Croatia B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology B‑class

Coat of arms of Croatia is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

About the first red herring: nationalist claimed what the field indicated and what it should indicate, and it is not their mistake if new government did things wrongly. Imagine employee who says to employed: "You are saying that your paycheck always arrives at 1st, but that's a red herring as next month it wont". What nationalist were saying would be a RH if there were previous instances of exception to the rule, not if the exception comes after they said it.

By the way, why === on external link? Nikola 04:47, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

First of all, the theory on the first field indicating independence is entirely bonkers, both because there's no proof throughout history of any such thing, but there was hardly anthing independent about the NDH. Perhaps it was independent in the mind of a bunch of fascists, but for anyone else it resembled a dungeon from a nightmare. To consider that change in the NDH a precedent is ludicrous right now because the present independent Croatia's coat of arms certainly does not follow any such "rule".

Well then, write so. But don't say that "What they said was false because it was not done after they said it." Nikola 07:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious. I'll further amend the page. --Shallot 11:58, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You know, it's pretty amusing to see you support both Serb _and_ Croat nationalist nonsense. --Shallot 20:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Support? :) Nikola 07:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to... just don't believe everything you hear. --Shallot 11:58, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The illustration of the Austro_Hungarian coat of arms at the top of the page also shows the top left square as white, which would indicate independance. I assume that the Croats did not consider themselves independant while ruled from Vienna/Budapest??? Were the facists trying to establish a link with their regime and the old dual monarchy? Just curious.Zedcaster 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article again, I wonder if those "racist connotations" in the third point near the bottom are worth including in the article. Some groups vociferous during Euro 96? I honestly don't recall hearing about this anywhere else, or the relevance of someone saying something that's wrong during a tangentially relevant event, so I don't see why it should remain in the article. --Shallot 17:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Its common name is šahovnica, originally a somewhat pejorative name given to it during the communist Yugoslavia."

Any sources for this? It just means chessboard or checkerboard and I thought it's what it's been called since ever. Anyway, "šahovnica" is a Croatian (not Serbian) word and the checkerboard was a part of the Croatian CoA during communist Yugoslavia, so the above formulation doesn't make much sense. Zocky 13:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it must have crept in during the whole Igor affair. The bit afterwards makes sense, but this can go. --Joy [shallot] 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I claim in the article that the rising sun symbolizes a new morning. This is generally true for the sun's symbolism in soicalist coats of arms, and I remember dimly that I have long ago read about this symbolism in the Croatian socialist CoA, but it doesn't make sense geographically. The sun in Croatia doesn't rise from the sea, it rather sets into it. Was there likely another explanation of its symbolism? Are geographic issues a relevant concern in heraldry at all? Zocky 12:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spreading the ideas of Marx westword?Croatnik 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed The šahovnica by itself was indirectly associated with the fascist Ustashe regime which had ruled Croatia during the Second World War and its use as a stand-alone symbol was considered nationalistic and discouraged. because it is too ambiguous & constitutes opinion & is difficult to substantiate. What does indirectly associated mean? - is the writer equating Croat nationalist to Ustasha? - Does the šahovnica by itself include both upper square re & upper square white iterations? Hence the rewrite including: - outlining Ustasha symbology incorporating the šahovnica (if anyone can add a picture it would help); - distinguishing those right wing groups (other than Ustasha) & describing what symbols they tend to adopt; - more substance of the upper square red & white issue.

Also included: - more history on the iterations of the Croatian coat of arms (if anyone can supply picture of St Marks church in Zagreb & the CoA for the Triune Kingdom - that would be great thanx!;

- reference to Croatian Kuna & the Croatian football team;

- additional external links.

croatian_quoll 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of šahovnica as a stand-alone symbol was indeed considered nationalist and frowned upon in the second Yugoslavia. We also have two problems with pictures: the current design should be in intro, and we should find a way to avoid the impression that the CoA of NDH is a part of the legal succession line from A-H CoA to the current one. According to Croatian law, that is not the case, i.e. the CoA of NDH was never the CoA of a predecessor of the current Croatian state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zocky (talk • contribs)

