Talk:Coat of arms of the Holy See/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Papal heraldry

If there is a concern about an author for RS. Please state here, but from most sources I am reading these statements are accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between Holy See and Vatican City State

The Vatican State and Holy See both share the same Internet country code (.va), and the same Press Office (the press office of the Vatican State is the press office of the Holy See). That is why the Holy See Press Office released information concerning the flag, coat of arms and seal of the Vatican State. Bellae artes (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, look at the Vatican's website here. It has the title of "Holy See/State of Vatican City/General Information", then links to the article by the Holy See PRess Office. It would seem the the Vatican thinks they are one and the same (after all, the pope is in charge of both and both have the Vatican as their seat), and therefore the same coat of arms. Bellae artes (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And Article 4.2 of the Vatican's legge fondamentale mentions a commission needing experts from both the state and see because the laws of the Vatican State affect both the Vatican State and Holy See. If they were not one and the same, this would not be a concern. "Per l’elaborazione dei progetti di legge, la Commissione si avvale della collaborazione dei Consiglieri dello Stato, di altri esperti nonché degli Organismi della Santa Sede e dello Stato che possano esserne interessati." Bellae artes (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The domain of the Holy See's website is registered in Vatican City State (country code: va). The Holy See is not a country and has no country code. Your idea that Vatican City State is the same as the Holy See is quite mistaken. Article 4.2 of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State says that, in drawing up legislation for the state, the state's legislature uses assistance from Holy See bodies that may be concerned by the laws of the state (on whose territory they are based). It does not say that Vatican City State makes laws for the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would the State take such care to consult the Holy See on laws if they were seperate? The State portion and religious portion go hand in hand because they are one and the same coin, just different sides. Bellae artes (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you possibly imagine that a country's government never consults labour and professional organizations and other bodies present in their territory when drafting a law? Of course, the legislature of Vatican City State likewise consults, not the Holy See as such, but Holy See bodies ("Organismi della Santa Sede") that can be involved ("che possano esserne interessati").

Are we still on the basic question of whether the Vatican City State and the Holy See are one and the same? They're not. One is a nation and the other is the head of the Church.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Holy See is no the head of the Church. The Vatican State's head of state and government is chosen by the Church, the Holy See conducts diplomatic affairs on behalf of the Vatican State (which conducts no diplomatic efforts whatsoever). The Holy See often often adds and the State of Vatican City whenever it describes itself or gives infomration. So where exactly do you see a clear distinction between the two? Bellae artes (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Leave quibbling aside. There are many reliable sources that say the Holy See is a distinct entity from Vatican City State. Take The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, page 886. What reliable source says they are not distinct? Reliable sources, not editors' opinions and arguments, are what counts in Wikipedia with regard both to the distinction between the Holy See and Vatican City State and to their respective coats of arms. Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Distinct, yes, but the same. One is a purely political entity as required by international law, the other is the actual functioning, but religious, portion. The heads and tails of a coin are distinct from one another, but they still make up the one coin. So it is perfectly reasonable that the two share a unified coat of arms. Bellae artes (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I could give you examples of different entities that have the same head but are not one, even in the case of states; but the important thing is not to argue, as you are doing, but to cite a reliable source for what you want to put in Wikipedia. Smile, you are on Wikipedia! Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bellae artes, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If you can demonstrate these distinctions and that your claim that they are still the same etc. Then we can include the information, but that does not exclude other counter information that is of equal of higher validity.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

External links section

With regard to the "External links" section, Bellae artes has a personal interpretation of WP:EL according to which a link should be given to the English translation alone of the documentation of the Holy See Press Office, without giving also a link to the Italian text of the same documentation which contradicts the account in English (and on which Flanker bases his interpretation). His deletion of links is manifestly an ad-hoc POV selection.

