User talk:Embattled Grady

STOP removing the description of the Holy See's symbol from the "other elements" section of the infobox. The "Other Elements" section of the infobox is specifically for parts of a symbol that are not heraldic in nature, while the "Escutcheon" section is for describing parts of a symbol that is heraldic in nature. If you keep removing it, I will ask that you be blocked, I have zero patience in this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference. Thank you. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for WHAT? That the description is correct or that the "other elements" section is for symbols that are non-heraldic? If it's the latter, that's common knowledge here, and your continued vandalism can easily see you blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with "interlaced in the rings Or". Well in the image it is clearly red not or (gold). Interlaced what do you mean by that? etc. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a minor problem in a description, you correct it, you don't remove it as you have done several times. That's called vandalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is wrong, so I removed it. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not wrong, it simply was mistaken, which is why you correct it as I have now done. It's Two keys in saltire Or and argent, beneath a tiara argent, crowned Or. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still wrong. Any how you've done some original research and used the vatican Escutcheon to come up with your own. If what you wrote is true then it should be easily citable. Please provide a reference for it. A secondary one will do. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican Press Office is not original research, it's an official source, and there are others as well. I can line them off. Stop interfering with fact. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still wrong. First you do not mention the ribbon. Second you are attempting to use an heraldic blazon. The Vatican website does not give one for this image. So please provide a secondary source. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can use whatever description we want on here, we're not bound by these silly laws that you heraldic purists make up and try to force on it. It's not wrong any anybody with eyes can see it's a silver key crossed with a gold one, with a papal crown. I'm asking for your block, your vandalism has passed my patience. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Coats of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tgeairn (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. Embattled Grady (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the reverting has slowed or stopped, however another editor had already reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please be aware that there is an open discussion there. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embattled Grady, this is a warning. I am closing the edit-warring report without blocking you because your final reversion took place only shortly after you were warned of edit-warring and because you apologized. Please be careful in the future and do not engage in edit-warring. Content disputes should be handled on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City coat of arms

First, I should perhaps apologize for drawing attention to the edit war that at the time that I decided to send an urgent notice about it looked as if would be interminable. All you risked for a first breaking of the rule about 3 reverts in 24 hours was being blocked for 24 hours and your excellent behaviour meant that not even that was imposed on you. I was unaware that the effect on Fry1989 would be so much more drastic: an indefinite block from editing the English Wikipedia, but perhaps not Commons, where, as you know, he has been equally heated.

I just wanted to remark that in a sense, but only in a sense, there is Internet information on allegato B of the 1929 Fundamental Law of Vatican City State. The Holy See website gives the text of that Fundamental Law, with this as allegato B: "Chiavi decussate sormontate del Triregno in campo rosso". These words must have been in allegato B, but it is surely obvious that there must also have been an image of the coat of arms. If allegato B had no more than these words, they could have been put in article 21 of the law itself without printing also an allegato (enclosure, appendix, schedule or whatever you want to call it in English).

The same words were in allegato B of the 2000/2001 Fundamental Law of the state: an article published on L'Osservatore Romano is reproduced here. The article says: "Le descrizioni, in entrambe le Leggi, sono le seguenti: per lo stemma, 'Chiavi decussate sormontate dal triregno in campo rosso' ...", meaning, as you may well know: The descriptions (of the coat of arms and the seal of the state) in both Laws are as follows: for the coat of arms: "Keys in saltire surmounted by the papal tiara on a red field" ... This other Internet source identical with this says of the 2000/2001 Law: "In the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State that came into force on 22 February 2001, the coat of arms of the Holy See (sic) is blazoned as follows: 'chiavi decussate ...'" The author then goes on to give his own blazon of the illustrated arms. The phrase "the coat of arms of the Holy See" is an obvious error, since he is speaking of the Fundamental Law of the state, not of the Holy See. But I think the same mistake must be widespread.

A reproduction in black and white of the (presumably coloured) image in the 2000/2001 allegato B is given on this forum at 14 March 2007, 4:20

A 2008 L'Osservatore Romano article on the flag of the Holy See is reproduced here and here and here

That is all I can report. Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't know about the 3 reverts rule. The indefinite block of Fry1989 does seem a bit extreme but it was becoming rather heated as you say and I took a break yesterday, partily because I had a lot of other things to do.

Thanks for those links. I'm still trying to digest digest them.