The above claim about the The use of šahovnica as a stand-alone symbol was indeed considered nationalist is utter rubbish. It is just a variation of one of the lines from the Serb propaganda manual - the other line being that the šahovnica is a fascist symbol. The stand alone symbol has existed for centuries in both the upper left square red & white variants - refer to [1]. The Ustashi, followed by the communists tried to politicise the issue of which colour the upper left square should be, & augmented their political party symbology on the coat of arms. croatian_quoll 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to current design in the intro, the problem with this approach is that you get end up with an older CoA in the section titled Current Design'. Maybe have a miniature version in the intro title & a proper size one in the Current Design section? croatian_quoll 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the last sentence? I didn't quite understand it :-( --Dijxtra 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia is a successor state of the old kingdom of Croatia and of the socialist republic of Croatia, and not of NDH. NDH simply ceased to exist and has no successor state. Putting its CoA in the series with other CoAs like we have it now isn't very NPOV. A country probably has the right to chose which symbols do or don't represent it. Zocky | picture popups 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see... now, that's an interesting point you have there. I fully agree, that Croatia is not a successor state of NDH. But, then again, (if we ignore the fact that NDH included teritory of today's Croatia) the CoA of NDH did compromise of šahovnica, and it would be a bit strange not to mention that in the article... --Dijxtra 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, it should be mentioned. We should just make sure to visually differentiate it from others somehow, maybe by making it smaller and putting it on the left. Zocky | picture popups 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't change size as this would make the page look aesthetically awkward - an explanatory footnoote would be thebest way to document & explain about the successor state issue. In any case, it is more of a legal technicality, with the reality being that the NDH existed, with initially alot of support from the Croatian people who wanted an independent state. croatian_quoll 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand, it had a coat of arms which really resembled the one we have now :-) --Dijxtra 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...well,..it is aesthetically pleasing - even though it was plagiarised from the old Kingdom of Croatia & a U added on top.:-)croatian_quoll 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Whatever we think was the reason for šahovnica on its own being frowned upon in 1945-1990, it's quite a relevant fact that it was and there is no reason not to mention it, as we should mention the fact that the red/white first question was considered an important issue in early 1990s. The first version of post-socialist CoA was the chequered shield with no paraphernalia and white first field. That was very soon changed to red field first, and then after some time (in late 1990 or even early 1991, I'm not sure I remember correctly) to the current design.

I disagree, the standalone šahovnica was never considered a fascist symbol, except during the propaganda war that paralleled the actual war in the 1990's. There was some contention over the standalone šahovnica with upper square white. Such matters, unsourced from reliable sources, represent POV. Such an approach would represent sourcing the views of fringe elements or turning Wikipedia into a platform of legitimacy for propaganda. croatian_quoll 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing, the current design. It doesn't matter if on some screens some images end up in illogical sections - there's no way to ensure optimal layout on every user's screen. Regardless of layout issues, the picture in the intro should be a picture of the subject of the article, and the subject of the article is not the CoA of Austria-Hungary. Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it is less confusing to have the current design in the section with the same title. The artice is about the Croatian coat of arms, not the current design per se. The CoA of Austria-Hungary is probably not the best thing to have up there - I think the CoA of the Triune kingdom fo Croatia, Slavonia & Dalmatia would fit ok in there.

Alternatively, move the current design to be in the intro & have no CoA in the section titled Current Design. croatian_quoll 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it doesn't matter if we think it was right or wrong, that's just the way it was. Šahovnica was never used by itself in the second Yugoslavia, just like the Serbian shield was never used by itself. It was considered nationalist, not fascist, regardless of which field was the first. Looking back, it was silly, but that's how Yugoslav communists looked on it.

Not a matter is one thinks it's right or wrong - it is a question of POV & whether it is something thta can be sourced. There are many "common knowledge" notions that are either difficult to substatiate or are just urban myths. An abstract example is Tommy Hilfinger being asked to leave Oprah's show for racism. Also, I think the communists tended to blurr the distinction between facist & nationalist. An example was the equating of the notion of Croatian statehood with facism because they viewed Croatian nationalism as the biggest threat to the new states hegemony. Hence the main focus of infiltrating the Croatian dijaspora by the secret services. croatian_quoll 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, the people who equated šahovnica with fascism in 1990s, and continue to do so on countless web forums, do it for Serbian nationalist motives, not communist political ones. Perhaps that deserves a separate mention from what I'm talking about.

I don't care what goes into the Current Design section. The image in the intro is the one people see first, the only one that's on the first screen for all readers, the one that is displayed in navigation popups, the one that would be displayed in a shortened printed or digital version of the encyclopedia which would include just article intros, which are supposed to summarise articles for all those reasons. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at the page with the enlarged current CoA & the start & nothing in the current design section. Seems to work & actually looks good. croatian_quoll 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the file name be "Coat of arms Of Craotia.svg" rather than "Croatian Coat Of Arms.svg"???

Could someone tell me what's the basis for that statement? There are no sources listed in this article whatsoever, but I doubt there any at all to back up this theory. Roda (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, you people seriously believe that a Croatian flag with the inverted chequy is not considered "right-wing"? But at any rate, I'm not going to debate this here. Bugoslav, if you think that the "personal opinion" of scholars "cannot be the basis for any encyclopaedia" than you are in the wrong place. This is, in fact, what Wikipedia is based on and I will not even debate this. You are removing a sourced statement which is public knowledge to boot. Your edit is nothing more than nationalist POV-pushing bordering on vandalism and you may rest assured it will not pass. The only reason you're removing the source is because you believe it "insults the nation" or "makes fun of the coat of arms" which is ludicrous.