As a pretext for deleting external links, Bellae artes declares that links given in the references section should not be repeated in the "External links" section. In that case, he should remove the link to the English version of the Press Office's documentation, given doubly in the references section. Esoglou (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is used as a reference it does not go in external links. It gives undue weight to the site.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then only one external link qualifies, as not used as a reference, unless you count the French and Spanish versions of the Holy See Press Office documentation, but these are scarcely worth giving on their own. I am adjusting the "external links" section accordingly. Will Bellae artes accept? Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Links to the official site are to be included, and in English when available. Everything else is found throughthe reference section. Per the guidelines, WP:EL. Bellae artes (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So you agree to the reduction of the list to the one link that is not given under References. There is no longer any dispute. Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. That isn't anywhere near what I said. Bellae artes (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, quote the words of the source on which you base your claim. Esoglou (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You already asked for that. I already provided it. You can look in the history. You provide a source that says English sources aren't preferred, and a source that says multiple links tot he same information in various languages is needed on the English Wikipedia and a source that says pages linked in references need additional linking in the EL section. Bellae artes (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So you can quote no WP:EL rule that official statements already cited in the body of the article must also be given under "External links"? And in the imaginary world in which you find that rule, is it forbidden to give under "External links" official statements contradicting one in English? Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have trouble understanding what is said to you? I already provided it. To see it, look up a couple paragraphs or at the edit history. You won't strain yourself, go ahead and click the scroll bar at the right of the screen and tug atit a bit. It really is quite effortless. And there are no "contradictory statements", the Italian press release is the only one out of all the languages to have a slightly different title (the addition of the word 'emblem', the article is the same and doesn't even mention the 'emblem' in that article anyways). The Italian version is linked in sources. External links on the Enlgish Wikipedia should be in English if avaailable because, ya know, that's what language is used here and that's what language would be understood by the users here. And stop attributing things to me that I did not say; you say things as if you were quoting them from me, things i never wrote. It is annoying and frustrating. Bellae artes (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have appreciated an actual quotation of the rules that are supposed to say that: a) an official statement already cited in the body of the article must also be given under "External links"; and b) no link to an equally official statement that contradicts one in English may be given. At least you have now admitted that that two "official" documents differ: one has a subheading "Coat of arms of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City" while the corresponding subheading in the other is "Emblem of the Holy See and coat of arms of Vatican City State". They differ. You cannot simply dismiss one and selectively cite the other as grounds for arguing (Wikipedia in any case has the rule, which I reference and quote: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" such as yourself) that the arms of the Holy See are identical with those of Vatican City State. OK?

You must surely now be aware that there are good secondary sources that say the coat of arms of the Holy See has the gold key in bend. Citing these secondary sources is admitted in Wikipedia, while a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of a primary source (unless referenced to a secondary source) is not admitted. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy See and Vatican City share arms

The website of the Holy See uses the same colours as the Vatican City, see the image here. It shows the key bendwise as argent (white) and the one bendwise sinister as Or (middle-tone). A dark-tone is used for the cord. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also see the the icon for the Holy See's Widjet account in the lower right corner here. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we must follow what the cited reliable sources explicitly say, not insert our own interpretations, such as saying that an image inserted in a gallery of photographs of places in Vatican City is an official declaration of what is the Holy See's coat of arms as distinct from that of Vatican City. Esoglou (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking above, it seems the "cited reliable resources" you mention are not that reliable, because there are resources that say the opposite. The Vatican says the arms are one and the same in English, but may (again, only may and not definitvely) say they could be different. Then you have heraldists giving their own opinion, and random works of art. All in all, it comes down to what the Holy See uses. You can find a source that says the arms of the Vatican is this or that, but in the end, if the Holy See does not use it, then how reliable could that source have been in the first place? 50.82.40.97 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting unsourced changes into Wikipedia, especially when they have been questioned, is a form of vandalism that, if persisted in, may get an editor blocked. It would be normal for pictures of Vatican City to bear the Vatican City coat of arms, so what makes you think that the coat of arms attached to them is instead the coat of arms of the Holy See? And an image of an emblem (not a coat of arms) that a technician happened to attach to a widget is not an official declaration by the Holy See. What are the reliable sources that, you claim, say the opposite of what the cited reliable sources say? If, when you say "the Vatican [do you mean the Holy See or do you mean Vatican City State?] says the arms are one and the same in English", you are referring to a handout of the Press Office, please consider that that handout was not only contradicted by the handouts of the same office in other languages but even contradicted itself: the illustration it gave is that of the coat of arms of Vatican City State (as in the Fundamental Law of the state, with the cord coloured red (gules) and interlacing the two keys at the intersection) but the blazon it gave is that of the different coat of arms of the Holy See, with the cord coloured gold (or) and interlacing the keys in the rings. So find an explicit declaration of the Holy See (not a synthesis of your own coining) that says its coat of arms is the same as that of Vatican City State and cite it. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican says these are the "coat of arms" of the Holy See and Vatican City:

File:Emblem of the Vatican City (2).svg

It then goes on to describe the blazon as having a gold cord. However, both images show a red cord. The law directs one to view the attachment and does not actually provide a blazon so it must be assumed the image showing a red cord is actually correct, for that is law afterall, and that the description of a gold cord is simply an oversight. How do you find the gold cord is the coat of arms of the Holy See from that though? Original research is not allowed, the gold cord image is not provided in the law and the release does not state that such a change determines the arms of the Holy See. The releases also fail to mention the reversal of tinctures for the keys as being the arms of the Holy See. Nor do the other language press releases offer this notion. You are simply making that up. Look at them. Even if you went with the idea that the Italian release strictly dictates a coat of arms only for the state an an emblem only for the Holy See, two seperate insignia for two seperate entities which can not be interchanged, then the keys are still the same colours in the same positions. Go ahead, take another look up there, the gold keys are both in the same position. The silver are also in the same postion. See that? So you are suggesting the state shose to reverse the keys to differentiate from the pope, and that the Holy See chose to reverse the tinctures to differentiate it from the state, thus confusing it for the papal emblems. Except the emblems, which are the reverse of the arms which are already reversed for themselves? You are the one doing original research, you are going to great acrobatics to make this fit your preconcieved notions. The release shows them to be one and the same, and the Holy See and Vatican State both use the same coloured arms on their websites and other media accounts. You want to ignore what the Vatican says and uses for something you are making up piecing together tidbits you find and interpret your own way? No. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

1. What you ambiguously call "the Vatican" does not state that the coat of arms of the Holy See is identical with that of Vatican City State. Whoever made the English translation of the press release put the heading "Coat of arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" (which was not in the Italian text or in the translations made into other languages) above pictures of an emblem and a coat of arms. That person was not authorized to make a declaration (if you think you can call that heading a declaration) on behalf of the Holy See contradicting what is given in other languages. The Italian text too and the other translations made from it do not state that the two coats of arms are identical.
2. The coat of arms illustrated in the press release (in all languages including English) is that of Vatican City State, exactly as illustrated in the law about the matter, which is a law of Vatican City State laying down rules for Vatican City State, not laying down rules for the Holy See, as you mistakenly seem to imagine.
3. The English translator made another personal change from what is in the Italian text of the press release and in the other translations made from the Italian: he or she added a blazon that does not correspond to the Vatican City coat of arms. Did she or he take that blazon from some description of the Holy See's coat of arms?
4. It is obvious that, on its own, the English translator's text, which disagrees with that in other languages, is not a reliable source. Authoritative secondary sources indicate that in the coat of arms of the Holy See (whatever about the "emblem", of which they say nothing) the gold key is in bend. No reliable source whatever contradicts what they say about the coat of arms of the Holy See.
5. The source to which you are appealing is a primary source and you are imposing on it your personal interpretation, your own original analysis. You are ignoring the Wikipedia rule that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. ... All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Esoglou (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also; any 'emblem' that does not feature a shield is by definition not a Coat of Arms.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not true to say that the Italian press release contradicted the English one. The texts of both match up when translated, and the images found in them were exactly the same; the only difference was in the title of the English press release, the other languages made use of the word emblem, but this did not change the information therein. If the Vatican says "this is the coat of arms of the Vatican and Holy See", then it is so. There is nothing being interpreted, it is stated as fact and thus does not need a citation from a secondary source because, as was pointed out by Esoglou, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources" since there are no reliable secondary sources that do not cite Wikipedia as there source of information. Wikipedia can't, after all, cite a website that in turn cites Wikipedia for the information it hosts. Anyways, the Vatican website has been updated and now shows only a monotone emblem (emblema, not a coat of arms or stemma)for the Holy See, which was filed with the World Organization for Intellectual Property by the Vatican itself. The Holy See apparently is not concerned with having a coat of arms or specific colours for its emblem and it should be updated to show this fact. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That website thus no longer causes problems. It no longer even appears to contradict the information given in other sources cited in the article. Original-research deductions from what is on the website, as distinct from reports of what the website actually states, cannot be placed in the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Idiosyncracies

This article is about coats of arms, not directly about emblems.

A website of an office of the Holy See that does not indicate a coat of arms of the Holy See is no proof that the Holy See has no coat of arms. To state that a coat of arms of the Holy See exists or does not exist, Wikipedia requires a statement to that effect by a reliable source. There are reliable sources that state that the Holy See does have a coat of arms and indicate what it is. No reliable source states that the Holy See has no coat of arms.

