Talk:President of Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Presidential coat of arms

A dispute arose regarding sourcing of the presidential coat of arms (originally at User talk:Fry1989):

Hi! I just noticed that you placed coat of arms in the President of Croatia infobox. Would you please indicate source for the coat of arms, since applicable legislation makes no mention of that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is on the file, and it is the Presidential website itself (http://www.predsjednik.hr/Default.aspx?sec=576), which clearly shows the symbol used on it's own, not as part of the Standard. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's no sourcing. The file indicates that's a derivative work from the flag, and the presidential office site does not say it's a coat of arms of the president and the parliament specifies so. For example, US government uses USA.gov logo but it's not coat of arms of the government even though it is used on their website. If there's no reliable source that the graphic design is official coat of arms or official logo of the office or the president your claim is unsourced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is infact a source. The law on the Standard is very clear (http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?sec=4318), all versions of the Standard include the border. As this is not, it is being treated by the Presidential website as an independent symbol. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the website does not use the symbol, but there is no source saying the symbol is in fact an official coat of arms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's no clear source saying "this symbol is the official coat of arms of the president/office of the president" this is WP:OR and therefore the claim is not a sourced claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict. The precedent is already set. Ltihuania's Seimas (Parliament) and President both have a separate coat of arms, which are both used in an official manner by the respective organs, but we have so far been unable to find a legislation on it. It's the same case with this. The Presidential website is using it in an official manner, that makes it atleast semi-official. Further than that. you can see the Presidential coat of arms used in the seal of the President's military cabinet (File:Vojni kabinet Predsjednika Republike Hrvatske.svg). That makes two sources showing it's use separate from the Standard. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No that's military affairs logo is still no source on coat of arms. Similar logos appear on translator's notepads, binders etc. That makes it pretty clear they're logos in official use same as USA.gov logo. Please don't get me wrong. The idea that this must be the coat of arms seems logical, but lacks source. I'd like to quote this exchange on the talk page of the article if you're okay with that - for future reference. I'll certainly challenge the edit for now because it is unsourced, but if you find a source please be sure to re-install the CoA in the infobox. As a matter of fact, I'll take a look around for any such source, because I'd like to add such an information to the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a logo, it's an official seal of the President's military cabinet (see the seal, it's source links to Croatian law on Military symbols). There are two solid sources of it being used in an official matter, that is anough. Unless you have a letter from the President's Office stating it is not official in any manner. In cases like this, we only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that has been accomplished. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I copy this to the article talk page?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue appears to be whether the graphic symbol used on the presidential office website and elsewhere is a coat of arms or is it a logo and consequently whether it should be included in the article infobox as a coat of arms or not. I'm posting this here for reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms sourcing

Is a symbol (see "Presidential coat of arms" section above for details) used by presidential office website and used as part of other logos sufficient as a reliable source to back up a claim that the same is official coat of arms of the President of Croatia rather than a logo of the office of the president or something else? Tomobe03 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As editor posting the request: I think that this constitutes WP:OR because it is impossible to determine solely on the basis of appearance of the symbol whether it is coat of arms of the president or a presidential office logo or something else. Applicable legislation on symbols of the president makes no mention of the coat of arms whatsoever.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. There is legislation defining the presidential standard and the parliament's page describes applicable variants of the presidential standard. I have never seen the coat of arms used separately as a standalone symbol anywhere (and I've been to the Presidential Palace, Zagreb several times over the last few years). The only exception I can find is the president's official website but it is quite plausible that their web designer had simply invented it as a symbol separate from the presidential standard, by removing the border and blue background. It definitely isn't the logo of the Office of the President of Croatia (which can be seen in the official website in the top left corner).
• On another but closely related point, I also object to Fry1989's insertion of that coat of arms in the infobox at Coat of arms of Croatia [1]. The "versions" part of the infobox should show different versions of the coat of arms of Croatia, not every coat of arms used by officeholders which was based on the official coat of arms (even if this was one, which it isn't). Standardized black-and-white and a separate simplified version used for small fonts (all of which are described in detail in Željko Heimer's book available at any Croatian library) belong there. Timbouctou (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The objection to it's use in the versions section of the Croatian Coat of Arms' article is rather silly, considering it is the common practice here on Wikipedia English when different varieties of the national symbol (including office holder's variants). Now, is it plausible that the webpage designer for the President's site just "plucked it out" of the standard? Yes. But that would not explain it's use in the seal of the President's Military Cabinet, which has it's own sourcing as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't seriously claim that the presidential coat of arms is based on the military cabinet seal, can you? And even if you would do so, that's still WP:OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's the other way around. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fry1989: My argument is not "silly". Otherwise the Seal of the President of the United States and the Seal of the Vice President of the United States would both need to be shown in the Great Seal of the United States article. Are they? Quite simply - what you claim to be the presidential CoA is not a variant of Croatia's CoA. As for File:Vojni kabinet Predsjednika Republike Hrvatske.svg - it is listed in the narodne novine official gazette here and it is described simply as a shoulder patch worn by members of the President's military cabinet. It doesn't say anywhere that the emblem features the "presidential coat of arms". Again, a designer plucked it from the presidential standard and used it. That still does not prove anything and claiming it does is WP:OR. Timbouctou (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Presidential and VP seals of the US have their own articles, so they don't need to be there. This symbol (and many other office holder's symbols) don't have their own article, so they are put in the "versions" section. It's a rather simple concept really. And yes infact it is a version of the Croatian symbol, it is the Croatian coat of arms, just with it's bits re-aranged. As I have listed alot of proof that it wasn't just "plucked out", so I'd suggest you stop claiming that it is only the whim of a webpage designer. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to call anyone silly. Actually I could claim that the seal of the President's Military Cabinet appears to be based on the Presidential Standard... Now would it be fair to say, that there is no sourcing of the alleged coat of arms which does not include original research?--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to call you silly (but rather the objection that this coat of arms, official or not, is a "version" of the Croatian national symbol), I'm sorry you took it that way. But no, I don't think you could not claim that the Military Cabinet's seal is based on the standard, when it is missing parts (such as the border), that [2] makes clear are part of the Standard in all it's depictions. As for "original research", I really hate that term. It suggests a lack of authenticity, when sometimes it's all we have. Lithuania is an example of that as I have listed. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry - in that case your claim fails WP:SOURCE and should not be in the article. As I said before, I'd like to see such info there, but it must be properly sourced regardless of what is found in other articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Find a source if you can. I'll look it up too. In the meantime, the coat of arms has no place in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