Just to make sure you get my point, concentrate on the fact that the statement is sourced in your response. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously believe what you are writing? I disagree due to the ludicrous source you posted, it is a personal website, not a source. While I do agree with you that most nationalists prefer using the white checker first, you are blatantly ignoring the history of the checkers and it's use still today, and most importantly, it's association with the struggle against communism and independence war. Shall we then make the assumption that communists prefer the red checker first? Maybe they are the ones still spreading this myth of white checker=automatic Ustasha. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source: It's a private website? So what does that mean?? What you have there is a professional opinion on the issue, from the well known Flagspot website. On the other hand what you've got is your own, unprofessional and frankly clouded opinion. Why do I say "clouded"? Because you keep talking about some "historic meaning" when my text that you removed clearly referred to the MODERN significance of the unofficial inverted chequy. If you do not find some kind of vexillologist source of the same "ludicrous" quality stating "no the inverted chequy is not used by the right-wing in modern Croatia" than I shall write "yes the inverted chequy is indeed used by the right-wing in modern Croatia" - because I have a professional source that says so. We don't have a debate here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Find a reliable source. As for my "clouded" judgment, you need only to look at yourself for an example of that. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, since I find this whole debate rather silly, this will be my last word on the subject unless something new comes up:

If one feels the need to speculate about the square colors, provide sources please, but be careful at the same time. I wanted to point out that it could be argued that the red square in the upper-left hand corner could be seen as communist by some Croats, since the red square first was used by both the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the SFRY. Therefore people might feel discontent withthat, and don't want to use the COA made by the communists, and would rather go with the more historical seen here [2] which doesn't have to do with "ultra" nationalism. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the image caption is not a suitable place for a value judgement, when all sources state that the order has been irrelevant up until the 20th century, i.e. through most of the history. If I recall correctly, we already had this discussion, and a decent summary of the red-or-white-first issue had been in the article text, but was since removed. It belongs there, let's move it back in there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it in the text. --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just to add one thing - there is some historians who believe that first field was white during war and red during peace with ottomans, also there is some hypothesis that red fields represent red croatia and white stands for white croatia, see coat of arms of moravia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moravia.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.66.195 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this edit [3] since it was misleading.
That edit contained a stereotype that was created by a group of persons. The story about inverted chequy isn't correct.
Here's the work that deals with that topic, DIREKTOR:
Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004
There's also a book that deals with that, available on kiosks in Croatia, printed several months ago. Kubura (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am so sick of that stereotype. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sick of this nonsense - its high time its sorted out. Did the Ustaše coat of arms use the white coa? Yes it did. Therefore by the simplest logic imaginable, the white coa (among other things) is the Ustaše coa. This is the checkerboard version they used in various symbols and modifications. No question.

I would appreciate it if two irrelevant facts I am fully aware of are not repeated throughout this discussion: 1) I know the white coa was used well before 1941 by other than the Ustaše, 2) I know the full coat of arms of the Independent State of Croatia featured also a U symbol above the white coa.

It is not necessary to repeat, source, or even mention the above here. These are not some miraculous revelations "nullifying" the simple and completely accurate fact that the white coa is today viewed as the right-wing nationalist unofficial version, because of its use during WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This coat of arms is a brand of Zagreb for over a century. St. Mark's Church, Zagreb.

• 
  This is the detail from the roof. Almost every postcard contains it.
• 
  See the order of checquy. That was painted much before 1941 and 1929.

"Today is viewed as the right-wing nationalist unofficial version". Viewed by whome?
There're persons on this world that find horse races as some kind of Ustashi parade, since all horses are wearing horseshoes ("U" form). This is sarcastic remark, but not far away from the reality.
Following source exactly explains and describes the history of this coat-of-arms. Read it.
Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004.
Have a pleasant reading. Kubura (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the nonsense. Like I said: I would appreciate it if two irrelevant facts I am fully aware of are not repeated throughout this discussion: 1) I know the white coa was used well before 1941 by other than the Ustaše, 2) I know the full coat of arms of the Independent State of Croatia featured also a U symbol above the white coa.