An editor has claimed: "Papal emblems such as the three-tiered cross, keys, tiara and umbraculum are known to have even earlier origins dating to the late thirteenth century." That requires citation of a reliable source. The "three-tiered cross" is considered by some sources to be relative modern. See this source. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The information about the coat of arms was not removed, however, since the Holy See seems to only use an emblem and not a coat of arms currently it should be updated to include the modern information. The one book you consistently rely on is almost a century old. Things change over time, and an encyclopedia should also inform people of things that have happened after 1930. The emblem is what is currently used, the emblem should appear. User16052013 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Seems" is not enough for editing Wikipedia. See WP:OR and WP:RS. Count the cited sources that speak of and describe the coat of arms of the Holy See: Galbreath, Pastoureau, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, Goodall, the Heraldry Society, Heim, Flags of the World. That's a bit more than one. You cannot cite even one single source that says there is no coat of arms of the Holy See. If you find one, then and only then will be the time for you to edit the article in line with that reliable source.

If you wish, you may start a distinct article on the emblem of the Holy See, but this article is about the coat of arms. Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your claims are dubious and misleading:

(1) Flags of the World is a forum, and can not be used as a source.

(2) The Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali would be a good source, but you don't actually link to an article.

(3) Archbishop Heim wrote an opinion that there should be a difference between the arms of the Holy See and Vatican State. Examples show that the arms of both entities were drawn without concern for the placement of the gold and silver keys.

(4) The Heraldry Society actually states the arms, drawn by Archbishop Heim nonetheless, of the Papacy and of the Vatican State are with the gold key in bend and the silver in bend sinister, when this article states the silver is in bend and the gold in bend sinister. See here.

(5) Galbreath is a good source, and his book states that the keys are both silver, then found gold, then found gold and silver with examples of the gold key in bend or in bend sinister. He gives evidence that the keys have a long history of being fluid in their depictions.

(6) The Vatican has only issued information about the Holy See having an emblem currently, see here.

(7) The Vatican hasn't issued any information of late that would suggest the Holy See still uses a coat of arms. When I say seems, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that the Holy See still has arms and haven't removed that information.

(8) You can not seem to find a contemporary source that says the Holy See still has arms, and rely on information published as far back as a century ago.

(9) You constantly ignore the most recent publication issued by the Vatican itself from September of 2013. This article is not about what the arms were in 1930, it's about the entire history. That includes 2013.

User16052013 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your idea that the Flags of the World site was a forum or wiki was once mine, but I was proved wrong. See the archives and read what Palnatoke said on 10 August 2012, showing that it is reckoned a reliable source for Wikipedia. And it isn't the only source. The essential thing is that there is no source whatever that says the Holy See has no coat of arms, and there are many that say there is such a thing.

This article is about the coat of arms of the Holy See, not about the symbol/emblem that, every agrees, it (also) has. The documentation of the Holy See Press Office on the official website of the Holy See gives an emblem of the Holy See, but, in spite of your insistence to the contrary, it does not say the Holy See has no coat of arms.

Perhaps an example will make this even more clear. The harp, as an emblem of Ireland, is on the reverse of Irish coins, both euro and pre-euro (see images here). In various colours the emblem appears on government documents and letters and on Irish passports. None of these deny that there is a coat of arms of Ireland. There is a coat of arms of Ireland, blazoned azure a harp or, stringed argent.

So you still have found not even one single reliable source that denies the existence of a coat of arms of the Holy See.

And why have you deleted information based on reliable sources? What could be more reliable for the coat of arms of arms of Vatican City State than the picture of it in its Fundamental Law? So why did you delete the information about that? Why did you delete the information on the crossed keys and tiara appearing as a coat of arms in the 14th century? Why did you ignore here on the talk page Galbreath's statement that the position of the gold key in bend and the silver one in bend sinister became established and practically made him say the opposite? Goodall says the same, but you present him practically as saying the opposite: don't you understand that "the practice of placing a gold key in bend over another in bend sinister of silver is not found with any certainty before the time of Pius II (1458-64)" means that this had become the practice by, at latest, 1460 or thereabouts, five and a half centuries ago?