According to [3] the coat of arms on the standard is the "historical coat of arms of Croatia", but that makes no sense, because as far as I can find, this depiction is new, only invented when Croatia became independent of Yugoslavia. All historical versions of the Croatian coat of arms are different. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

However, [4] does support that this is the "coat of arms of the president", it is sourced back to 1995. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[5] and [6] both also use it as a coat of arms separate from the standard. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[7] shows it's use within a tradidional "presidential seal" using Croatian Wattle. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And very interestingly, [8] shows the coat of arms within a glass paperweight. Sources are growing that this is an independent-use symbol. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And finally something very solid. [9] shows it used side-by-side next to the national Coat of Arms on a wall during a presidential conference. I think it's very safe to say I was right. That is unlesss you guys have something that suggests otherwise. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, you're confusing photographs of a symbol with sources of a coat of arms. All of this is very compelling original research, but it is still WP:OR and fails WP:SOURCE. Please do not add unsourced content in the pages when we've already discussed this at length and you've yourself admitted that nothing other than original research backs up your claim.

Again, your conclusions are compelling, but not sourced. Please read at least the first sentence of the WP:SOURCE and you'll see that we need a published source saying "this image is the official coat of arms of the president" to constitute a reliable source. If such a symbol were the coat of arms of the president of Croatia, it would be published in Narodne Novine for sure, as are the Standard, and all the military insignia you pointed out earlier. Unless it's in the Narodne Novine, with caption that "this image is the official coat of arms of the president" it's not sourced and it's OR and therefore it must go. Nothing personal.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All the images of the symbol used attest that a particular symbol is indeed used, but they say nothing about it being an official coat of arms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They are sourced very well. I have consistant sources showing this being used as a coat of arms. Until you have proof that it is now, I will not accept it's removal from this page. The Presidential Conference photo alone shows that it has an official use, and that it's being use on the wall next to the national coat of armx in the smae mannor shows that it is a coat of arms as well. Anybody who understands anything about heraldry knows that this is a heraldric device, that makes it a coat of arms in it's own right as well. You can not ignore that [10], the Military Cabinet seal/patch, and the President's website all show it being used on it's own in an official manner. I am infact right about this, and you have nothing that proves otherwise. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no official coat of arms of the President of Croatia. The Flag of the President is prescribed in Act. Elements from that Flag (so-called coat of arms) are used for some other (military) simbols and they are used as such (with some other parts of design), but the use of coat only its unformal. So please don't put the coat of arms in article.--Ex13 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[11] and the Presidential website say otherwise. There is only one way to solve this. I have emailed every contact available on the President's website, from the Secretary to the President, to the Chief of Staff, to the Head of the Personal Office. Once I have a reply, we will know for sure. And if I'm right, I expect an apology. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the answer is very simple - Act on the coat-of-arms, flag and anthem of the Republic of Croatia, and on the flag and sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia. Also remeber your words :)--Ex13 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, this is not personal. If a coat of arms is in official use by any state body in Croatia, it must but published in the Narodne Novine first - otherwise it is not official by definition regardless of any letter, photo, website or book. The president himself is not authorised to define a coat of arms of the president alone - the parliament is. If a parliament passes a law saying something is an official coat of arms of the president, it only becomes official once it is published in Narodne Novine. It's just the way the government works here. There's simply no other way for a coat of arms to become official.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Presidential Website's contact us section will make it clear. What they say, is what we will follow. If they say I'm wrong, I will conceed, but if they say I am right, I fully expect you to trust them, and stop removing the file which all evidence shows is in official use. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they'll point us to a piece of legislation published in the official gazette defining a coat of arms of the president. Other than we simply have no reliable source on an official use of the CoA. As I said before, only a parliament act may define that (per constitution) and not the office itself. The same applies to the flag and CoA of the coutnry, the presidential standard, the military insignia - and they are in the Narodne Novine. Anything other than that may constitute unofficial use at best.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In most countries, Presidents have special abilities, such as executive orders. Unless you have a direct source that the Croatian President can not do so, then, whether it was adopted by the Parliament or not, if the President's Office says it's official, it is. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I do: Here is consolidated text of the Constitution in English and here is the original in Croatian where powers of the president are listed specifically. Moreover, Article 11 specifically says legislation (i.e. parliament) defines all flags and symbols in official use. --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I will still trust the President's Office, and expect everyone else to as well. They have no reason to lie. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect a genuine answer to contradict the constitution? You came up with a design that has no basis in sources and are now hoping to get an answer which cannot possibly be. How about we ask the White House if they think there should be the third term too? And if someone says so, well forget about the Constitution, they must be right. Good luck with that. The coat of arms is a WP:OR and there is a source (the Constitution) to back that up. How do you trump that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I should be asking you that question. I have plenty of images clearly showing it being used in an official manner, and if the President's website also says it's official, that is more than enough proof. None of you have given any actual proof to the contrary. I don't expect anything but an honest answer from the PO, whatever that may be. That you would be willing to claim they're lying or making it up just because you can't find any documents regarding it from the Sabor, shows that you actually have a predjudice against this file and the possibility that I may be right. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Office isn't "lying" by displaying a special, embellished coat of arms somewhere, it's just doing something that is outside of its official purview. There are no presidential executive orders in Croatia, and if something wasn't published in the official gazette, it's simply not official. That's basic Croatian law, and there's very little possible discussion about that. To provide a silly analogy - the current Prime Minister consistently wears decorative brooches at her lapel, but that doesn't mean we should have a picture of them at the article about the Prime Ministerial function. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is an incredibly silly anology indeed, considering that if some Prime Minister is wearing a brooch, you wouldn't see it being placed on the wall next to the national coat of arms during a presidential conference, or on websites officially sponsored by the President's office, as I have shown above. You're comparing apples to oranges. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, get a source - and the constitution clearly says it can only be a parliamentary act - if you can find one. Narodne Novine are available online, so it shouldn't be too hard to do. Nothing outside a piece of legislation will suffice in this case because of the constitutional bit. If the president (or his office) stepped outside the constitutional bounds on this and defined a new official symbol that would constitute grounds for impeachment. I'm not quite clear why are you so keen on this with zero sources - there is a bust of Ante Starčević next to the presidential standard in the presidential palace, yet it's not an official symbol of anything. To simplify it: symbols of Croatia (flag, CoA, presidential standard, sash, insignia etc) are official because the constitution or separate parliamentary legislation (as directed by the constitution) defines them as such. No other symbol is official symbol of Croatia precisely because it fails this test. No analogies, letters, photos or discussions running in circles are required.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Until you can explain away [12], which so far nobody has been able to do, stop saying it hasn't been used in an official manner. As for the argument that this isn't a coat of arms, we already know it infact is, because the law on the standard says that that flag contains "the historical coat of arms of Croatia". Fry1989 ^eh? 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, we don't need to. Nobody does. You just have to source the official use claim. The historical coat of arms of Croatia refers to the red and white 5x5 chequy. If you decide I need to prove this too, read description of the Coat of Arms of Croatia. Or is that also a problem beyond everyone else's comprehension?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do have to explain that photo. Until you do, it stands as a source along with the rest. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid wikipedia policies say otherwise. Look it up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding the photo because it punches holes in your theories won't advance yoru claim. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me copy&and paste what I said already - the Office was displaying a special, embellished coat of arms somewhere, and that simply meant that it was doing something that is outside of its official purview. The act of putting that picture on the wall in a very public place simply does not elevate that picture to the standard you seem to be suggesting it does. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no room for theories here (mine or yours), because that's WP:OR. I have offered sources - the constitution and the symbols act conforming to WP:SOURCE that there is no official coat of arms of the president. Those sources also specifically say nothing other than the constitution and parliamentary acts may define official use of symbols by Croatian national institutions and office holders. There is no legal way to override that and achieve official use status hence no other way to source the official use other than acts of parliament published in Narodne Novine. On the other hand, you offered zero sources (conforming to WP:SOURCE) beyond your conclusions, theories and interpretation of images and websites - and that is nothing other than WP:OR. Three other editors came forward and explained they see it the same way. Let it go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me also add that the hypothetical "coat of arms" - being different from the standard only in lacking the border - adds little or nothing to the article in the first place. That's why this discussion is a huge waste of time. One could "prove" many things with photographic evidence: that Nessie exists, that the Moon landing was faked, etc. GregorB (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I doctored the images I listed above? Because so far, that's the only way a few fanatics have ever been able to claim Nessie exists, or that the Moon Landings were faked. Apples to oranges. As for your personal opinion that having the coat of arms here adds nothing, I suggest you go visit the pages of the President and VP of the United States, President of Bangladesh, Ireland, South Korea... The common consensus here is if an office has it's own symbols, we show them. We're here to educate and inform, not hide away things because we personally don't see any value in it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer Fry1989 ^eh? 20:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, no image can possibly source the symbol as official symbol of Croatian state or office holder. Ever. The constitution and the symbols act clearly say so. Nobody's disputing the symbol is used - but everyone except you insists it's not an official symbol of the president of Croatia. WP:BURDEN says you as an editor who adds or restores material must provide a reliable source. For the zillionth time, interpretation of photos and websites and such is original research (per WP:OR) and your personal opinion and not a reliable source conforming to WP:SOURCE. I admire your tenacity, but it is completely misplaced. No arguments can change any of this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I already told you I emailed the PO, so stop saying I'm relying on the photos alone and get yourself straight. I'm awaiting a reply. Now, if I get a reply saying it is the coat of arms of the President, are you going to say they're lying. Good luck with that. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless the reply points to a piece of legislation, I'll call them mistaken. Do you realize that you are hoping that an email will say that you are right to conclude that the office of the president is in breach of constitution? I mean this is really amazing, you manage to claim original research as source, then invent imaginary special powers of the president, ignore written official sources contradicting you and then waving an email you'll never get as a clear proof that your conclusion must be right and that everyone else is somehow conspiring just to spite you. Nice work, now please either get a source (and you already well know that it can only be a parliamentary act) or stop wasting time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the reply does point to a parliamentary act defining the symbol as official, I'll be more than happy to put it in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading my mind now? You don't know my hopes and desires and fears. If a reply comes back saying it is official, that seals the deal, and I will place it back myself. If you remove it after that, I'll have to take it to arbitration (which I would win, because all the evidence would be on my side, including the PO), however, I am hoping that you would see to reason. The fact they used it side-by-side with the national coat of arms shows that it atleast has prominence, whether or not it's official. If a reply comes back saying it's official, and the President really did violate the constitution (as you say that would imply), I think we would have heard of an impeachment or atleast a "correction" by now, as that photo is pretty old. As I am aware, there have been no impeachments of any Croatian Presidents since independence. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989, you did not post evidence of authoritative, official symbols. You've posted evidence of symbols used in official context. A picture of President Mesić underneath a symbol does not directly support the assertion that the same symbol is the official symbol of the President; you inferred that yourself. An authoritative primary or a secondary source saying so would be necessary instead. Please read WP:IRS for more information. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can any of you read??? I said I emailed the President's Office. Unlike some people here, I'm mature enough to await an official reply, and act according to what that reply states. And I did post a secondary source supporting my claim, which all of you ignored. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note difference between published authoritative sources required by the WP:IRS and an email sent presumably by a civil servant or a website. Accuracy of the website is best evidenced by the fact that the sash image contains incorrect depiction of arms used there (see the official symbols act). Please read the WP:IRS. If you find a reliable published source be sure to let us know.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way the "secondary source" is patently wrong to say that "The flag and arms of the President of the Republic were designed in 1990 by Miroslav Sutej, an academic painter from Zagreb, also the designer of the national flag and arms.

