Talk:Emblem of Eritrea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Coat of arms of Eritrea → Emblem of Eritrea See also Talk:Coat of arms of the Comoros#Move?[reply]

  • Emblem of Eritrea was recently created by User:Xanderliptak with the same basic content. The aim was to reflect the difference between a proper coat of arms and an emblem. So this page should be moved properly to maintain its history. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone made this move undiscussed by cut-and-paste; I histmerged back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any particular reason why the current article should not refer to it as a COA? In the case of other countries with similar looking devices we refer to them as COA (e.g. Coat of arms of North Korea). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The terminology is incorrect. This is not a coat of arms, but an emblem, as is the North Korea one and will need to be moved at some point. One can cite examples where emblems are properly labeled as emblems, and where they are mislabeled, so hardly a precedence to continue either way; so I am wanting to side with the correct terminology and properly rename the article to avoid future misuse and confusion of an already misunderstood term. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're going to have to do better than "it's wrong". Can you point us towards some appropriate definitions? Our article on the subject makes it less than clear. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Technically, the term "coat of arms" is itself used wrongly, as it refers to an actual coat that was worn that showed the heraldic display uupon it, but is a commonand acceptable collequialism that I would not refute. The true term is heraldic achievement. Anyways, according to Dictionary.com, a coat of arms is:
            2. A heraldic achievement of arms.
            Which is to say:
            2. a. An arrangement of bearings, usually depicted on and around a shield, that indicates ancestry and distinctions.
            2. b. A representation of bearings.
            An emblem is described as:
            1. An object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.; symbol.
            2. A sign, design, or figure that identifies or represents something.
            3. An allegorical picture, often inscribed with a motto supplemental to the visual image with which it forms a single unit of meaning.
            As you can see, the term "emblem" is rather expansive and all encompassing. An emblem that is displayed upon a shield and is heraldic in nature, which itself is a more difficult thing to describe, falls into the sub-category of coat of arms. So all coats of arms are emblems, but not all emblems are coat of arms. When an emblem is heraldic in nature but not displayed upon a shield, it would be termed an "heraldic badge". An alternate term for emblem that is rather all encompassing is "device". Seals are separate, as it is their application that determines their designation, not design; seals may display a coat of arms, landscape portrait or other emblem. The Great Seal of the United States design is a seal because it is used to authenticate official documents, which itself displays a coat of arms as its certain design. Yet when it is displayed upon a podium, for example, it acts as an emblem because it is not being used to seal any documents. It becomes an emblem in this sense because there is more than the coat of arms to the design. All the terms are closely related and some even interchangable at times, but they are distinct noneetheless. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • To sum it up, while "coat of arms" is the colloquial term for all such devices, the rules of traditional heraldry define that a coat of arms must first of all include a shield. As Xanderliptak said, all coats of arms are emblems but not all emblems are coats fo arms. Many national emblems do not use a shield but show their national symbols on a roundel or otherwise, so the technical term "coat of arms" does not apply there. The emblem of Eritrea is an example for this practice, naturally it is a sort of emblem but not a coat of arms in terms of heraldry. De728631 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the other hand one could argue here that Eritrea uses a round shield which would make the device a coat of arms as well. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Or one could argue it a roundel, or one could argue it a non-heraldic emblem that happens to be circular. I could not find the original document which creates the emblem by the Government of Eritrea, and since Eritrea has no tradition of heraldry, I would think it safer to assume and argue it is merely an emblem. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not seeing anything in our article (coat of arms) which specifies that a shield is required. Indeed, the first regional entry opens "Arab coats of arms in general share several distinctive characteristics. They usually do not include a shield." It also comes across to me as somewhat elitist that we can say that one country's insignia can be called a "coat of arms" while another's cannot purely based on perceived rules of British or European heraldry.
