fubre (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and here the coat of arms I talked off. the first coa is the Macedonian one (upper left corner), the bulgarian coa is marked under "D". Fubre (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1340 coa of Macedonia
1340 coa of Bulgaria

I think the difference is obvious. ;) Fubre (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlatko, what you just wrote showed some complete incompetence, no offence mate. Apparently, the guys over at the heraldry department were aware that a Macedonia existed back when they made those arms, and apparently, a Macedonian state never existed before the 20th century. How much more apparent would it be that the arms in question represent a historical geographic region? What else would they represent in your opinion? A bucket of chicken? Think about it! There are arms of Thrace from the same period and needless to say Thrace was never a state.

And why should I care how the lion became a symbol of Bulgaria? It just happened to be so, and its use as a symbol of Bulgaria is older than its use as a symbol of the Macedonian region. What am I supposed to give as an answer to that question anyway? That the lion is a very cool animal and it's in line with the Bulgarian fighting spirit or that we used to grow lions in Bulgaria as pets? Please, read your questions aloud before posting them, it saves us some time.

Fubre, you might want the Nemanjić and Tito back but that's not my cup of tea. Of course the Macedonian arms has inverted tinctures in some representations, didn't you read the image captions of the arms I posted above? I don't say it's supposed to be identical, I say it's related to the Bulgarian arms, quite possibly derived from it. If you're denying the Bulgarian history of Macedonia, then you might as well join the Flat Earth Society. And what's a "nationalist" supposed to mean? I'm not a racist nor a jingoist, I just love my country. But how's that related to the matter at hand? Don't you love yours? Todor →Bozhinov 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence, Well my mate, as I do know that coat is Macedonian (Macedonian people), As you know in Macedonia live also Albanians, Greeks and Bulgarians, they use different coat, but the Macedonians use the lion. Afcourse, your opinion here is more than relevant, it just happend that the lion is a coat of Bulgaria, than why do you care about our lion, do not forget England, Norway ... etc. I do not question your knowledge, you sure know to much, as long as you use it for right, but not for pushing on your interpretation, maybe a reanalisation of your knowing is far enough to move you forward. We'll surely end in an endless discussion. I simply want to tell you that we are not stupid, and you wont enjoy a moment when the world will become your own "wish",but on contrary.Vlatko ^T 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are England and Norway in the Balkans? Don't forget the context. Todor →Bozhinov 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and you TD, might want WW2 Fascist Bulgaria back, but that's not our cup of tea. I am a Macedonian, proud as hell not to be bulgarian. My country and people never have been on the axis side or occupied other countries like yours. God, what a poor history you have. I would be ashamed. And the sadest thing is, the Bulgarian people haven't learned a single lesson. Cukiger (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you tone down your personal attacks. You're in deep trouble even if the appearance of a new user just when you needed him is just an accident.--Laveol ^T 12:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cukiger, you'd better do what Laveol asked you to do. I've said a thousand times that I respect the territorial integrity of the Republic of Macedonia and the new ethnic consciousness of its population, so don't ascribe any irredentist wishes to me. Your country and people didn't exist to be on the Axis side or any side in any world war and the circumstances that forced Bulgaria into the wars I'm not going to explain — I suppose you have international history books at your place. The text after this sentence is a straightforward personal attack and a sign of ethnic hatred: such stuff can be used against you so simply don't ever write it. Peace. Todor →Bozhinov 12:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be scrapped as a whole, unless you want to include a textual explanation how all this CoAs are copies of the one made by a medieval forger from Dubrovnik and of Bosnian origin who wanted to gain nobility titles, you choose. I'm not good at handling intentional blindness so spare me from potential bullshit answers. I don't expect that much good faith but in case you are interested in my personal opinion this is far from a great service to your nation.--Zakronian (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got that from the Macedonian heraldry site, don't you? but the president of the society said that this was the case with one coa, not with all these. Cukiger (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only parathesis of Matkovki's work, the one source to be given some weight here, is there. I don't care what the president has to say about it. We have a lot of presidents and associations here also, of stamp collectors, hunters, chess players, hobbyists or activists or whatever having no established reliability for adding content further from linking us with quotations of reliable sources.

It clearly states all the rest are copies of the prototype not saved, which in turn is a product of forgery, and how could it not be when neither the name nor a political entity of Slavs of whatever name existed at that time in the region, conquered by the Ottomans. Just a reproduction of a stylistic work following western idealistic trends that represented nothing but a person's vagueness to make himself appear of noble origin. You say this was not the case for all, then what was the case ? who made them ? to signify what ? --Zakronian (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so T.B. and Laveol you are offended. Well I never thought that expressing in EU is condemned. Great participation of you both here, Wikipedia is proud!!!!Vlatko ^T 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlatko, are you confusing freedom of speech with WP:NPA? I don't think I ever said I'm offended; in fact, I'm very used to personal attacks by other Wikipedians. It's just that such remarks harm the discussion and they're against the Wikipedia rules. I don't know what the EU has to do with this, honestly, you shouldn't be obsessed with the EU, it's not a deus ex machina problem-solver looking from the inside. Are you trying to lead the discussion to nowhere again? Because it's already pretty far off-topic thanks to some comments. Wikipedia is not a chat room.

To bring us on-topic, this is directed at Cukiger's puppet Fubre: here's a lion rampant or on an escutcheon gules coat of arms of Bulgaria by Vitezović. His version of the arms of the region of Macedonia is the opposite, lion rampant gules on an escutcheon or. I don't see how the Macedonian coat of arms is "clearly different" given that example. Todor →Bozhinov 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you capish, we are tired of your intentious discussions, thats why this is a chat, its not curved by us, none takes you seriously. You are convinced in your stuff and playing on a unexistable field. We do have a different views - but on the other hand and learn from the others. But as I do know already your lexicon it is hard for you to understand it. Vlatko ^T 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And can't you see he's explaining you how thinks work around here and everywhere outside RoM for that matter. I don't think you've read a single word of what he has to say (write). If there is a substantial language barrier you should work on it and stop throwing random rants around. --Laveol ^T 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TD nice to hear that you respect the ter. integrity of the Republic of Macedonia, but I would rather see that you respect the centuries-old Macedonian consciousness (not new) of my people, but I have no hope anyway. It's funny how you Bulgarians think that people can be 'brainwashed' by someone (the Bulgarians usually accuse the Serbs of brainwashing the Macedonian) and their nationality changed within a few years. I tell you what. It's not even possible within a century. Stop believing the lies of your governments. Macedonians existed at the time of both WW and they chose the right side, thanks to god. You should take us as an example, my Bulgarian 'brothers'. Cukiger (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is no forum - either stay on-topic or go away. No one cares about your "centuries-old Macedonian consciousness" (is it you own?) anyway. --Laveol ^T 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if it was so, but you and TD probably care , because you came to this article and started talking about 'it was a region where bulgarians lived', 'the coa is bulgarian', 'bulgarian past' and so on. Cukiger (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, isn't "Historical coats of arms" not a fair compromise? And stop your funny accusations of me and that cukiger being the same user, just because we don't accept your nationalist manipulations of the article. tzz, first you talk of a 'European lion' which never existed and then you put off your masks and started arguing it's a bulgarian one. you guys are good. Fubre (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, and where exactly did you come across that info. You, know I wasn't sure until this comment and the one left on your talkpage. --Laveol ^T 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that every talk page can be seen by any user? You think I did not follow your discussion with cukiger about the symbols on the macedonians' template? Pff.. now go home with your accusations.. Fubre (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of images

Okay, after some research and some hints by another editor, here's some stuff that's very wrong about the arms gallery:

First of all, the Fojnica roll of arms (this image) only claims to be of 1340, but the earliest reference to it is from 1800. Its authenticity is hence disputed: it's thought to be a Baroque forgery, and there is no evidence to support the claims to its age. In fact, it looks pretty modern if you ask me.
Also, I'm not sure where this image is supposed to come from, but I don't think it looks very authentic for 1741. The only roll from 1741 that I know of and that concerns us is Zhefarovich's, and it's a black-and-white version of Vitezović. Here's the Zhefarovich arms of the region of Macedonia, which is a dark lion on a light background, i.e. most likely a red lion on a golden shield as depicted by Vitezović. And as the Bulgarian arms is commonly depicted (though as I said already Vitezović has it as a golden lion on a red shield like the one of the region of Macedonia).