They are prescribed by Articles 23-24 of Law Zakon o grbu, zastavi i himni Republike Hrvatske, te zastavi i lenti Predsjednika Republike Hrvatske (Law on the Coat of Arms, the Flag, and the National Anthem of the Republic of Croatia, and on the Flag and Sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia; original text), adopted on 21 December 1990 and published in the Croatian official gazette Narodne Novine, No. 55/90." as evidenced by the act linked by the website itself clearly showing the website author to have assumed that there is an official CoA and ignored what was sourced there. So much for the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(endless edit conflicts...) First of all, an e-mail is irrelevant. If some information is not published as a reliable source, it's not a suitable encyclopedic source. We can't force all readers to have to individually e-mail someone to verify information on Wikipedia. Please read WP:V. Secondly, Željko Heimer's explanation is self-conflicting - they link a translation of the law which simply does not include a definition of a coat of arms of the President (only the flag and the sash). So it's an unauthoritative description by a known source - that simply cannot override a state law. It's as simple as that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it do you. If they reply with a source of legislation or a Parliamentary approval list, then you're all wrong. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're all count on my simply getting a reply that says "yes this, yes that". How fucking hard is it for you to contemplate that they could direct us to something that was overlooked, or can't be found on the net? You all have the biggest hard-on for me to be wrong that I have ever seen, you don't want me to be right, and if it turns out I am, I have no doubt you'll still put up a fight. It'struly childish. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, I don't care much for the f-word and the personal insults.