What difference does it make what the white coa was used for??! I KNOW exactly what it was used for. This silly historical lesson I am continuously being given has nothing to do with the actual issue - we are talking about post-WWII. Its like you're just repeating "You're ignorant! Don't you know that the swastika was an ancient symbol long before the Nazis used it?!". Yes, I know the complete history of the white coa - but I also know its post-WWII symbolism. If you have not noticed, fascist regimes have a tendency to turn previously benign imagery into (often banned) symbols of their own ideology. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll just add what I have to say here. While I do agree with you Direktor, that many people associate the white-first COA with WWII, but you also must know that until about 1991/1992, the COA used by the Croatians in the diaspora for over 40 years used the white chequey first (NOTHING to do with fascism). Here is 1990 Zagreb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eutXEBAYBCg As you can see, this is NOT an Ustasha convention. I don't know the atmosphere in Croatia currently of this flag, but I know to call this an Ustasha COA would be inaccurate for the 40+ year period it was used. It has been used both before and after WWII. I see there is already a paragraph in the article explaining that. So shouldn't that be enough? --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue here is whether the "white coa" is or is not associated with (to put it mildly) nationalism. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows this - public knowledge. This is exactly why publications such as Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine talk about the issue. It is of course, a thoroughly silly and naive idea that explaining the historical (non-ultranationalist) usage of the white coa somehow magically undoes its post-WWII perception. Nobody is stupid here, we all know the symbols history - but that is not the point.

More frequent usage of the "white coa" (as opposed to the "red") in the diaspora is still unsourced, in any period. In the cases where it is used, it is also very debatable that this usage is not related to ultranationalism and Ustaše-sympathizing, since the Croatian post-war diaspora is known to have (had) elements of Ustaše emigres and Ustaše sympathizers (this is not to say such a situation was by any means universal among the emigration!).

In any case, my point is this: the usage of the unofficial white coa is irrelevant - its perception remains the same regardless of its history or its use. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make sense. What sources do you have that explain that the white chequey was used soley/mainly by Ustasha sympathyzers? Could it be more accurate that they didn't want anything to do with the Communist red one first? --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, don't put the COA with first white field on the same line as swastika [4].
"After WWII"? Not, that idea appeared much much later.
"Everyone knows this". Yeah, wright, famous argument from the internet. "Everyone knows".
Shall we put this reference behind the texts? <ref>everyone knows that </ref>.
DIREKTOR, have you read the source I gave you? Kubura (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice, but I will make whatever comparison I see fit - particularly one so apt as comparing the Ustaše with the Nazis. Bothe the swastika and the white coa were perfectly benign symbols before the Ustaše/Nazis started using them. Their pre-WWII history is equally irrelevant.

The idea appeared during WWII, when the Partisans used the red-field-first coat of arms of the Banovina of Croatia, and the Ustaše the white one.

Everyone knows? Yes. Well, at least you know :) ("the story about inverted chequy isn't correct"). You just thought that by being informed about its pre-WWII use somehow "nullifies" its post-war symbolism, why I cannot imagine...

Yes I have, and I have responded to it before you even posted it, expecting a history lesson. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, reformulate your edit [5]. Read it again.
Maybe I haven't expressed my remark the best way in the text above.
Your edit is too suggestive and non-neutral.
I don't say that it was your intention.
However, it gives a very negative etiquette to that COA.
Promisli malo. Presugestivan ti je tekst. Ispada po tome da "većina to smatra" i "da je takvi grb zbilja takav". To je netočni stereotip. Taj je grb prolazia na više mista za vrime socij. Jugoslavije i nitko se nije bunia (barem ne toliko da su korisnici tog grba nestali iste noći), a onda se niki "lovac na kulake u našem selu" (onaj koji traži i "stvara" kulake di ih ne more bit, jer su svi seljaci siromašni) dositia da je to "ustaško". Zato bis triba priformulirat tvoje uređivanje. Pa sad smisli ričenicu. Shvaćaš li me? Kubura (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As the fascist Ustaše movement used this arrangement of fields, the version is in modern times often associated with Croatian (ultra)nationalism."

Molim te, šta je tu pretjerano? The sentence does not say "most think something" or that the coat of arms is "really fascist" or anything like that. It merely says that its "often associated with nationalism" due to its WWII use by the fascists. How is that excessive? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about we remove that pic altogether? it is not a part of the current COA, the Ustasha one is in the gallery, noted, which should make everyone happy. Let me ask, why is that one the only other COA there and not others? --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good to prolong the life of an incorrect and very damaging stereotype, DIREKTOR. Do you get me?
Ne valja produljivati život jednom netočnom i štetnom stereotipu, DIREKTOR-e. Shvaćaš li me? Kubura (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura, I understood already that this is your motivation. However: 1) We are not here to consider whether stereotypes should be prolonged or not, we are not some kind of "arbiters of the future" deciding on the validity of stereotypes. If a stereotype exists (which you and others here have just admitted again) why in the world are you opposing a valid mention of it?