Your mistaken edits must once again be reverted until you have them discussed on the talk page. Discussion does not mean merely setting forth your merely personal ideas without waiting for a reply.

As well as taking out what is sourced why have you again inserted unsourced claims. Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those links are to a google search, that isn't reliable. Please find actual sources. Just becuase Google links to something does not make it reliable. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Those links are to printed books and printed official documents such as the Funbdamental Law of the Church. There is no rational reason to delete them. And there is no rational reason under Wikipedia rules for inserting claims that have no basis in any published source. Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they are links to a google search. They don't link to a book that can be open, read and verified.

The Italian Cultural Ministry link doesn't even exist, I don't know how you can think that is a source.

The other sources just use a surname, no book and publishing information. No book, no source.

Find actual sources. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean. Have you actually failed to understand that it is normal practice to refer by the surname of the author and the date of publication to books given in a bibliography or already mentioned in an article? Don't you understand that "Galbreath 1930" refers to Donald L. Galbreath: Papal Heraldry. Cambridge, 1930; Heffer and Sons, which has been mentioned a few lines above? Don't you understand that "Heim 1978" refers to Bruno Heim: Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs and Laws. Gerrards Cross: Van Duren, 1978, which has been mentioned a few lines above? Can't you understand that Appendix B ("All. B. Stemma Ufficiale dello Stato della Città del Vaticano") of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, 7 June 1929 is a reliable source? And so on. What makes you think these are not actual sources, highly reliable sources in fact? Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

All of that publication information isn't in the works cited section or in the article. It's definitely not "mentioned a few lines above", the works cited because that is a "See also" section. It doesn't matter if you know what it means, it matters that everyone knows what it means. Stop being an condescending arrogant ass, because people unfamiliar with this subject still use this website and they might not know who those people are. If you think you are so smart, then fill out a goddamn works cited like any high school student is required to do.

And it is not normal practice to refer to the surname only of an author in a works cited. The surname is used only in the actual essay, unless two or more works by the same author are used, in which case the title or surname with the title are to be used to avoid confusion. One then uses that surname to locate the publication and full information in the works cited. You just don't go around using a surname without telling people who that person is and what he wrote. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you would actrually read what I and other editors have told you, you would know the issues with the sources. Go read "a few lines up" because you "failed to understand" what people have told you. Is English a third or fourth language to you? 50.82.40.97 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If the use of the surname and date of publication is a problem to you, you can be accommodated by repeating the full name of the author and the book each time the book is mentioned. And if giving references in, for instance, the form Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), Volume 1, p. 9 is a problem for you, you can be accommodated by giving them in the form Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), Volume 1, p. 9 a form that you can reach simply by clicking on what you get by using the other form. Is there anything else you want changed? As you see, I am willing to accommodate you. Discussion, not deletion, is the way to obtain fixing of whatever you believe is wrong and others do not. So far, you have not explained why you deleted the account of the picture of the Vatican City State arms given in the Fundamental Law of the state. If you think it in some way inaccurate, say so and bring that also to discussion. You have looked at the picture, surely. Esoglou (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, duh, if you are going to cite a book you should put the name of the book in the references section, not just the authors surname. Hell, a full name would also be an improvement to what you put down. After all, the page number you entered is useless if we don't know what book or publication you are referencing. You're kidding that you didn't think this was a necessity? And a link to a google search doesn't count as a reference. If you are using web sources, sind the actual book and not excerpts that show up in a google search. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever I "believe is wrong and others do not"? The reason you have had to revert this page so many times is because several editors have disagreed with your version you keep protecting. They ceased making edits not because they realized you were right, but because you are unable to discuss any information that you disagree with. Looking at the past conversations, when someone has told you something you have even come to the conclusion of the exact opposite you were told. You are incapable of any meaningful discussion. 50.82.40.97 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing articles. They are for discussing not editors but edits. You consider wrong the use of surname and date and publication for citations. Others do not. But perhaps we are not obliged to follow what is considered right by the APA Style: "In-text citations consist of the surname(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication" (citation); the Harvard Style: "To cite a reference in the text of your work, insert the reference material and then immediately place the author's surname and the year of publication in brackets after it, e.g. (Dawkins 2012)" (citation); the Taylor & Francis Style: "In-text references consist of the surname of the author or authors and the year of publication of the document. Enclose the name and year in parentheses" (citation); [the ECU Referencing Style: "nsert the surname of the author and the year of publication into the text at the appropriate point" (citation); etc. But let us suppose that all those are wrong or are talking about something else. It is still surely clear that use of a style other than your personal style does not justify deleting information presented in a style that you dislike. All that needs to be done is to adjust the style of citation, not delete the information. What you have deleted must therefore be restored, although, to respond to the objections that you (alone?) think valid, the styles can be replaced by yours. Any other comments before I restore the material based on reliable sources while, as you insist, citing them in your style? Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now restored the deleted material while changing the styles to yours. I hope this is satisfactory. Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To please an editor who objects to the word "blazoned", I have replaced it with "described" in reporting the depiction of the Vatican City State arms given in its Fundamental Law. I have of course also restored the well-sourced information that was deleted without explanation, and removed the repetition of the section headed "Vatican City State arms". Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Image of Vatican City coat of arms