As I said in the beginning of this, if you find a parliamentary act published in the Narodne Novine saying "this is the official coat of arms of the president", you have a reliable published source. Searching the NN is quite [simple]. Even for us who find it hard to contemplate ways of the world.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is hard for you because by forcing your side on the article, you've shown that you're counting on the PO not saying it's official, or that if they do, they don't have any source to back it up. You've got a hard-on for this to not be official and me to be wrong, and you can't even wait for an email reply that could potentially show you're mistaken. You don't have any faith that just possibly, there's something we can't find, you think that just because you and I can't find it, it doesn't exist. What an incredibly self-centered idea. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not forcing anything. All edits I contributed to the article are backed by published sources. And nobody has to wait for the email to contribute properly sourced edits.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

While ignoring that they could potentially be mistaken. You're completely bypassing this discussion, and the possibility that the sources are wrong, and putting it in to support yoru side. That's called forcing, whether you're willing to admit it or not. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. We're not talking about something opaque. It's possibly the most visible political office of the country. If they had an official coat of arms somehow hidden in an unrelated law that's hard to find, that would be quite strange. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fry, if the sources available are reliable and published I have no reason to doubt them or assume the sources are mistaken, especially so because there are no other published and reliable sources to contradict them. If and when there are other published and reliable sources available, the article gets edited. It's simple as that. Nothing personal.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally you wouldn't have need to doubt them, but in the context of this dispute, there is sufficient reason to suspect that it's wrong. YOu didn't have to add the sentence "as the only two official symbols of the President of Croatia", it wouldn't even be neccesary in the context of the article. You did it deliberatly, because you're so certain you're right, and to agitate this dispute. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A dispute between a sourced and an unsourced (however compelling) claim cannot be a source for doubt. I added the sentence you were quick to revert because this very dispute pointed out that someone may assume that there must be an official coat of arms too. By the way, that sentence was also sourced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

A couple of comments:

• Quite a big intro. There are some non-essential details that are best omitted: presidential sash (all symbols, perhaps?), party tickets, where the inauguration is held, etc.
• Some details might be thrown in from Zakon o izboru predsjednika: candidate must be a Croatian citizen over the age of 18 (unlike e.g. the US, where 35 is the age limit, and being a US citizen is not enough), 10,000 signatures, etc.
• Citations referring to the Constitution (and other acts) should preferably point to specific articles. (Note to Tomobe: this remark applies to all of the "big five" articles on the politics and government of Croatia currently in the works.)
• The "History" section looks orphaned. I'd suggest merging it with the "Presidential elections", maybe with a little bit of reordering elsewhere.
• Finally, let me comment briefly on the "coat of arms problem" discussed above. It is very simple: WP:BURDEN lies with the editor who adds the material. Those who feel there is an official presidential coat of arms must supply reliable sources which say so. A photograph is not a reliable source. Given the fact that the presidential standard is defined by law, the idea that there is a coat of arms for which it is not possible to find any legal backing is really stretching credibility.

Overall, a very good article - clearly in GA-shape. GregorB (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, I'll get around to addressing those issues shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:President of Croatia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is really well done, now that the content dispute about the coat of arms is past. I looked at some of the Croatian-language references with Google Translate and tried to find something to pick out, but I can't. This is a pass. Good work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)