                • I think this is something that needs wider discussion, to get some agreement on what we call such a thing (from a stylistic perspective, we certainly should not be referring to National Emblem of anywhere unless its constitution specifically calls it National Emblem), however, it may be that individual cases need to be discussed. The one thing that is clear is that simply moving pages claiming "incorrect title" or "wrong terminology" is not helpful, and should be a no-no for what could be a wide-ranging change (given the extensive traditions of civic heraldry in some places). I would suggest that any other discussions like this are to go through WP:RM. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Arabian mention is a mistake, by someone confusing the term coat of arms with national emblem. A coat of arms is a European tradition, so it is not elitist to classify what is or isn't a coat of arms based on a European standard--because that is the standard. Just as classifying what is or isn't a mons would be based on a Japanese standard, because that is an emblem specific to Japan. Calling something a "National Emblem" should require a law, because that then would codify the emblem as representative of the state/nation/country, but emblem alone is the generic term and, if in doubt, the devices should be classified as emblems. There would be no way to argue something is a coat of arms but not an emblem, so emblem should be the safe fall-back term. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem, however, with moving Coat of arms of... to Emblem of... is that the national flag of a country is also considered to be an emblem of that country. Some countries even consider the national anthem to be one of the emblems. So although a coat of arms is definitely an emblem, an emblem is not necessarily a coat of arms, badge, seal or anything remotely similar. In any case, aren't we being unnecessarily pedantic in all this. In English common useage these symbols are referred to as coats of arms, whether that is what they technically are, or not. If someone is looking for the page about the appropriate symbol, they need a common format across all countries. It does not help the reader if they have to work out whether to search for Coat of arms of Liechtenstein, but Emblem of Eritrea and Badge of Palau, depending on the probably unknown heraldic (or otherwise) tradition of the country they require. Best just leave things as they are. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flags are insignia, not emblems. And since emblem is the generic term that would be correct in all instances, that is if you are truly seeking uniformity, then everything should be moved to emblem of this or that. Also, mislabeled emblems are not as wide spread as you make it sound, and most are labeled correctly; so arguing common usage means that it is just as common if not more to go with emblem. And as we can see with National Emblem of France, Great Seal of the United States, Emblem of Malaysia, Royal arms of Canada, National emblem of Greece, Emblem of India Royal arms of the United Kingdom, there is no system that anyone can cite, no common term; they are all individually labeled depending on whomever the creator was and whether that creator knew the difference between national emblems, emblems, seals, coats of arms and royal arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our article on the Great Seal of the United States is so called because it is referred to officially as Great Seal of the United States in the relevant documents. The one external source we have refers to this as a "logo" and includes it in a catalogue of "national arms". What's this thing called in the constitutional statutes? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]
        • The seal is referred to as the Great Seal, but its use in other ways like on podiums is not described as its use as a seal. Just because you put the design of a seal up does not mean it is still a seal. It becomes an emblem, one based on the seal's design. Anyways, the several other articles clearly demonstrate there is no clear guideline for naming articles, and demonstrates articles are named based upon the editor's choice and knowledge, which can not be taken as infallible. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a clear guideline for naming the articles, though it may not necessarily be codified - if the articles follow a pattern, there is a de facto guideline. Most of these articles seem to be titled "Coat of arms of ...", and the vast majority of the exceptions are those things with actual proper names.This may be less than ideal, but it seems to work, and (most importantly) doesn't contradict the definition that we give for a "coat of arms". If our article stated that some element was essential, and some of these were missing it, then we'd have a problem - but it doesn't, so we don't. Great Seal of the United States is about the insignia/emblem/whatever which is known in the statutes as the Great Seal of the United States. It doesn't magically become the Great Emblem of the United States when used in other contexts (such as the Model of the Great Seal of the United States that politicians like to stick to the front of podia when someone important is speaking). By and large, countries with recent constitutions tend to give a proper name to their national symbols, therefore we should first and foremost look to use these. This article should be titled "Emblem of Eritrea" if and only if the relevant constitution or flag law defines it as the Emblem. The 1997 constitution refers to a "Coat of Arms", however, it only stipulates that there shall be one, and that constitution was not properly implemented anyway. I haven't been able to find the 1993 interim constitution online yet. Some sources might suggest that the "Emblem of Eritrea" is the device that appears on the hoist of the flag. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series on
Heraldic achievement