In short, please don't upload forgeries and own-made arms to Wikipedia in order to prove a WP:POINT. Todor →Bozhinov 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this seriously, who is taking you for relevant? We are not dolls here. To put as there or anywhere. Interesting for you, why don't you prove your self on the right place. I'm not even trying to explain nothing to you as I do know how much you can accept already.

Vlatko^T

01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the doubts raised here, we should insist Cukiger/Fubre provide exact documentation both of the immediate (web) source they got their image files from, and of the precise bibliographical source of the historical prints in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Todor →Bozhinov 14:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit rough on the guy, six months ! Anyway, i don't believe this section can be properly sourced, it should be removed then. This discussion is open to anyone wishing to re-add verifiable material. Any objections for the time being ?--Zakronian (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite fair, he was shamelessly using sockpuppets to manipulate this one and other discussions; I for one wouldn't have objected to a permanent block. In all fairness, I quite agree that the gallery is unsourcable, OR-ish and probably a bit misleading: I wasn't keen on removing it because it is a bit relevant. Todor →Bozhinov 10:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, for me and for this project, i don't have to make such decisions myself. Now to the matter, if we were to keep them we'd have to write an exlanation based on what we already know and probably change the title also to something even more "relativistic". And since there is no source linking them with some sort of an official recognition from the country, as part of its "legacy", such an overall presentation could as well be considered defamating. I'll wait one more day and remove it, if someone wants to do it now be my guest.--Zakronian (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have source!

http://www.mymacedonia.net/links/coats.htm http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/Macedoniansymbols/MacedonianLion.html http://faq.macedonia.org/history/ (you must go to `Macedonian History through Images II´, there you#ll find the coats-of-armms)Seegef (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

i found this, too. http://www.ciode.ca/kroz%20istoriju/grb016ispravljen1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seegef (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable sources. And they don't give any explanation anyway, from a quick look.--Zakronian (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bulgarian source

http://www.heraldika-bg.org/gallery_armorial.htm

Is most clear, there is no singular Bulgarian historical CoA but very different versions. Some versions may resemble the Macedonian CoA (with obvious influences of Bulgaria - and vica versa). There is no need to edit war on this particular topic.

Some sources make a division between Bulgarian and Macedonian arms like this:

Bulgarian: yellow background and red lion
Macedonian: red background and a yellow lion

If those two merged in a singulair form this makes no difference because we have countries and even nations which share symbols.