User:Gambo7 is changing every instance anywhere on Wikipedia of the long-standing image of the arms of Vatican City that appears here on the left to the one that appears on the right, which he claims "is the most realistic and appropriate version ... an improvement". That is Gambo7's taste in images, but not mine, nor that of User:Alessandro57, who has reminded Gambo7 of my appeal to Gambo7 to submit the matter to discussion before imposing his taste globally. To my taste, the new image is a deterioration, not an improvement. "Realistic" is not generally taken to be an appropriate term to use of a coat of arms. Here it seems to mean "non-artistic". A change of image in just of few articles may not require prior discussion, but a universal alteration throughout Wikipedia is a different matter. Esoglou (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The real coat of arms of the state is this one: Coat of arms of the Vatican City 1929.svg

It cannot be uploaded on Commons due to URAA issues. Therefore, a very realistic image has been designed, File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City (2001-2023).svg.

File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City (2001-2023).svg is a fantasy drawing inspired to the real CoA, but since we have a realistic one, it's preferred.

Regarding an emblem of a State it is not matter of taste, it's matter of being correct. Otherwise we could put the most nice and pleasant emblem wherever we like. --Gambo7 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the new image is a faihful copy of the original coat of arms as shown in the official document brought here. If there is no legal issue (and if Vatican City hasn't changed its coat of arms during the last 85 years) I think that we should adopt it. Alex2006 (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The official Coat of Arms has been designed in 1929 with the Fundamental Law; and it is in PD also, beacuse copyright is expired 70 years after the creation, as per vatican copyright laws - I can provide a link to it if needed. (Moreover, the Holy See and Vatican State forbid any kind of recreation and “redrawings” of their simbols, as stated in the same copyright law; but if the original cannot be used, we can try to use the most similar as possible).

So, there are many reasons why this current CoA should be abandoned. --Gambo7 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Gambo7, you have fallen into the common mistake of thinking that a coat of arms may be rendered in one way only. If we follow the blazon, we may render the design in any (artistic) way we choose. Perhaps even Alessandro57 has made the same mistake. Esoglou (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask what is the real difference between the two... Alex2006 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Heraldically, there is no difference whatever, since they are both representations of the same blazon. Artistically, there clearly is a difference, and the question is: Which is better? Esoglou (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that deciding according to our personal taste is a good idea here: De gustibus non est disputandum :-) . We should find some kind of objective criterium. Alex2006 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of objective criterion is needed to impose a global change throughout Wikipedia. And, when I say "throughout Wikipedia", I don't mean the English Wikipedia alone. Esoglou (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In facts,this is not matter of tastes, and "usual heraldic", but it's about an offical emblem of a State, which has to be rendered in a specific and unique way, as it happens with every coats of arms of every country --Gambo7 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says so? Cited reliable sources say that artists are free to make their own presentations, faithfully displaying the blazon rather than one particular image, of an officially granted coat of arms. What source says it is forbidden to do so with the arms of Vatican City State? Have you noticed that the "official emblem" on the state's "official flag" has the angle of the crossing of the keys and the proportions of the tiara different from what you claim to be the only correct ones? On these matters, the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State appears to be less exigent than you. Esoglou (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infact I noticed also the same. By the official flag the tiara appears to be of the same kind as by the present coat of arms. Maybe they had foreseen two models of tiara, one for the pope, the other for the pope emeritus? :-) Alex2006 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's good not to be overly solemn and serious here. Esoglou (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1. We are not talking about the flag. In facts the “official emblem” does not exist the way you mean, it is just a part of the flag. It is not mandatory that an emblem or a coat of arms has to be the same of a part of the flag. Many countries have emblems/coats of arms different than the flag or its parts.
2. The vatican copyright law, "Legge sulla protezione del diritto di au­tore sulle opere dell'ingegno e dei diritti connessI" (19th March 2011 n. CXXXII) says:

«Art. 5. §1. Spetta alla Santa Sede ed allo Stato della Città del Vaticano il diritto dì autore sulle opere create o pubblicate sotto il loro nome o realizzate per loro conto.

