Talk:Coat of arms of Finland

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)

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Изображение:Финляндия_герб_1809-1917.png ISasha 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

This coat was part of the "Big Emblem of the Russian Empire"- in his description described strictly 8 roses! Barbe Igor (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Presented drawing of Artist Igor Barbe, 2006, "Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire" 1882-1917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbe Igor (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

While the number of roses may be coincidental, I suppose we can agree that there should be exactly nine of them? The current escutcheon in the info box describes the field as "Gules, semy of roses argent". This treats the roses as part of the shield and not charges, and does not take into account that the number is fixed. Perhaps somebody with better knowledge of heraldry could fix this? Chino (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but

English version differs greatly with the finnish version at some points. Im talking about the facts here, the english version states that: "Official only since 1978, the coat of arms was originally created around the year 1580" Finnish version says clearly that the Coat of arms has been a sign of independent Finland since 1917 There seems to be some laws ruled around 1978 about the use and official appearance of the coat of arms, but as I have understood it has been clear enough sign for independent finland since 1917, and has virtually remained unchanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.253.184 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The Finnish coat of arms was in wide-spread governmental use since the 19th century, and its design has remained constant since early 1920's, but there was no written law about the arms. Such lack of written law was by no means remarkable, as the Finnish administrative procedures were largely uncodified or codified only as government decrees or intra-agency orders in the 19th century and acts of parliament replaced the lower-level decrees only gradually, starting in the 1920's and ending only in the 1990's. The codification of the Finnish coat of arms on the act of parliament -level took place in 1978, as a part of overall modernization process of the Finnish legislation. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

B Rating

With a lack of sufficient references and inline citations (only 4), I believe this article is not B class, as it fails one of the six B class criteria, namely criterion 1: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as cite web is not required, but the use of ref tags is encouraged.

This is easily changed, but unless someone justifies this or corrects it I think it may be necessary to lower it to C class, which it definitely does fulfil. It'd be easier if someone found references though. Jarry1250 (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper heraldic language

I changed the blazon to proper heraldic language instead of everyday English.130.233.33.59 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the blazon: Can you really say "semy" of a definite number of subordinaries? Keskitalo (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)