Imbris (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry bit I simply can't find any coherence in your argument (or is it one?). I'm unable to define by means of what you're trying to defend the inclusion of the coat of arms gallery. Please read up on the consensus that we've reached above before reverting to article versions that have been rejected. There is no continuity between those arms and the arms of the Republic of Macedonia, simple as that: they're arms of completely different entities that are only partially related. As such, the arms gallery is unsuitable in an article of that name. Todor →Bozhinov 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "concensus" between you and Zakronian is not carved in stone because you two seem to agree on an argument that territorial conceptions have exclusive right on heritage of Macedonia. If that would be a case then Austria would not mention its Empire (because of loosing it). Denmark would have no right on portraying a historical CoA on its Greater CoA, Belarus would not have any right on its "historical" CoA, etc. Those territorial argument is void and not suitable for Wikipedia. It is greater-nationalistic in very nature. The Republic of Macedonia have every right to choose from its heritage whatever wanted. There is a need for the content because the Republic of Macedonia is in the process of building national concensus regarding the future Coat of arms. -- Imbris (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When that time comes, and provided you include a source to some kind of official recognition of these forgeries being part of the country's heritage we will include them with a proper explanation on their origin.--Zakronian (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such harsh language and POV has rarely been seen at Wikipedia. Who gave you the right of deciding that something is a forgery. Cukiger provided sources and you simply stated that the sources were false and forgeries without any proof. -- Imbris (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, now that i've seen your first edit summary, the source used already states all of them are reproductions of a forgery.--Zakronian (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, your methodology is completely anti-encyclopaedical because when users in good faith provide sources you cannot just state that the sources are forgeries not without a just cause and proofs from your POV. In case of you do not provide and source that supports your claim, you are disrupting Wikipedia and pushing POV without any confirmation of your beliefs. That harmful practice when you wish all Wikipedia belive you instead of sources is damaging and dangerous. -- Imbris (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spend some time to read what i have already written in the discussions above, both of them. You don't seem to understand my position. Read Matkovski's passage also.--Zakronian (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to deny the Republic of Macedonia and the Nation of Macedonians their right of choice among their vast heritage what they want is proposterous. What Cukiger has added is sourced with a great deal of care and hard work. Your attempts to discredit the Macedonian Heraldry Association is what is sourceless. -- Imbris (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working towars not displaying the older coat of arms is an attempt of erasing Macedonian national history. These coat of arms are used today ONLY by the Macedonian people, not by any other Balkan country. So, I do not see a problem in displaying these coas in this article. Seegef (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. I belive that Zakronian is not editing in good faith when it comes to this particular question. Also I belive that his violence and constant edit-waring should be prevented. I hope that you would come to my assistence on reverting his edits of this article. -- Imbris (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one picture of a historical coa?

Why only one picture of a historical coat of arms was left? that seems like that lion coa appeared once in 1595 and never again, like there is a big hole between 1595 and 1946. I think someone who wants to get informed about the whole story would like to see the development and changes of the historical coats of arms through the past centuries. Seegef (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically the same thing copied again and again, what's the "whole" story supposed to be anyway ? The historical value/relevance is rather subjective (to put it politely). The sourcing for the pictures was problematic from the start. But that's the least important (for me), regardless if they all indeed show an actual copy from this or that era/collection the only reason for them to have a representation here is of the same lion being used (to an uncertain extent) today in the country. The whole thing about its origin is pretty obscure to say the least: while the first CoAs is attested back in 1340, Matkovski states that it was first created by a Petar Ohmucevic towards the end of the 16th century to support claims of noble ancestry, included in a greater falsification scheme with lots of other "proof" about his nobility (you could have actually spend some time reading the passage here already). If i made it right this is also backed in this sourced article in Bosnian wikipedia. So it's indeed the creation of a medieval forgerer, Matkovski thinks of course that its use evolved to symbolize some early notion of pan-slavism or something when the Balkans where under Ottoman rule, following the western idealism of that period that promoted the ancient names for the regions. Where it appears through afterwards it does so presumably as an artwork (or to back some other wannabe-noble efforts maybe). Matkovski says it all in detail, if you had the courtesy to read the freaking web source i wouldn't have to produce a summary now based on what i understand from it, and we could all lay down our intepretations perhaps. Fat chance of that happening in a healthy way, so it's best to leave the section in its current form, i'm not even going to add the Ohmusevic info for now, tired.--Zakronian (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look of the coat of arms

@imbris: There are several versions of the current coat of arms (in fact all the same, but with different colours), but the article should display the one that's used most often (the one with dark poppy buds). The coat of arms that's on top of the article at the moment with yellow poppy buds is someone's pure imagination. That coat of arms does not appear anywhere throughout the Republic of Macedonia. Do you have web sources by an institution of the Republic of Macedonia using that coat of arms? 87.158.57.11 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry imbris, but this new user is right. almost all ministries in the republic of macedonia use that coat of arms and the plates outside these institutions show that one, too. and it is printed on the new passport with that design.