My current thinking is that the Italian page is correct and the English one has an inaccurate translation. This also makes sense in terms of the images since a shieldless coat of arms does not make sense. It must be an emblem i.e. an heraldic badge. However an absence of any mention of a Holy See coat of arms does mean there isn't one (although is does raise the question why?) and we do have numerous sources stating there is one. So the question is are they one and the same? Again, thinking about this in terms of heraldry, coat of arms are suppose to identify an individual (or corporate body) so strictly speaking it doesn't make sense two have a single coat of arms for both the Holy See and Vatican. They ought to be differ in some way.

Fry1989 thinks that the ribbon being tied and untied is significant difference but to me that's just an artists interpretation of the blazon. More significant is the position of the keys and that could well be the difference between the two - even though I did find a source that stated they were both identical and one that stated they were sometimes interchanged.

My current thinking is that there is a Holy See coat of arms but it is no longer used (which could explain why hit doesn't appear on the Italian page). But that doesn't mean it does not technically exist. Arms are matters of honour so I would expect them to be removed. As as example, Prince Charles is also the Earl of Chester but I doubt he's ever used those arms, but he could if he wanted to. Similar to the way he uses the arms of his duchy as the Duke of Cornwall. Embattled Grady (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with probably everything you say, including that the absence of a mention of a Holy See coat of arms in the Italian Press Office documentation does not mean there is none, and that for two different entities the coats of arms should differ in some way. On Commons, those who disagree with you (in particular, Bellae artes and Fry 1989 and Flanker) have succeeded in removing from Commons all images of a Holy See coat of arms that differ in any way from the Vatican City coat of arms. I don't want to have a dispute there more than is immediately necessary. For that reason, the image of the "gold key in bend" coat of arms that I uploaded is deliberately of lower quality (I am unsure in any case whether I could have made it much better!) and is marked for use only on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you would like your name to appear in blue and no longer in the red that shows you are new. To achieve that, it would be enough to type any character on your User page, as Bellae artes did, and perhaps cancel it immediately after saving. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to let you see what allegato B looked like. An image of allegato A is here. If only we could find a similar image of allegato B! Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a precise reference for your quotation from "Heraldry Society (Coat of Arms, 1966)"? I understand that Coat of Arms is the society's twice-yearly journal, so to which 1966 issue were you referring and what was the page number? If you give a more precise reference, that also could be put in the article. By the way, you might be interested to know that on Commons Fry1989 has been blocked for three days because of insistent reverting, unrelated to the Holy See's coat of arms. Indeed I see that his behaviour may lead to an indefinite block there too. Esoglou (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Heraldry Society, Coat of Arms 1952-53 Volume 2 There is a question section and a separate answer section (which answers the previous issues questions):

Question in Issue 12 (p. 254): Papal Arms. With reference to the arms of the Holy See, one authority gives the blazon as follows : — Gules a key or in bend above a key argent in bend sinister, both wards upwards, the bows united by a cord or, above the shield a tiara, its three crowns or, the mitre argent. Another authority however gives the tincture of the cord as gules. Which is correct? The arms of the holy see are of course used on all official letters, bulls, breves and other authoritative documents. On all other communications the arms of the Pope are used. Can any of your readers say whether the following blazon of the latter arms is correct: — Azure, a dove argent, head to the dexter, holding in the beak an olive branch standing on three mounds, conjoined in pyramid, issuing from plain vert in base? C.C.R. Murphy

Answer in Issue 13 (p. 309): The answers to both Mr. Murphy's queries are to be found in Galbreath's Papal Heraldry (Cambridge, 1930), where he states that the cord connecting the papal keys is found from the end of the 13th century "of varying length and colour (white, black, gold or blue)", op. cit., p.8. Certain German MSS. which he mentions, p.7, footnote 8, tend to show the cord azure ; but from other examples of general provenance it would seem that a cord of gold is usually preferred. The arms blazoned by Mr. Murphy are probably a version of those of Innocent X ( 1644 — 45): — Gules a dove silver holding in its beak an olive-branch vert, and a chief azure charged with three fleurs-de-lis gold divided by two pallets retraits in base gules : op. cit., p. 98, & Tig. 1 78, p. 97.

It is a good point that is raised. Since the field is red why is the cord also red? And interestingly, on the vatican web page the blazon does say gold but image uses red. Curious. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The coat of arms of an individual pope to which Mr Murphy referred was surely that of the then reigning Pius XII. Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]