2) The stereotype is not "incorrect" in any way, any more than the swastika stereotype is "incorrect" because of its pre-WWII usage, and frankly I do not see how it is "damaging" either, Croatia does not use the white coa.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ough, again. You're presenting that stereotype in the wrong way. I don't say that it was your intention, but you must correct your edit.
First, that stereotype wasn't accepted allover.
Some people considered that as "ustashi", some didn't.
Therefore, you cannot place the partial attitude to whole population.
Finally, it wasn't considered as "ustashi" durign whole time of Yugoslavia.
Second, it's very wrong to compare it with swastika.
Nemoj ono što su neki smatrali primjenjivati na cijelo stanovništvo RH (iliti ondašnje SRH). Niti neki zadrti partijci nisu vidjeli u tome problem.
Ne smiješ nešto prikazivati zlom, ako to nije.
Ne smiješ nekoj pojavi davati veći značaj nego što ga stvarno ima.
Ne smiješ prikazivati stav dijela kao stav cjeline.
Uspoređivati sa svastikom je pretjeravanje i vrlo grubo pojednostavnjivanje, mnogi će vidjeti zlonamjeru u tome.
Jer tvoje pisanje defamira svaki hrv. simbol. Po tvojoj logici bi svako hrvatsko tradicionalno znakovlje bilo označeno kao nešto negativno, jer je neki hiper-jugokomunist vidio u tome ustaško znakovlje. Ustaški je pokret bio koristio dosta hrvatskog tradicionalnog znakovlja. Zar će sad to što su ustaše koristile te znakove obilježiti zauvijek (do Posljednjeg suda) i te znakove i sve buduće hrvatske naraštaje koji budu koristili te drevne znakove? Pa tko su i što su te ustaše da si možedu prisvojiti tradicionalne hr. znakove (koji su postojali i prije njih) za cijelu vječnost?
Nekima je "ustaška" i hrvatska zastava bez zvijezde. I hrvatska himna, jer ju je rabila i NDH (nisam siguran je li NDH dodala jedan stih). Nekima je "ustaško" i to što Hrvati žele živjeti u samostalnoj državi, a ne u tamnici zvanoj Jugoslavija. Nekima je "ustaško" i to što Hrvati žele govoriti svojim hrvatskim jezikom, što se tvrdokorno ne daju asimilirati u Srbe, što ne žele da im se nameće srpski jezik, niti preko frankensteinskog imena "srpskohrvatski".
I'll translate this in English later. Kubura (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Kubura & Jesuislafete, I would like to express my admiration for the civility of this discourse, which was brought about through your efforts. Additionally, I assure you both that the respect you have expressed is mutual in every way, and that I fully understand your joint position and take it to be inspired by noble sentiments for which I have nothing but admiration.

[[:File:Picard as Locutus.jpg|thumb|right|170px|Vuk Karadžić, as depicted in Croatia]]

@Kubura. "We are the Serbs. Give up your language and prepare to be assimilated. Your ethnological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile. :)"

Sad si sve reka. Jedini razlog zbog kojega Hrvati kao narod promoviraju ideju da je naš naglasak (a jedva je i naglasak), drugi jezik od srpskog naglaska je to što ih je još od Kraljevine Jugoslavije strah od "strašne" srpske asmiliacije - šta nije nikakav znanstveni razlog. To je bila istinita opasnost u interbelumu, ali kao što nije bila stvarna tijekom druge Jugoslavije kod koje je Hrvatski narod bio ustavni, sastavni, drugi najveći dio, tako ni sada još više - nije stvarna. (Danas je još naravno tu i srbofobija i mržnja proizašla iz devedesetih.)

Što se tiče povijesti, vrlo je lako ustvrditi da hrvatski jezik, kao odvojen jezik od srpskog ili još manje bosanskog, nije nikada ni postojao. "Ilirski jezik" (termin koji se koristio sve do druge polovice 19. stoljeća) je bez ikakve sumnje sinonim za srpskohrvatski, jer se naravno odnosi na sve ovdašnje narode. "Horvatski jezik" kasnog 19. stoljeća je jednostavno bio naziv koji se ponekad(!) koristio samo(!) u Kraljevini Hrvatsko-Slavonskoj za taj isti jedan jezik kojeg Srbi zovu srpski, a koristili su se i nazivi "hrvatski ili srpski" i "jugoslavenski jezik" (JAZU!). Bitno je shvatiti da je u toj kraljevini živjelo oko 650,000 Srba, da se njihov jezik smatrao da je isti kao i hrvatski, da "hrvatski" nikad nije bio standardiziran prije devedesetih, id est da nije postojao nikakav način da se kaže "aha to je hrvatski, a to je srpski", niti je itko upoće inzistirao na nekoj "razlici" prije kasnih dvadesetih. Interesantno je vidjeti ljude koji tvrde da srpskohrvatski ne postoji danas zato što nije standardiziran, a onda shvate da po tom kriteriju hrvatski nije nikada postojao prije 1990.

