User:Imbris/Discussions1

Coats of arms of the Yugoslav Socialist Republics
Your comment is not constructive (it was reverted because it featured a weird grey-red shahovnica which could be even considered an image vandalism) because the Croatian CoA have always had a version of red and silver (which is represented by grey). The version of that image that I support has been taken from a reliable source and this version was the official version.

The title of the article is POV since Macedonia and Serbia still officialy use the CoA from the socialist era.

Imbris (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Serbia is not using that coat of arms anymore and Macedonia uses the equal blazon but it's not called socialist anymore. How are we supposed to believe you that Croatian coat of arms had grey instead of white then? You haven't provided a single source to back up your claim anyway.--Avala (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Janko Ehrlich Zdvořák confirms that the Constitution of the SR Croatia determined the usage of both white and silver because that is the historical Croatian arms. This is besides the point, both grey and white are acceptable. The main reason for the revert is the color of the iron anvil (nakovanj) which is most certainly not blue but grey. Using grey in the chequy fields of the CoA is not a mistake, but using an oversized anvil in blue and oversized five-pointed red star with a detached bordering is a big mistake.


 * a source from WIPO

And most importantly the WIPO holds the original and if someone would want to make a sVG file of the CoA of the SR Croatia that original should be used as the most appropriate form, colours may be determined somewhat differently.

For the matter of officiality of the CoA of Serbia see commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg.

In the Republic of Serbia there is no law that defined the CoA but a meere recommendation and the Law on the use of the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Serbia (original: Zakon o upotrebi grba Socijalisticke Republike Srbije (“SG SRS”, br. 6/1985.) is still in legal power (official) and a part of the legal system of Serbia.

Imbris (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Article 12 of the Constitutional Law for Implementation of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", No. 98/06.) from 2006 clearly lists that all laws that were valid before the Constitution of 2006 still are valid. -- Imbris (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But there is no latter law or regulation. In fact Serbia has de jure still the Coat of arms of the SR Serbia as its only legal CoA. The recommended one is just recommended and that recommendation did not declare the previous Law on the use of the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Serbia as not valid. The Constitution did only name the symbols but not determined the symbols at all. The Constitutional Law for Implementation of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia determined that all laws must be in conformity with the new Constitution of Serbia but that very same Constitutional Law prolonged the validity of all laws that were part of the legal system of Serbia before the Constitution as still valid. -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the Coat of arms of SR Croatia the revert that you made is based on an invalid source because the anvil was never blue, look around, FotW uses grey and also the Encyclopaedia Yugoslavica. The master orriginal is stored at WIPO and you know it very well.
 * The reverts that I made in the article concerning this topic are valid as well as yours but those reverts are based on a verifiable source such as WIPO and not just some Serbian newspaper issued encyclopaedia like that Prosvjeta stuff (which by the way you did not cite at all).
 * I will hold my reaction in further reverting the article until you answer but I very much hope that you would revert back what you did at commons regarding the CoA of SR Croatia.
 * Imbris (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to hide facts are futile. You are very well aware of the facts that recommendation is not a subconstitutional act but that only a constitutional law might be considered "subconstitutional". Also there is a rule of "subordination" in every country that has a Civil Law System. The most highest act is a Constitution (it is not a meere law since all laws must correspond to the Constitution). Then we have Constitutional Laws that are higher than a law and are considered "equall" to the Constitituon itself (but not a part of the Constitution). Then we have laws that must coresspond to the statutes (decrees, norms) of the Constitution. And the lowest of acts that are used to clarify, inforce, implement laws. The recommendation is neither of those acts.
 * See Ilustrovana Politika Broj 2501 - 23. 12. 2006. Srbija bez državnih simbola : Bože, himne, grba i zastave. Interview of prof. Milivoje Pavlović (himnologist) and Dragomir Acović (heraldist).
 * If you would be so kind to revet SR Croatia coa at commons. And if you want I would be more than happy to explain why discussions about content are to be lead at wikipedia and not at commons. Commons only stores media and is not used to determine what content is legitimate and what isn't.
 * Imbris (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. Acovic did not say anything about the symbols of SR Serbia being not official in Serbia today. Do you realize that Serbia today is a successor of the SR Serbia, all the laws of SR Serbia are still valid (until superseeded). Also Acovic stated that a proposal of the Law on symbols did not receive the majority of votes in the Cabinet (the Government of Serbia), so a Law is needed!
 * This should be inserted in the Coat of arms of Serbia article.
 * Imbris (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the Constitution of Serbia (1990-2006) no socialist republic was mentioned there. So that argument is not correct. Your interpretation of Acović is very nice but you cannot interpret his interview's poetic license. Law is needed, you stated it is not needed. And for the matter of fact every constitutional law prolonged validity of older laws and bylaws. A recommendation is the lowest possible act there can exist (in any legal system) it is not a bylaw. I cannot belive that you are still trying to justify something that cannot be defended. Laws can be marked not valid only by another law, constitutional law or the Constitution itself. This has not been the case here. The Law is still valid. -- Imbris (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The symbols of the Republic of Serbia (1990-2006) are still valid because no law superseeded them, even the infamous recommendation specified nothing about the CoA of the Republic of Serbia as used by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia in 1990. -- Imbris (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Crown on the CoA of Serbia
"Dakle, uzeta je ”neimenovana" heraldička kraljevska kruna bez srpskog istorijskog korena iako je on postojao."