External devices in addition to the central coat of arms
 Heraldry portal
            • The coats of arms are overwhelming called coats of arms, a few labeled as emblems. However, the emblems are mostly called emblems. There are more coats of arms than emblems, so you are being disingenuous when you say most are named coats of arms; most are only called coats of arms because most are coats of arms. I can provide numerous articles naming something a dog, that has no bearing on articles of wolves. They are both similar, but they are different and distinct to those that know. And I do not see how you can cite a naming policy, when I already provided several examples of naming irregularities when it comes to these type of articles; here again for your benefit, National Emblem of France, Great Seal of the United States, Emblem of Malaysia, Royal arms of Canada, National emblem of Greece, Emblem of India and Royal arms of the United Kingdom. No clear pattern, so do not say that there is that needs to be adhered to, because that is just false. You seem to be in the crowd that believes that a coat of arms is the same thing as a national emblem. They are not. Please read Coats of arms for more information. I am also posting a display from the article that shows what makes a coat of arms to the right. Clearly, these things are different. There is no shield, no supporters, no helm, no crest. It displays a scene of a camel in the desert, not heraldic charges. Landscapes and scenery and such are not heraldry, just not. You are trying to fit things into heraldry as if heraldry was the standard, it is not. A nation can have a coat of arms, emblem and seal all with different designs. They often get blurred, because one design can be used upon another, but they are nonetheless separate devices. The Great Seal of the United States, it is a seal because it it used for sealing documents. The Great Seal of the President of the United States is likewise a seal because it, too, is used to seal documents. The President's seal is also his flag, because it is used on his flag. It is also his emblem, because he posts it on podiums and such. It is an emblem, yes, and you seem to think this is "magical"; it is not, it is just an emblem that has the word "Seal" written on it. Just because I write "cat" on a piece of paper does not turn that paper into a cat, so an emblem that has "seal" written on it does not mean it is still a seal. It is a design of a seal used also as an emblem. The seals and emblems of the United States use a coat of arms as its main design. So these terms overlap because their use overlaps, but they are different. The United Kingdom, for another example, uses the coat of arms of their queen as the kingdom's arms. The seals of the UK typically show an image of the sovereign enthroned on the obverse, and the sovereign on horseback on the reverse. The seal design is not used for anything but sealing documents, so unlike the US, the UK does not use its seal as an emblem. It uses its coat of arms as an emblem, and certain displays are known to be used by different portions of the government. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I put it to you that there is a pattern, and that you're following the old fallacy that finding an exception somehow invalidates it. To address the cases you raise, Great Seal of the United States is referred to in relevant statutes as Great Seal of the United States, the Greek government refers to its national symbol as the National Emblem ([1]), the symbol of Malaysia is officially called Jata Negara, which translates roughly to National Emblem ("coat of arms" would be "lambang"), the Arms of Canada are known officially in short as the Arms of Canada (more properly Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada), and in the UK, the government tends to refer to the Royal Arms as the Royal Arms, etc. None of the examples appear to be so titled because they are somehow "not a coat of arms", which ultimately is the point. You are proposing this move on some technical point that some elements of this symbol do not meet what you feel to be appropriate standards of a particular heraldic tradition. I am suggesting that arbitrarily renaming articles to ambiguous titles is a bad idea, and that you should find some document that relates directly to this symbol rather than arguing in vague general terms. Remember that the thing at the hoist of the flag is already widely known as an "emblem of Eritrea". The comparison to writing the word "cat" on a piece of paper is bogus, but if you want to engage in facetious comparisons, consider a photograph of a cat. You can show people the picture and say "this is my cat", and it's still a photograph of a cat. You can show people the picture and say "this picture is underexposed", or "that's my sofa" or "this room is in a state of disrepair" - using it to illustrate some point other than the cat does not change its nature as a photograph of a cat. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let us start with your photograph analogy. You say that mine was bogus. Okay. You understand that just because you write 'seal' on an emblem that it does not automatically become a seal. And you say that a photograph represents the cat, but is not the cat. I agree. That was what I was saying. So the emblem can also mimic the appearance of the seal and not be the seal. It is merely an emblem that copies what the seal looks like. A seal is a specific thing, and placing it on a podium or letterhead does not make it a seal by any means. It is merely a representation of the seal, like the photo of the cat is merely a representation of the cat; it copies it in every aspect but not matter how much they look alike they jsut are not the real thing. As to the idea I used the fallacy of "finding an exception" is not accurate. I did not find an exception, I pointed out numerous examples that clearly show there is not standard or pattern. Then you argue why each is named what it is named for