Imaj na umu da ti ovo ne govorim ja kao takav, nego da je ovo položaj velike većine svijeta na ovom pitanju (što je sada očito na članku Serbo-Croatian language). Htjeli mi to ili ne htjeli, govorimo istim jezikom kao i Srbi. To zaista nije uopće pitanje ćim pogledaš stvar iz iole objektivne perspektive, dapače, tvrditi suprotno postaje smiješno nakon nekog vremena nepristrane edukacije na tu temu. Ako jedna stvar mene smeta kao osobu više nego ikoja druga, to je upletanje politike ili religije u znanost. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Položaj velike većine svijeta." Ma koje "velike većine"? Je li to računaš po sebi? O "naglasku" da ne govorimo. Čim zinu, čuješ da je to drugi jezik. Misliš da je opasnost od asimilacije bila jednom davno i nikad više? Ne pazi li se, cijeli se narod asimilira još unutar jednog naraštaja. Brojni su primjeri. Što se tiče "srbofobije i mržnje proizašle iz '90-tih", očigledno si preskočio 70 godina Jugoslavijâ. Toliko traje hrvatsko opiranje srbiziranju, a Hrvati se opiru srpskom prisvajanju hrvatske baštine još dulje, i dan-danas. Korijene traži u antihrvatskim šovinističkim pamfletima "Do istrage vaše ili naše", Vuku Karadžiću, karađorđevićevskoj žandarmeriji, progonima, zatvaranjima, premlaćivanjima, onemogućivanjima kulturnog rada, zabrani jezika, masovnim smaknućima, tajnim i javnim likvidacijama Hrvata, Rankoviću, UDBI, koloniziranju Srba u Hrvatsku i inima. "lako ustvrditi da hrvatski jezik, kao odvojen jezik od srpskog ili još manje bosanskog, nije nikada ni postojao". Nije istina. Postojao je, postojao. Još početkom 19. st. se već privodilo sa hrvatskog na srpski, a rječnici su rabili jezičnu građu iz krajeva gdje žive Hrvati. Ilirski jezik da se odnosio "za sve ovdašnje narode"? Koje "ovdašnje"? Ovdje su Hrvati. Misliš li na susjede, Talijance i Mađare? Ilirski jezik se odnosio na Hrvate. Čitaj staru literaturu koja izrijekom navodi da se to odnosi na hrvatski. Dalje, tih 650.000 pravoslavaca je velikosrpskom propagandom i djelovanjem anti-Hrvata u Saboru je tijekom 19. st. pretvarano u Srbe. Da malo tražiš po literaturi, vidio bis koliko je puta zabilježeno da su ti pravoslavci svoj jezik nazivali hrvatskim, a sebe Hrvatima te koliko je bilo pravoslavnih Hrvata. I kako su svećenici velikosrpski indoktrinirani u Srij. Karlovcima kao najprvu stvar tom narodu (koji je imao veliku nepismenost i neškolovanost), utuvljivali u glavu da su Srbi, a eventualno i Evanđelje. I koju je velikosrpsku propagandnu mrežu organizirala Kraljevina Srbija još u 19. st. na području Trojednice i BiH. ""hrvatski" nikad nije bio standardiziran prije devedesetih"????? Odakle si ovo uzeo? Sa velikasrbija.com ili slično? Hrvatski je evolutivno doživio standardizaciju još u 16. st., i nakon toga je doživljavao male evolutivne promjene, a ti standardizirani oblici su se iznimno razlikovali od srpskog crkvenoslavenskog kojeg se rabilo kao književni među Srbima (koji su napravili naglu promjenu u standardizaciji sa Karadžićem). "Upletanje politike i religije". Shvati da politika i religija određuju i standardizirani jezik. Za Envera Hoxhe se nametnulo narječje njegove skupine cijelom albanskom narodu. Politika je nametnula izjednačivanje hrvatskog sa srpskim na štetu hrvatskog. Australski službeni jezik je engleski, a ne aboridžinski, jer je Engleska osvojila taj otok. I to je politika. Slovaci su uzeli srednjoslovačka narječja za standardni jezik, radi većeg razlikovanja od češkog, kao što su Macedonci uzeli zapadna narječja, za se više razlikovat od bugarskog. A mogli su preuzet i srpski, jer im se raširio kroz upravu i školstvo. Ali nisu se željeli asimilirati, nego su odlučili biti svoji. Slavenska slavistika, osobito ona od naroda koji su bili ozbiljno ugroženi asimilatorskim pritiscima razumije ovo (Ukrajinci, Macedonci, Slovaci, Crnogorci, Bošnjaci). Zapadne slavistike koje ne shvaćaju hrvatsko pitanje su one slavistike koje se nisu makle od metoda koje pripadaju 19. st. (tzv. "mladogramatičari"); strukturalizam još nije došao do njih. Religija je iznimno bitna. Prijevodi Biblije su iznimno utjecali na kulturne razvitke pojedinih naroda. Religija odredi kulturološku usmjerenost, pa i tradiciju prevođenja i/ili možebitno preuzimanje tuđica, kako iz klasičnih jezika, tako i suvremenih jezika. "da nije postojao nikakav način da se kaže "aha to je hrvatski, a to je srpski". Ovo je laž. Čovječe, budi ozbiljan. Ljude je zatvaralo zbog pisanja "umirovljeni časnik JNA", a u JNA nisi mogao reći "zapiši u bilježnicu ili na komad papira da trebamo naručiti strjeljivo za pješaštvo, topništvo i zrakoplovstvo i sl.". Ajde probaj ispravljat Srbe po Nišu, Leskovcu i Beogradu i govorit im "nije šargarepa nego mrkva, nije sunđer nego spužva, nije veštačko nego umjetno, nije hiljada nego tisuću, nije parče hartije nego komad papira..." kad ti je to "sve isto". "niti je itko upoće inzistirao na nekoj "razlici" prije kasnih dvadesetih". Brojni naši Hrvati su još bili u romantičnom zanosu idejama južnoslavenskog jedinstva (kasnije su progledali), ali ne svi. Sve veće ustrajanje na razlikama se javilo kad su Hrvati uvidili da im se grubom silom nameće srpski jezik, zatire hrvatski i da se takvo državno ponašanje ne mijenja, nego idu u sve gore. Postojidu i razlike hrvatskog i crnogorskog, ali se ne prenaglašavaju te razlike zbog toga što se nije Hrvatima nametalo crnogorski, niti Crnogorcima hrvatski. To je tako sa svim jezicima. Nekad se među Hrvatima osobito ustrajalo na prevođenju njemačkih, mađarskih i talijanskih riječi, jer je hrvatskom jeziku prijetilo zatiranje od strane tih triju jezika koje su vlasti invazivno širile po hrvatskim zemljama. Zato se onda toleriralo turcizme i ine orijentalizme, jer u tim vremenima od njih nije prijetila asimilacija. Danas, kad se širi engleski, ustrajno se prevodi engleske izraze. I ne samo mi Hrvati, nego i Francuzi i drugi veliki narodi.