Art. 6. Indipendentemente dai diritti esclusivi di utilizzazione economica dell'opera ed anche dopo la cessione dei diritti stessi, i soggetti di cui all'Art.5 conservano il diritto di rivendicare la paternità dell'opera e di opporsi a qualsiasi deformazione, mutilazione od altra modificazione e ad ogni atto a danno dell'opera stessa.»

which can be translated as «Goes to the Holy See and the State of Vatican City the copyright of works created or published under their name or on their behalf. - Art. 6. Independently of the exclusive rights of exploitation of the work and even after the expiration of those rights, the subjects referred to in art. 5 retain the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modifications, and to any act of the detriment of the work itself.» --Gambo7 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But the point here is not about modifications or artistic presentation, as your "cited sources" mention: this is not the coat of arms of a family or an ancient institution (as it could be for the many emblems of Holy See), it's the official emblem of a State born 80 years ago. Are you basically claiming that modern States do not have a determined official emblem, but its representation is up to the artist? --Gambo7 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you need proof of the constant and monotone use of one and only emblem, as an emblem of a State, you can see:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Gambo7 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am of course not claiming that states leave it up to artists to determine the form of the national emblem that the state itself is to use. But you have shown no reason for believing that artists may not make their own representations for non-official use. Your unsourced personal interpretation of the copyright law is by no means obvious. You don't really think that parishes that put up signs or print newsletters with the flag or arms of the Vatican are breaching copyright. And you surely do not say that the depiction of the Vatican City State coat of arms on the left above is "a danno dell'opera stessa" (to the detriment of the said work). I am glad that you agree that sometimes, for instance, on a flag, alterations are allowed.

Did you fail to notice that the source about what is a common mistake was speaking not of ancient family arms but of "the painting of their arms supplied officially by the College of Arms" (emphasis added)? Esoglou (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is not about general heraldic rules/traditions, but about an emblem of a state, which is not (at least not commonly) subject to changes or different versions. Even you said that states «do not leave it up to artists to determine the form of the national emblem»,you are talking about «own representations for non-official use», but this wiki page is not meant to describe artistic representations, it's meant to show and describe the official emblem of this State. Of course there is space for some differences due to different typographic or drawing means, but it doesn't mean that a totally different and invented emblem is stll correct.

As another example, all these emblems of Italy have tiny differences, but it does not mean that any drawings with a star with a cogwheel and olive and oak branches can be called the emblem of Italy...

• 
• 
• 

And about the flag, it's not an "alteration", it's a different emble (as an example, the cord is different) and it's not supposed to be pictured alone off the flag. --Gambo7 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should "show and describe the official emblem of the state", but there can be more than one faithful presentation of the emblem of the state. For instance, you have here shown that there is more than one valid presentation of the official emblem of the Italian Republic (cf. the gallery here). Did you perhaps think I believed that a distorted presentation would be acceptable on Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, of course; but I believe that you consider this particular distorted coat of arms as acceptable, even if it's not, because the emblem is only one, not «more than one faithful presentation» (also in the gallery you linked, the emblem remains always the same in its different uses). --Gambo7 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That replacement image is not to the higher graphic standard of the one it attempts to replace. I therefore disagree and strongly oppose any attempt to replace the long standing image we have here. I also feel that if the editor is attempting to disrupt the English Wikipedia by forcing these changes onto other articles that they could well be blocked from editing. However, I also feel that if there is something specific asking to be changed on the existing image it be discussed and a consensus of editors can determine if the changes are needed. I can make the changes if needed but only if editors agree they need to be made.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if we are talking about "fidelity", quality graphic level goes in secondary place. Even the long time the image was used should not override a new available image more similar to the reality. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 07:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, one question: why the "new" seal on this talk page disappeared? Second, @Mark: here we are not talking about graphic quality, but about the shape of the seal. If we decide that the "new" seal is the right one, we can modify the old one so that it looks like the new one. Third, the fact that the image is long standing does not mean anything. If the consensus is that it is wrong, must be replaced/corrected. Alex2006 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I have said overrides the above comments. However...I don't think the image being suggested here is actually "new" I know a little about the history of this graphic, who made it and how it became what it is today. Consensus is what is important and that the community of involved editors decides the outcome. Yes...if it is a matter of a specific design flaw then we can always take the image we are using and modify it and override the current image on commons. But I suggest editors read carefully and look further before you jump on the bandwagon here.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The image disappeared because some smart people on Commons have fun with this kind of jokes. Don't worry, I have already requested undeletion.