ministry of health web site: http://www.moh.gov.mk/
ministry of education and science http://www.mon.gov.mk/
ministry of defence (see goverment link on right side) http://www.morm.gov.mk:8080/morm/en/homepage.html
Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia http://www.vrhoven.sud.mk
http://www.izbirackispisok.gov.mk

only one or two use the red version like the ministry of economy http://www.economy.gov.mk/ Seegef (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is not very helpful because the Ministry of the Interior which issues passports is not the institution which determines the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia. The institution which has the power and the authority for the determination of the Coat of arms is the Parliament of Macedonia. Therefore any of those ministries that use the version with not authorized Coat of arms of Macedonia are breaching the law established by the Parliament of Macedonia.

Sometimes ago I have found a Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia at the Government page (http://www.vlada.mk/Nacionalni%20Simboli.htm), sadly enough it is not displayed anymore. It had poppy buds in almost white colour (bit greenish white). Now the Government of the Republic of Macedonia use the Coat of arms with the poppy buds not filled with any colour, red star also not filled with any colour.

The President of the Republic uses red poppy buds (http://www.president.gov.mk/simboli_e.asp)

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia protected via the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affair of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia, this can be proved with a PDF file (http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-IMAGES/6TER-IMAGES/yu0414.jpg)

The Heraldry Association of Macedonia had determined that the poppy buds are yellow. Have you seen the current new issue of the website of the Heraldry Association of Macedonia? They have finaly made a new graphic representation of the Coat of arms of Macedonia using the lattest techniques and its finaly scalable.

The Government of the Republic of Macedonia has almost two dozen ministries so concluding on the basis of just one Ministry (the Ministry of the Interior) and also on the basis of those links you provided which contain small copies made by some web-admins at that ministries is not viable to determine the officiality of the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia using brown poppy buds. I will say once more brown poppy buds exist when they are shivered up (at that moment the poppy buds are not round and smooth but instead shrunked and rouged on the surface). The Coat of arms does not contain shivered and shrunked and rouged poppy buds but smooth and well rounded poppy buds.

I do not care for the deeds of few administrators who abused they power and who hadn't contacted the Parliament of Macedonia for the permission to use the Coat of arms accordingly (to the law).

http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/fmakedon.htm

I would say that the new user needs to stop destroying the consent made by previous editors, nor should you go on that path.

Imbris (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it. Even your friend agrees with me. Have you ever been to the Republic of Macedonia and seen that yellow coat of arms in your life before joining wikipedia? I am sure not. Because such a version simply does not exist. The WIPO coat of arms is just a not-digitalised version of the "brown" coat of arms. There is no clear definition of the coat of arms, so there are some versions of it, but nowhere you will find a yellow one. And even if, its usage by official state bodies is probably under 5%. The official versions are the brown one (mainly used) and a red one.

More sources: http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/default-mk.asp?ItemID=9DAFFA6E5F049C4F981ED29A33004728&arc=1

http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/default-mk.asp?ItemID=0B992AFF6E3D564B87280800AF7E05B7&arc=1

please accept these facts 87.158.61.231 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

Here are just some examples. After all, we live in Macedonia, not you, how can you know which one is the correct one, or is used more?

A slightly different version - Ministerstvoto za Ekonomija —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.200.191 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the green coat of arms and so on

the green coat of arms indeed exists. check the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COAofMacedonia-green.png

which is from the official gazette of macedonia: http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/WBStorage/Files/Grb.gif

also the other versions are the ones that are indeed used by macedonia and are also sourced. On the contrary, i doubt that all those 4 coa's in the article do exist.. do you have sources for them? i'd really like to see them, because it would surprise me since i know the versions that are indeed used. Zna (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i meant 3 versions :) sorry. Zna (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star removed?

Footnote 1 was changed saying that the star was removed, but the text was not changed. If the star was indeed officially removed, this should be documented by a reference. You cannot change a quote from an ancient text.

