Talk:Coat of arms of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Coat of arms of Finland 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

[edit] The Coat of Arms is not in the flag

The flag is blue and white, no coat of arms.

That's the national flag, coat of arms appears in the state flag, as is correctly stated in the article. SGJ 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms of the Grand Duchy of Finland

The image in the article is not quite appropriate. It is only a part of the Grand Duchy's coat of arms. I will later upload both the photograph of the old coat of arms from the book of Alexander Lakier, founder of Russian heraldry. It must have the typical Imperial Russian eagle, and on the shield - a coat of arms with lion, but slightly different. You may see it here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Изображение:Финляндия_герб_1809-1917.png ISasha 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to the number of roses

As far as I'm aware, the number of roses are not proven to relate to either the number provinces or towns. Hence, I'd suggest to change the following paragraph:

  • The nine roses have often (falsely) been claimed to represent the nine historical provinces of Finland, although Lapland and Ostrobothnia were not considered as parts of Finland yet in the 16th century. Noteworthy is that the number of towns in the nominal "Grand Duchy of Finland and Karelia" in 1580 was nine: Turku, Porvoo, Rauma, Naantali, Pori, Vyborg, Tammisaari, Helsinki and Priozersk that had been taken from Russia in the same year.

into a very short one:

  • The nine roses are sometimes referred to as representing the nine historical provinces of Finland, although there is currently no evidence to support such a statement.

Is there anyone who can provide supporting facts for or against this change? -- Grimne 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At least the note that Lapland and Ostrobothnia were not considered parts of Finland in the 16th century is not controversial, and needs to stay. There is also nothing controversial in the number of towns in 1580. Readers have their freedom to think what they want, Wikipedia just needs to provide facts. --Drieakko 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In general I think its fairer to the readers to handle statements that cannot be fully corroborated or that are in dispute with some care. In the article on Virtual Finland, Mauno Harmo states that "The nine roses are decorative, although they have falsely been interpreted as referring to Finland's nine historical provinces". In Tuukka Talvios book (The Lion of Finland) it is stated on more than one occasion that any link to the number of provinces is "historically untenable". I have not myself seen any reference linking it to the number of towns (could you share the original source of this hypothesis)?
At a minimum I would suggest that the sentence can be rewritten as follows: "The purpose of the nine roses remains unknown, and authoritative sources regard them as decorative only. They have sometimes been claimed to represent the nine historical provinces of Finland, but this theory is considered untrue. Ostrobothnia was not generally considered as a part of Finland before the 18th century and Lapland was united with the Swedish Lapland until 1809. The number of towns in the nominal "Grand Duchy of Finland and Karelia" in 1580 were also nine, but any link with the number of roses on the arms has not been proven."
Any thoughts/feedback on the above? -- Grimne 10:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Very well formulated. --Drieakko 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)