And there is no need to override images, they are on Commons, we can upload as many different versions as we want --Gambo7 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL! There are tons of these images on commons. That is not a matter of what we use here. The fact that you are so easily able to just tell editors here that commons was just having fun is disturbing and telling at the same time.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, coming back to the matter of this discussion, according to the six pictures above, the proposed coat of arms is very similar to the one presently and consistently used in Vatican City: at least firemen, Post Office, and tourist signs are using it. I think that this is a strong point in its favor. Alex2006 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no point in discussing the merits or demerits of Gambo7's version until/unless it is undeleted. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I wanted only to write down something before totally forgetting how his version looked like. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, en:wiki accepts the upload of the national emblems, so we could also upload the original CoA and put an end to this story. --Gambo7 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear, I have no merits or demerits about the image, which has been wonderfully created by another member; I just promoted the use as official national emblem. --Gambo7 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why that image has been deleted? I saw that a couple of days ago there has been a deletion request which has been rejected, and two days ago the file has been deleted without any explanation. Alex2006 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation directly to the admin (User:Denniss) who deleted that file, the answer could help us to clarify even this discussion. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 08:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion about it on Commons. The admin Denniss and the autor of the deletion request claim that the rejected deletion request is not valid enough. Everybody said that it's obvious that the image is not a copyvio or a derivative of copyrighted images, but they still don't believe the evidence of facts. --Gambo7 (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place on Commons ?Alex2006 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎ --Gambo7 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, all the files have been restored:

• 
• 
• 

--Gambo7 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So we're back to the initial question: Is there any reason why the only image of the coat of arms of Vatican City State in Wikipedia (in all languages) should be the one in the middle?

I notice that, of the three presented, the first two have been designed by Gambo7 and are dated March 2014. The third has been in use since December 2007, undergoing modifications over the years. I see no reason to exclude any of the three designs, still less to exclude all but one. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If I could include my input, I would say if we were to use only one universally it should be the one that has been in use for much time. I believe it would be the one on the right in the three images above. As someone with a design background I think that that one is the most realistic interpretation of the real thing, and when looking at the image used on the Vatican's website etc, that one seems to be the closest. I would also not object to simply using all three.R.M. 221 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Vatican's own website shows at least two variations on the arms. The Holy See's website shows yet another. From the photos posted above, it is certainly clear that the arms are *often* rendered in a certain way; but it also seems clear that this is not the *only* way to render them, and the new version, while more consistent with the most common rendering, is not automatically more correct than the current version. Fishal (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (Responding to a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology)

So first of all, the most realistic coat of arms is the one on the left, and has been desinged based on the vatican law depicting the coat of arms. The fact that a image has been used since 2007 doesnt' mean anything... should we use something because it's older even if it was wrong? the time of use is not (in general) a valid way of choosing for appropriateness.

And remember that vatican.va is th website of the Holy See, not of the Vatican state, so it could also theoretically show wrong things, being it a different and indipendent institution.

Said that, as I also wrote many times, this is an emblem of a state, and has been graphically codified (not blazoned) by law, so it should be the most similar to the one represented in the law. The fact that the keys and tiara are so nice and realistic and "bling bling" in File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City (2001-2023).svg, does not mean that they are more appropriate as an emblem of a state, because the emblem of that state does not show realistic keys and tiara, but has simplified lines. Otherwise we could change all the state emblems with more "realistic" ones... making all of them not realistc as real emblems. That's what I think.

Here is one representation by the Holy See (not by Vatican State); here is the Fundamental Law (the only real official reference). --Gambo7 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City. 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://archive.is/20130218091006/http://www.lucisullest.it/dett_news_print.php?id=3823 to http://www.lucisullest.it/dett_news_print.php?id=3823

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)