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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Earle Martin [mailto:wikipedia at downlode.org]
>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 05:35 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
>
>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

It strikes me that this information can be checked. Also, the harm done if it is wrong is minimal.

Fred