Talk:Coat of arms of Ghana

Can we get an actual blazon for this rather than a vague "description"? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not correct
The picture of the Ghanaian Coat-of-Arms is not the correct one. You may find a picture of the Ghanaian Coat-of-Arms up on the Ghanaian Government's website. = (203.211.75.96 (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

The version on the government's website is protected by copyright law. The version on Wikipedia is a public domain image, and free to use. They are both correct, as hey depict the same coat of arms, just in a different style. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC
There's some dispute brewing here (and at Ghana) about which drawing of the coat of arms to use. The two alternatives are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Ghana&action=edit&section=2 Both were done by Alexander Liptak, User:Xanderliptak.

For comparison: the COA as shown on the website of the government of Ghana.

See also the discussion here.

Which graphics should be used here and at Ghana? Your input would be appreciated. Thank you, Lupo 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the depicted coat of arm is intended to represent the official coat of arms, it needs to be an exact rendition. I do not know whether there can be a source more reliable that the government of Ghana's website, as per WP:VERIFY perhaps a textbook, but in any case, the official coat of arm needs to be just that. Thus neither coat would pass muster. However, if the represented pictures are pre-qualified as an artist's rendition, either coat could be used. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... an exact rendition that would be the same as the one at Ghana government site cannot be used; that would violate the copyright of the artist who drew that version. (Some background on that can be found at Copyright on emblems.) But a version that was created from the same textual description can be done. Both variants above fulfill that criterion. File:Coat of arms of Ghana.svg strives to come close to the official rendition, while still not copying it exactly. File:Alexander Liptak—Coat of arms of Ghana 1957.png is a more free interpretation. It still gets the details right (eagles, shield), but is in a completely different style than the "official rendition". It also is based on some heraldic specification (see the page itself) of unknown provenance. The official textual description, which is not a heraldic specification&mdash;i.e., not a blazon) says the motto was at the bottom; the blazon added to the page doesn't specify the motto's position. Also, File:Alexander Liptak—Coat of arms of Ghana 1957.png is signed within the graphics itself. Lupo 06:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image to the right is presented in a more traditional heraldic manner. As far as heraldry and coats of arms are concerned, they are both accurate, just completely different styles. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I wrote? IMO, the second image has three problems:
 * the blazon you say it's based on is unsourced. Where does it come from? That's important, because that blazon omits information available in the official textual description from the government of Ghana, which says the motto banner was at the bottom. Which leads to the second problem:
 * the motto banner is at the top, whereas the government of Ghana says it was at the bottom. Finally,
 * the second image is signed within the graphics, and moreover this signature is done in a way that might lead the naive viewer to believe that this strange plaque on the lawn was part of the COA.
 * Lupo 09:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that the second image is not currently usable under Image use policy, as the uploader artist has placed his name within the image. The policy section on "Watermarks, credits and distortions" indicates that "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition." This is not an "historic image when the credit forms an integral part of the composition", as the artist can easily remove it if he chooses. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ensuing discussion about credits and such is not quite so clear as you make it seem here, some have proposed it as a guideline but nothing absolute (and many examples were shown were articles do indeed make use of signed and watermarked work despite this vague policy). Anyways, a smaller version is available where the signature can not be made out. Is it in violation of the policy if you can't tell it is a signature? Could not the community decide to ignore the policy since it is vague and only policy, not law or rule? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, what I have quoted above is policy. Policies and guidelines notes "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow." Consensus says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right,  participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Accordingly, in this discussion, it really can't be decided to not apply policy, unless there is some good reason that doing so is to the benefit of Wikipedia. This seems unlikely, given that a few moments in photoshop eliminates the problem. If consensus is established to change policy, then this issue is elimianted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the policy you state has different outcomes based on the editor reading the policy. One editor thought the image policy was a guideline, more of a suggestion to use images without signatures, watermarks or credits. The discussion there has lead to something like four or five different opinions on what the policy states. That shows no 'wide-scale consensus' on the policy. What you cited may be policy, but your conclusion is your opinion on the policy; more of what you think it meant than what it really says. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I quoted what it says verbatim. I don't know who told you it was a guideline; it is clearly marked "policy" at the top. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy states images on Wikipedia "should not be watermarked", but it does not state that images on Wikipedia can not have a watermark. That, as User:VernoWhitney pointed out, sounds like the policy is to suggest that images not be marked, but not require they not be marked. Then User:Masem pointed to the watermark article to better clarify what is meant by "watermark" in the image policy, which states that a "watermark is a recognizable image or pattern in paper that appears as various shades of lightness/darkness", which is distinctly different from a signature. And signatures are not covered in the policy. Your opinion is that watermark means signature, despite the article and definition of watermark not collaborating that opinion. What you are citing to deny use of an image is what you personally and singularly have taken the policy to mean, even when the policy does not specifically state what you say. You are going with, "what the policy meant to say was..." It would be beneficial if the policy was clarified and expanded to include a section on signatures, both in the hand of the artist and digital. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explicitly quoted the policy. You are omitting quite a bit of the policy that I quoted above. It does not stop with the word "watermark" and does not apply only to watermarks. WP:WATERMARK is fully titled "Watermarks, credits, and distortions", and it specifically refers to "credits in the image itself." It also explains when images may have watermarks and credits: "Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My signature is not a distortion, it is quite original to the work. And what is meant by credit? Like the credits at the end of a movie? Or how some photos list the author and copyright information on them? That makes credits different from a signature as well. Again, the terms are to vague and not specific enough, and no where does the policy cover signatures, which is odd given that is the oldest and most common way art is found marked. And since the signature is original and built into the grassy compartment, would it not qualify under the exemption of being integral part of the composition? We can not just crop out the signature and leave a white block in the middle of the image. Sure, we could photoedit it out, but distorted images are not allowed, remember? See the issue with the policy? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your signature is "credit". Your image is not historical. There is no provision for it under current policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that when the policy says credit it means signature. A watermark is credit as well, but the policy singles that out, so why avoid the 'signature' when it is more widely known and used than watermarks? You also avoided the issues with the policy that prevent distortions of photoediting out the signature, that prevent the signature form being cropped out because it is not in the extreme margin and would remove some integral parts of the painting and therefore can be exempted and used under the same policy that you claim simultaneously restricts its use. Again, for these reason, the policy needs to be clarified. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, you have the option of trying to sway consensus at the policy. I believe that you are seeing complications there where there are none, as I doubt anyone would interpret the inclusion of your name in Ghana's coat of arms as anything other than "credit." If removing your names is viewed as distortion, we do have the option of simply not using the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I take "credit" to mean, see this image. However, that image appears in the Mount Rushmore article without issue. I would think more people find it natural that paintings include a signature, and such paintings with signatures appear all over Wikipedia without issue. Most signatures are in the margin and could easily be cropped out, but no one bothers. Signatures simply are always on artwork, you can't get around that. Yes, I use my first and last name, and you could argue that while it is a signature it is also credit. However, not all signatures use first and last names, and some use more abstract symbols, unique marks, techniques and so forth that are a "signature" but do not express credit. So to say that 'credit' and 'signature' are one and the same is a fallacy. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that if the community supports your contention that including your name in the coat of arms of Ghana is not "credit", they will make that consensus known. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The issues have been about heraldic accuracy, or the lack of knowledge of heraldry. Only when someone points out that there is a policy against watermarks and credits on images do the opposing editors suddenly become champions of that policy. Even if it is the first time they have ever heard or or applied that policy. I am sure anyone opposed to the image will take up the "no watermark" policy soon enough, as there is no other policy that could be applied against its use, everything else sounding like an argument of IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the fact is that it is policy. I do not myself have any opinion about the merits of the image in comparison to the other and had suggested to you at the ANI conversation that you could eliminate this concern by simply removing the name. If you do, then the credit in the image will no longer be a concern. Neither is distortion; for one thing, I doubt anybody would regard the removal of a name that you say is too small to be seen and hence not an issue as distortion...but if you remove it, the odds of anybody labeling it distortion seem non-existent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See, this partially why I have issue with the policy. You say that without exception the vague policy must be applied, even if the specific concern here is not directly discussed by that policy. But even though the policy specifically states no distorted images are allowed for use, you say it could be okay and overlooked if the image is distorted this time. Both of these issue come from the same policy, the same sentence even, so why can one part be ignored but another applied stricter than is literally stated? If no watermarks means no signatures, then surely no distortions mean no distortions, at least the latter directly is covered by the policy. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  00:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think anybody else would define that as "distortion". I imagine most people would define it as "modification", which is explicitly permitted by the license. But even if somebody else agreed that removing the credit by somebody else was distortion, there could be no complaints about your doing so, because it's your image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But you yourself said that even if a few editors are okay with something, it can not override a policy that was adopted with broad Wikipedia support. It doesn't matter if you, a few others here and even I do not mind if I distort or modify the image, it is against the broader policy. You also said that I could not ignore the watermark and credit portion of the policy, so likewise you can not ignore the distortion portion of the policy. Either policies exist to be applied evenly, or they can be ignored at will. They can not be applied where you like (an on credits and signatures) them and ignored when you want to (ban on distortion). If that were the case, I could ignore the signature ban and be done with this tangent. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, distortion is against broader policy; modification is not. According to the Art Dictionary, "Distortion presupposes a norm or order from which to depart and in representation it must have a recognisable reference to the norm which is distorted for example a distorted circle." There is no "recognisable reference to the norm" in your name on a rock on a field of grass in heraldry. It is easily within your power to remove the name from this image that you created specifically for Wikipedia and would by no reasonable definition "distort" the image for you to do so, but you choose not to do so. In any event, it seems pretty clear that further discussion here is pointless. If there is consensus of the community that your name emblazoned on a picture does not constitute "credit" or if policy is altered to allow you to post self-made images with your name on them, then this particular facet of the conversation goes away. If you remove the name, then this particular facet of the conversation goes away. Failing either of these, I have no no more to talk about with you here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The dictionary you cite has nothing on modification, so modification is distortion, the difference is semantic. You insist credit and signature is the same thing, semantically, but that modification and distortion are not, semantically. You are picking and choosing when and where to apply harsh standards, saying that the policy does not need to state "signature" because "credit" is practically the same thing, but that "modification" is fine because the policy does not use that word. This is not the application of a policy, this is personally deciding what parts of a policy you agree with and applying them with the battle cry of 'it's close-enough', but refusing to employ other aspects of the policy because "technically, it doesn't say that". If I can modify because technically it says only distortion is allowed, then technically it does not say signatures are out, so the image is fine. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem with this whole issue isn't even the watermark with the creator's name(since removed, but what most of this discussion seems to have moved towards), but which arms is more correct in reflecting how the Arms are displayed by the Government of GHana. Liptak is using all heraldric loopholes he has(I find many heraldrists do this, saying "you don't understand heraldry, there can be many interpretations"), to get his version used. Yes, I'm not an expert in heraldry, so I'm not gonna comment on whether or not different interpretations can be made. What I'm saying is, when we know what the Arms look like as the Government uses them, aren't we obliged to use a version(when possible) that reflects that? Liptaks arms simply do not. The colours, the lawn, the placement of the banner and motto, all of them are different from the Government-used version. Why we're even having this arguement is beyond me, as for me it's a very simple matter. The only reason this matter has even come up to discusion is because Liptak simply refuses to let go, and is forcing his version upon us and all-language wikipedias. Fry1989 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if several heraldic artists and heraldists tell you something, and you admit that you are not well versed in heraldry, you should listen to those more knowledgeable in the field. You don't go to your physician when you are ill to ask his opinion, then respond by saying, "I'm no doctor or medical expert, and I am not basing this off of anything, but I don't think you are right". You don't know what the coat of arms looks like, you only know what the most recent painting of the arms looks like. There was at least one other painting of the arms, which is different from the current one used, and there could have been many more employed in less visible places. I do not understand your mistrust of people, is there any reason for it? Are you simply not a trusting person? Anyways, the current version used must be assumed to be copyrighted unless otherwise noted, and merely copying it as it is would be a violation of copyright still. If I write out someone else's words, I violated copyright; I can not say that since I personally rewrote the words with my own hand and pen that they are now my words. So if I make a painting that looks exactly like a copyrighted work, I violated that copyright; I can not say that because I used my own hand to repaint their work that it is now mine. The image must be different to be free for use here. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why you can't read, idk, but I clearly stated that I'm not an expert in heraldry, so your entire entering statement is a dead horse. I'll make this as clear as possible from my viewpoint. There's fantasy, and then there's reality. Heraldry is fantasy in that(according to what many heraldric artists have told me) you can make an Arms look any way you wish as long as it follows a few certain and basic heraldic rules. Reality is how the arms look as they are officially used by whatever Government holds authority over them. Your arms are fantasy, because they do not reflect the relity of the Arms as used by the Government of Ghana. As long as we have the ability to, we should use a version which is closest to the reality, and not the fantasy. The first image, whether it looks cartoonish or not, reflects the reality, without being a copyvio or other such problem. You are forcing upon us your current version which is wrong, plain and simple. You say that an image must be different to be free-use. That is true, but it doesn't have to be so different that it's grossly incorrect from the reality. We have the arms of all the countries in the world on here, and they all strive to be as close as possible without being a direct copy. Oh, and one other things, you say I don't know what they look like, but I do. The arms are used on Government websites, the Ghana Cedi banknotes, and there are even statues of them, and they all look the same, Fry1989 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer the SVG on the left, at the moment. Image credit aside, we have not yet found the official description from Ghanian law, so we don't know if it was specified by blazon or by other description.  Thus far, the best description we have seems to indicate the motto should go below.  Fry1989 also does have a point, in that despite that the rules of heraldry allow pretty wide artistic variation and in no way should the other emblazon be called "incorrect", often a particular style of a coat of arms becomes the "familiar" one.  Particularly in the case of a national coat of arms, I think we should try to follow that if we can. The location of the motto and the wide expanse of grass at the bottom seems at odds with the more usual rendition.  While I love the artwork, for the official Ghana page, we should show something closer to the style as is typically used in Ghana.  Sometimes, particular styles become customary, even if not technically in the blazon -- for example, there are many possible ways to draw the U.S. coat of arms, but at this point certain features (thirteen leaves and olives on the branch, the layout of the stars and rays in the crest) have become virtually standard even though not specified in the blazon, and it would be very inappropriate (in my mind) to use a significantly different artistic version on the official United States article, or even Great Seal article (except as a secondary illustration to demonstrate alternate versions). I have no idea how custom this style rendition is for Ghana, but most versions I've seen adhere pretty closely to it.  The artistic version actually does as well, other than the scroll and grass -- the other details seem fairly in-line with the expected stylings.  It's certainly possible for someone to take that version and make an alternate closer to the usual style. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vote
 * Support Left Image - Agree w/ Moonriddengirl that reproduced emblem w/ signature from artist is innappropriate. Additionally image on left seems to be the more faithful reproduction of the actual coat of arms. @ XANDERLIPTAK  - I respsectfully suggest that wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion.  NickCT (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Left Image - Although the image on the article page no longer matches the Liptak image on this talk page (Liptak's name has been removed), It still appears to be wrong, as the motto is at the top instead of the bottom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Left Image - I have clearly defined why we should use the file on the left. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Left Image - as closer to the original design and the rendition used by the Ghanaian government (though I would prefer it be closer yet), while the baroque image on the right showcases the artist's preferences. NebY (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms between 1964-1966
Does anyone know if the colors of the coat of arms changed from 1964-1966? The flag of Ghana had a white stripe instead of a yellow stripe from 1964-1966. Specifically, I was thinking perhaps the torse, crest (star outline) and ribbon may have been white instead of yellow at this time? ElkandAcquerne (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll ask around and see if I can get a response to this in about a week or two. Alex Essilfie (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked Hubert de Vries’ website which does not document this coat of arms. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)