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

[phoebe ayers]

On 4/2/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Trivia: My mum went to [[Godolphin and Latymer School]].
>
> Small world. I went to Latymer, which is why I keep an eye on this
> article.
>
> > >"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new
> > >shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
> >
> > And?  It's a logo.  Why would it need to be?
>
> Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the
> heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the
> shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article)
> that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a
> shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements)
> used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before
> display".


In general, I find it problematic when someone  states that something is
"obvious" in as obscure and complicated a field as heraldry. Obvious to you,
perhaps. Not at all obvious to me. Thus, a source would be nice, for those
of us who aren't heraldic experts and would like to find out more about this
interesting fact beyond the 1 or 2 sentences in a Wikipedia article. I'm
sure Chelseaboy knows what he's talking about; that's missing the point,
though.

-- phoebe