some reason. I was not arguing they were incorrect, so you do not need defend their titles. But your defense further proves my point that their is no standard to refer back to. You argue some are titled so because that is what they are, some because that is what the are officially referred to and others are titled what they are commonly referred to. Not a system at all, seems all based upon whim. Heraldry is specific to Europe and Southwest Asia. It does not exist naturally elsewhere, though European powers did introduce it to their colonies. Those regions used emblems before heraldry, used and still use emblems without heraldry and places that European powers had no influence also use emblems independent from heraldry. You are trying to apply a European standard to the world, and being lazy its the use at that. You do not want to use the generic term "emblem"? Why not, what is wrong with it? Not every form of emblem has a more specific sub-type. Why is flag okay to use, as it is a broad and generic term just like emblem. Ensigns are a specific sub-type of flag, but ensigns are almost always covered in the flag article, as are jacks, which are another sub-type of flag. Why is emblem so taboo with you? It seems a pointless argument, for sheer sake of arguing. 'This is not an emblem, but a coat of arms, which is a type of emblem' seems an odd stance to keep. So does arguing that 'heraldic standards and traditions do not need to be met in order to be heraldry'. That would be like saying I do not need to use paint to make a painting to meet one particular painting standard. There is only one standard. Not to meet the one and only standard, yes, excludes it from the group. I am not saying this thing does not meet some "European standard" for what is acceptable for a soverign nation to use as its emblem, I am saying it does not meet the standard to be called a coat of arms. A mons is used by the Emperor of Japan, and is not a coat of arms. A coat of arms is used by the Queen of England, and is not a mons. Both are emblems. This is neither a mons nor coat fo arms, but still an emblem. I would object as much if you attempted to label this the Mons of Eritrea, because it does not meet the standard. Yes, it would be a Japanese standard then that I would be applying, but that is because mons come from Japan. SO I object to this being labeled a coat of arms because it does not meet the European and Near Eastern standard, because coats of arms come from Europe and the Near East. It is simply jsut an emblem. There is not detriment with that term, nothing pejorative or derogatory. And most importantly, tt is accurate. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
indentation stuff moved to User talk:Xanderliptak - 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. Though I am sure by now my opinion on the matter is known. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What do reliable sources call this particular image? A "coat of arms", or an "emblem"? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)It is a convention - but not a rule - that comments on talk pages are threaded by indenting one level deeper with each reply, until it gets too far over and someone outdents. That's how I've almost always seen it done, anyway. An even stronger convention is to not mess with the way other people thread their comments.[reply]
    • Both. Some Eritrean embassies call it an emblem, and some of those embassies use an alternate version than the one in the article with a blue background and white camel. Other web sources call it a coat of arms. By a dictionary definition this is an emblem. A coat fo arms requires a shield, and also the coat of arms would have set unchanging colours, which this device has two sets of colours, and perhaps a third, which are employed contradictory to heraldic practice. If you go to the related project page and discuss with members familiar with heraldry, you will find that there is a common misconception in the general population of what a coat of arms versus an emblem is. This arose because most European nations have a coat of arms as their national emblem and thus the terms can be used interchangeably, so it was never quite necessary to clarify which meant what exactly. However, coats of arms are a practice particular to Europe, the Near and Middle East, and other nations have long been using emblems independent of European traditions or influence, and some predate heraldry altogether. So it is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Simply because Western writers have long been lazy to correctly distinguish between the two terms and have applied a Euro-centric view on other nation's emblems and other artistic traditions does not mean such lazy practice should be continued in this encyclopedia simply because it is a common enough error. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really concerned with trying to correct sources. Our usual rule in naming disputes is to follow reliable sources. That's how this website works; make source-based arguments. What do the sources that are most reliable concerning (a) Eritrea and (b) heraldic conventions call it?

        You really don't need to repeat your arguments from above; I've read them. Arguing your point further among people already here is extremely unlikely to be productive. People on Wikipedia hardly ever convince the people they're arguing with of anything. Empirically, if you don't convince them within three exchanges, you're not going to convince them. The reasonable response is to go get more people, as neutrally as possible. Who else can we bring to the dialogue here? What are the most relevant WikiProjects? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Emblem vs. coa[edit]

I have to weigh in with the group that this is an emblem, not a coat of arms in any sense. Gryffindor (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emblem of Eritrea. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emblem_of_Eritrea&oldid=1201742698"