translation:

"Therefore, as selected was "the unknown" heraldic royal crown without the Serbian Historic root even if that existed."

Source: Ljubomir Stevović wrote Srpski grb i himna u XX veku? in: Drama - časopis Udruženja dramskih pisaca Srbije, No. broj 1 / jesen (fall) - 2002., published by: Udruženje dramskih pisaca Srbije, Kulturno prosvetna zajednica Beograda & Pozorište "Moderna garaža" Beograd.

Conclusion:

So Obrenovitch did not have a crown! They had a CoA with an open heraldic crown of unknown origin.

Imbris (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What conspiracy theory do you speak of? -- Imbris (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is your source for claims that the text is conspiracy. That crown is not the crown of Obrenović because never was any Obrenović crowned. The only king since Nemanjić dinasty that was crowned is Petar I. -- Imbris (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything against Obrenović being kings. Why do you refer to something I have not said nor written. That crown on the Serbian CoA (not the CoA of the Republic of Serbia yet) is not the crown of Obrenović. -- Imbris (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything is written in the quoted source:
 * Heraldički običaji u Srba, u primeni i književnosti, (Godišnjica Čupića IV, str. 1-140, 1884; preštampano u: Istorija i tradicija, SKZ Beograd, 1982., str. 293-434)
 * "Po heraldičkom ukusu našeg vremena, a iz osnova koje se dokazuju autentičnim spomenicima, izrađeni su svi sastavni delovi novoga grba. Iz stare kraljevske krune, koja je sačuvana na tolikim novcima, izvedena je svedena kruna po formi sadašnjih kraljevskih kruna. Po starim autentičnim oblicima dvoglavoga orla uzet je na novi grb dvoglavi orao u poletu, i spram našeg vremena uzeto je naturalistič ko heraldičko crtanje..."


 * Zakon o grbu Kraljevine Srbije je bio usvojen 20. juna 1882. i prešlo se na izradu grba (Zbornik zakona i uredaba, XXXVII, 132 1882). Stojan Novaković i bečki poslanik Filip Hristić su taj posao, ne zna se na čiju preporuku, poverili dvadesettrogodišnjem Ernstu Kralu, studentu Umetničke zanatske škole u Beču, koji je kasnije postao slavni k. k. dvorski slikar grbova. Od Krala su naručena “dva originala, jedan crnim, šrafiran po heraldičkim pravilima u dve trećine formata priložene skice, i jedan u potpunim bojama na pergamentu” i da posle napravi 1000 crnobelih kopija (Arhiv Srbije; MID, Novaković Hristiću 20. jula 1882.). Tako je nastao naš čuveni Kraljevinski grb.
 * Imbris (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to offend me will not work. You are the one who insist on replying certain questions that are not subject of this discussion. I have answered all of your questions. Why do you keep insisting on this tactic (asking questions instead of answering). Yes it was the CoA of the Kingdom of Serbia while the Obrenović Royal Dinasty ruled over the Kingdom, but the Crown was not the Crown of the Kingdom of Serbia (did not exist in that form) nor it was a Royal Crown of the House of Obrenović (haven't had a crown at all). This is the point and not some "conspiracy" you keep insisting on. -- Imbris (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)