DIREKTOR-e, odakle ti ove zamisli? Tko ti je ovo sve napunio glavu? Tko te zavaravao i činio te predmetom podsmijeha? Kubura (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to business, though. You must understand that your opposition here is completely baseless as far as Wikipedia is concerned since it is nothing other than your personal desire for the elimination of an (undoubtedly existing and universally-present) stereotype. In other words, you wish the stereotype wasn't in existence, even though it most certainly is (by your own admission). This, though a rather noble motivation which I can understand, is as you know not something that is of much relevance. However, lets try to compromise, how would you mention the stereotype? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your opposition is baseless.
You have personal desire to widen and revive a vanishing stereotype that existed as such in small fraction of a community. Small fraction of yugocommunists do not represent whole human kind.
Croatian COA with first white field existed normally abroad among Croatian emigrants (and not just among ustashi emigrants) and it was normally used. Non-Communist Serb emigrants abroad considered Croatian COA with inverted chequy as non-Communist Croatian COA.
So, the claim "inverted chequy is nationalist" belongs to same group of Yugounitarist Communists that claimed that "Croatian flag without Communist star is 'nationalist'", that considered flag of the Netherlands as "nationalist", since it "looks exactly like Croatian flag without a star", that "removing the attribution of Socialist from Socialist Republic of Croatia is 'nationalist' ", etc. In fact, Yugocommunists tagged any Croatian COA without the star as "nationalist".
There was more agreement among Communists when speaking about Croatian COA without the star, tagging such COA as "nationalist" (just as Serbian COA without the star). Will you now write about these COA's as "these are nationalist COA's, since they have no Communist star"?
So, you haven't understood me. I don't deny the existence of that stereotype, but that stereotype existed solely among small fraction of Yugocommunists. Therefore, the definition must be corrected.
Please, don't present the attitude of small group as the attitude of whole community.
Please, don't make problems on the areas in which me can make accord. Kubura (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone responded to my question, so if they did, I apologize. Should I remove the picture? Like I already said, the whole range of COA is already displayed at the bottom, the white chequy first one may seem confusing to some. If no one minds or does not respond, I will take it down. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since user seems intent on keeping that picture up, I have come up with various Croatian Churches in the diaspora that have and continue to use the white checker first.

http://www.queenofpeacenorval.com/modules/news/, http://www.stjeromecroatian.org/eng/custody.html, http://www.croatianchurch.org/school, plus the Croatian Fraternal Union: http://www.croatianfraternalunion.org/. Also, Croatian business man Mr. Grgich made the white checker first part of his wine design https://www.grgich.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=view and I never heard him say this was in direct connection to any ustashe shout out.

