Talk:National emblem of North Macedonia

message: 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)
thread_title:  CoA vs. Emblem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source(s) 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Bulgarian section has not a single whatever source. Yes, laughable just like Bulgarian historiography. Cukiger (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Did I use the word 'why'? No. Cukiger (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you meant it ;) --Laveol T 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Laveol? You refer to the lion or to the red star? Cukiger (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's obvious. I haven't raised any questions about the star. --Laveol T 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What are the POV concerns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. VlatkoT 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Authenticity of images 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Bulgarian source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Only one picture of a historical coa?

message: 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?
*Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia
*Commission for relations with the religious communities and religious groups
*Ministry of Health of the Republic of Macedonia
*Ministry of Education and Science of RM
*Emigration Agency of Republic of Macedonia0
*Ministry of Justice of RM (see links on the right)
*Ministry of Justice2
*Ministry of Defence of RM (see government link on the right) 
*State Election Commission of RM
*Coat of arms outside the president's office
*Conference on Macedonia's future, organised by the president
*Ekonomsko socijan sovet na RM
*Sovet za radiodifuzija
*Sovet na javni obviniteli
A slightly different version - Ministerstvoto za Ekonomija  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.200.191 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the green coat of arms and so on 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Star removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CoA 

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

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917040843/http://www.heraldika.org.mk/zemski.htm to http://heraldika.org.mk/zemski.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706131500/http://www.samostan.ba/photos/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=10 to http://www.samostan.ba/photos/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion