[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Earle Martin]

On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to
the school's new logo/shield:

"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new
shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."

I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but
replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on
the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about -
certainly more than I know about heraldry.

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.


-- 
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/