Furthermore, http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Republike_Hrvatske#Konstrukcija shows that " Inačica nove zastave Republike Hrvatske, prvi je put službeno istaknuta 30. svibnja 1990. na trgu bana Jelačića i jedna je od inačica službeno isticanih od 25. srpnja 1990. na trgu svetoga Marka u Zagrebu......Danas je često korištena među Hrvatima izvan Republike Hrvatske, ali i drugim domoljubnim dijelovima hrvatskoga društva. Uvedena je u službenu porabu Amandmanom LXVI. na Ustav SR Hrvatske, kojim nije utvrđena naizmjeničnost crvenih i bijelih polja, niti je određen sadašnji broj od 13 crvenih i 12 bijelih polja."[26] As can be seen here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abIS5xQUd8o this is not an ustashe or nostalgia rally--it is the celebration of the first free multi-party elections in the country--most using the white checkered-first flag that has been accused of being soley associated with fascist nostalgia. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, its not one or the other. We all know the inverted chequy was used for "non-right-wing purposes". The sourced sentence "sometimes associated with Croatian nationalism" still stands. Its not "always associated with Croatian nationalism", which is what you've proven here but which nobody disputed... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there, that is partly why I wanted to remove the pic in the first place and/or have the explanation in the article rather than the pic so people won't get confused.--Jesuislafete (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms of the president is unsourced at this time and based exclusively on WP:OR (see Talk:President of Croatia). Can anyone else back up this claim?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fry sent an e-mail. After he get a replay we can discuss further, but until then it sould be as the law says--Ex13 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well known fact that the first Coat of Arms of the Republic of Croatia was this one, with the first white square. That Coat of Arms replaced the previous one on July 25, 1990, which can be seen here, and here (at 02:19). And yet, user DIREKTOR is constantly removing the referenced Coat of Arms from the gallery in this article, and replacing it with this one, with the first red square, which wasn't used. Not just that, he started to remove the correct Coat of Arms (and the flag with it) from the following articles: (List of Croatian flags, Symbols of Croatia, Socialist Republic of Croatia, and Croatian Chilean), and replacing it with the wrong Coat of Arms, and the wrong flag. Therefore, I'm asking DIREKTOR to explain his unreasonable behavior. --Calapone (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first-field-white was not the "only" version used because the text of the June 1990 law was intentionally left ambiguous, specifying only the number and color of fields, not their order. However, it is true that this variant was used in the flag hoisting ceremony on 25 July 1990, although by late 1990 it didn't really catch on and by the time the current CoA was adopted in December the first-field-red was set as the only official variant proscribed by law. Timbouctou (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the first official Coat of Arms of Croatia in 1990 was the one with the first white field, which can be also seen on these Croatian soldiers. But DIREKTOR is calling all that "Ustaša nonsense", implying that I'm putting the correct Coat of Arms because of some "Croatian ultra-nationalism".--Calapone (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could be considered as one of the variants of the first official CoA but it certainly was not the only one. Regardless, this specific version was used in a highly publicized and official state ceremony so it deserves a mention. As for DIREKTOR - he does that a lot. You can expect many ill-informed rants from him in the future. We've gotten used to it. Timbouctou (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timbouctou, you've been reported.

Calapone, please do not read too much into Timbouctou's comment above. Provocations ruin discussions, they do not help them along. Your YouTube clip does absolutely nothing to show which flag was predominantly in official use. You must understand it has to be entirely disregarded. As things go around here, since the red-square-first chequy was in the article before you replaced it with your own all over Wikipedia, I would like to hear why you think your own is somehow more accurate? Do you have a real WP:RELIABLE SOURCE?

(You've been edit-warring all over the project because of this, but lets leave it your way for the moment and try to have a discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calapone, don't get bullied by a psychopath. The YouTube clip is not "yours", it is Croatian Radiotelevision footage and as such can be considered a secondary source per WP:RSEX. DIREKTOR's rants are just a feeble attempt at disguising that all he has to present is his own pre-conceived opinion. There isn't a single source on this planet that can prove that the CoA in question was not used in official capacity in 1990, and we know for sure that the July 1990 constitution allowed it. You've got a video showing it and you've got pictures at uhp.hr. He has nothing. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]