On 02/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable source.
My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the article again pending this.
Glancing at the talkpage - if it was an authorised design it would be published in X; it's not published in X; ergo unauthorised. The problem is that a) understanding that the links in that chain are meaningful requires a degree of external knowledge of how the system works; and b) the usual issues with proving "was not in any version of X" if someone decides to quibble.
(I do hate it when institutions do this. Damnit, they have a nice serviceable crest already... why create a new one and confuse everybody?)
It'd be much easier for someone to write a letter to the Old Latymerians (or whatever) newsletter complaining about it, and cite that ;-)