The quote should be in quotation marks. Andreas ^(T) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ups it was mistake, sorry, I thought that it was the article not the ref. The coat of arms is really changed and it got this new design. This is made according to the decision of the government (and the media) when they say that the star would would be removed and the lines connected. I am waiting for the law to be released, it will be done soon and we can then change the text too. Sorry again--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It got removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have the file ready, but is not adopted until the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia votes on the issue. 2/3 majority must be in favour. Also then we have a procedure on publishing the Law in Služben Vesnik, and after that a period of vacatio legis prior the Law reaches validity (the full effect of the Law). This period last for about 8 days. This is the procedure, and before that, we should not change anything. -- Bugoslav (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus we will see what are the colours of the COA since at this moment there are many different versions, because there is no official description of the colours. The new file that we have at Commons is not the final since the colours proposed by the Government are different.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I mentioned at the Macedonia project page, I really would like to have just one drawing of the arms, not 5 or 6. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoA

Gentlemen,

please consider my text on this issue published in Macedonian Herald #3

http://heraldika.org.mk/MKHerald-3.pdf it is in Macedonian and English, i am not experienced in writing wiki articles.

Jovan Jonovski President of Macedonian Heraldry Association

Why are you only addressing the men? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the lion to signify Macedonia

Are there any sources that support the assertion that the Macedonia written in the CoA from the 14th c. corresponds to the region we understand as Macedonia today? If not this should be made clear in the article.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make u so clever. Of course that this lion symbolizes Macedonia. And please stop with this POV pushing. Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Aside from the personal attack which I will report in due course and the threats of blocking in the ES I don't see any sources backing up the claim that the Macedonia in the lion CoA is the same as the Macedonia region we would recognize today. The clarifycation I provided fixes this issue and should stay.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it down a notch. Stop with the wikilawyering and try to reach a consensus. I'm sure there is a wording for this that will make everyone happy. Scare quotes are officially discouraged per WP:MOSTEXT however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selket (talk • contribs)

Anothroskon, there is no personal attack, you accused me of incivility on my talkpage too, you are looking for fights and it shows in your wording and your text. Tomica1111 is right to revert you, your text as it is written is POV pushing. Your "used uncivil language in the talk page and made threats" report at Admin:Edit warring should be a cause for self-reflection. If several people are undoing your edits, it's your edits that are the issue.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and present some sensible arguments on the issue. As has been suggested there should be a wording that satisfies all concerned parties. My concern is that that it be made clear what particular geographic region the Macedonia on 15th c. CoA refers to. If there aren't any sources to clarify that then this should be reflected in the text. I am open to hearing alternative proposals for wording the passage. --Anothroskon (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question is this:

The symbol of the golden lion on red ground first appeared as a symbol of a region described as Macedonia, though it is unknown how much this corresponded to the modern geographic region of the same name

It would help the debate move forward if alternative wordings that address the main concern could be supplied by interested parties. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no and no. That is not the right sentence for this article. Ending. Today the lion is a symbol of all ethnic Macedonians and where the Macedonians live? Republic of Macedonia. Is Republic of Macedonia part of the region Macedonia/Македонија. Yes it is. Of course it corresponded. If you find source that this CoA not respond to today's region, you can changed it. And stop with accusing, because you are about to be blocked... 3RR. Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

This is a very unhelpful attitude. The crux of your attempt at an argument is this "Of course it corresponded". Well how do you know? You have no sources to that effect and trying to shift the burden of proof won't work as it is the party making the claim that must supply the material backing it up.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O My Jesus. You are POV pushing. Understand? Can you see that nobody is behind your back. You are doing this alone, and of course you are not right. I explained to you. This is symbol to Macedonians who lived and live in the region of Macedonia and is normally that corresponds to today's region. I think that you dude should calm down a little. It's not good ... Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Sorry, but I cannot agree. The symbol was just a post-medieval attempt to represent a coat of arms of a former Byzantine/Roman province, which by the way changed its boundaries quite many times. It had nothing to do with any modern ethnic group. If the modern ethnic group recognizes it as theirs it does not automatically mean it was designed for them. A thought like this is quite ridiculous and I do think that there should be a proper explanation along what Anothroskon suggests. --Laveol ^T 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong Laveol. I just saw this comment and the lion has nothing to do with Byzantine Empire or Rome since they had eagles as symbols. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Sorry for the laugh, but you do realise you just answered a comment from an year ago, don't you? And, please, read it again, it's getting ridiculous. I've wrote "a coat of arms of a theme", not a coat of arms of an empire. What you wrote is like saying: Well, Skopje has no Sun on its coat of arms, therefore it is not in the Republic of Macedonia". --Laveol ^T 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine symbols? Look the years from when the symbols date. At that tame the Byzantine Empire was fallen and the Ottomans ruled over the Balkans. This symbols have nothing to do with the Byzantines. And of course I know what do you want to say. That this symbol were Bulgarian. But not my opinion at all. Let see what other users think about it. Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Seriously, did you try reading my comment? Where did I say it was Byzantine? Try reading it again. And assume good faith. I have not said what I have not said and I have not suggested what I actually did not suggest. --Laveol ^T 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1111tomica please try to assume good faith and be more mindful of your tone towards other editors. Your language too leaves much to be desired ("dude" etc). As far as aguments go you have yet to present any that support the assertion that the Macedonia reffered to in the CoA is the same as the modern region of the same name. In the same vein there were no ethnic-Macedonians at the time the CoA could have been a symbol of. But the second point is moot, even if there were it would still not be certain to what area the name Macedonia in the CoA refers to.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please answer here? P34ch (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry to bump this thread again, but it seems no solution has been found for this. To assume that the Lion was used to signify the Republic of Macedonia or any people related to it is simply quite a ridiculous claim, since the Macedonian nationality did not come into existance until the late 1800s. It is obvious that the Lion was used to represent an area known as Macedonia and not the Macedonia we know today. To suggest otherwise simply because the Coat of Arms says "Macedonia" underneath it is simply quite stupid to be honest. Do we even know what region that Coat of Arms corresponded to in 1300 standards? Who's to say it did not correspond to modern-day Thrace (known as Macedonia during the Byzantine Empire) and not the current Macedonia (region)? I also added a disputed accuracy template until this is resolved. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is an issue here. Macedonia has had consistent boarders since ancient times, the only exception is the Macedonia Theme in Byzantine Empire, but that only lasted until the 11th century. All the Macedonia arms shown are after that time period when Ottoman Empire has already taken control and according to Ottoman Empire divisions Salonica and Monastir represented Macedonia. For example here is a map written in 1570 by Abraham Ortelius (1527 – June 28, 1598) which clearly shows Macedonia

http://www.allposters.com.ar/-sp/1570-Map-of-Asia-Minor-Then-the-Ottoman-Empire-from-Abraham-Ortelius-Atlas-Posters_i5144065_.htm FAIRuno (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem

This is clearly an emblem, not a coat of arms. -- Director (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This article should include an infobox for the current national emblem. All national symbol articles currently have an infobox describing the symbol and relevant information. Ssolbergj appears to feel that since infoboxes inherently use the term "escutcheon", a term reserved for heraldic coats of arms, that it is improper for countries with non-heraldic symbols to use an infobox. There are currently no rules about this, but I believe it is harmful to be inconsistent and makes sense that all articles are uniform in using an infobox. It provides important information such as the argimer, the date of adoption, and relevant features of the symbol's design, and infoboxes are currently used on all articles including countries with non-heraldic works such as North Korea and Rwanda and Paraguay. Thoughts? Fry1989 ^eh? 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National emblem of the Republic of Macedonia. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close: moved by APG1984(closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National emblem of the Republic of Macedonia → National emblem of North Macedonia – New name of the state. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support movement of all former "Republic of Macedonia" pages to "North Macedonia" equivalents, as formal name change has now been implemented. Smith(talk)

Sorry guys i moved it. I had not seen this. But is it needed to wait now that we reached consensus and changed the main article? --APG1984 (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

North Macedonia passport.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]