Talk:Family crest

message: Matter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.80.107 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

message: Kittybrewster, do you have in mind later to replace the redirection from heraldic bucket shops with a longer article, distinct from the existing bucket shop article?  It's not obvious to me that it's worth a separate page; and if there is not to be a separate page, why prefer "heraldic bucket shop" to "heraldic bucket shop"?  (And by the way, for a title it ought to be singular.)  —Tamfang 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bucket shops 

message: Sneftel's attempts to POVise this article are disingenuous. One might as well write about unicorns:
Unicorns are a hybrid of a horse and a narwhal, and, like yettis and the Loch Ness Monster exist because many people believe in their existence. Wikipedia's NPOV rules promote the idea of the existence of anything providing that someone believes in its existence. Therefore it is valid in wikipedia to claim that any fact is merely someone's point of view. Facts can't be enumerated in case they offend the holders of alternative views.
And how about math:
In math it is believed by many that 2+2=4. However those not acquainted with elementary arithmetic may hold a different view and therefore it can't be stated as a fact that 2+2=4. To do so would contravene wikipedia's NPOV rule and offend the ignorant. This would be an insult to the ignorant, whose whole essence is to ignore that which might inform. "Ignorant rights", meaning the rights of ignorant people, seem to be getting ignored by contributors to wikipedia. This is a scandal which must be ended forthwith. Long live ignorance! Matt Stan 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right of course. NPOV duly removed. Kittybrewster 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference between this sort of thing and unicorns is that for unicorns to exist, they must have physical, tangible reality. The same thing is not true here. And if there were a whole bunch of people who believed in unicorns, guess what: We'd document them! Not in a "so maybe unicorns DO exist" way, but in a "there's this whole bunch of people who believe in unicorns" way. We would be documenting not their worldview as fact--which it isnt--but their actions as fact--which they would be. You seem to think that the problem is with offending people; I couldn't care less about that. The problem is with Wikipedia failing to document what is demonstrably a semi-common activity. And Kittybrewster, once again, please do not remove the POV tag. I've refrained from getting into an edit war; I expect you to do the same. Sneftel 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sneftel, you are wrong. Heraldry is a science and an art. It is not a point of view. A "family crest" does not exist in the Oxford English Dictionary and has no place here. You provide no authority, no references - just an assertion. Your assertion or the commercial prostitution by various companies does give rise to the entry on heraldic bucket shops - which you also doubtless think non-neutral POV but it does not justify your POV tag. I have provided authoritative references and expect you to do the same. Your contribution is not verifiable which it has to be. Kittybrewster 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, here's a few:       These are webpages of people who have created (or have a family member who created) a family crest design. These links are not offered to prove that family crests have any legitimacy under Heraldry, but to prove that this practice actually occurs on a regular basis. Since it is a practice which occurs on a regular basis, it is notable, and should be documented.  Sneftel 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're merely using the wrong word for a legitimate practice.  Where there is no authority, anyone may assume a coat of arms, provided they make reasonable efforts to avoid the appearance of impersonating someone else.  That's how heraldry began!  What needs opposing is the notion that because your name is (let's say) Howard – even if it was Horowitz or Hogwarts a couple of generations ago – you should paint the Norfolk arms on your truck.  —Tamfang 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree; I've tried to make that point with my versions. My move to add the information to this article was based on what seems to be the general usage, incorrect as it may be. However, given the obviously contentious nature of the issue, I see no reason not to put the topic in a different article, if an appropriate title can be found. Do you have any ideas? Sneftel 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean rename Family crest to something less controversial, or incorporate the point about "Howard family arms" into an existing article?  Why not Heraldry?  —Tamfang 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not sure. I'm shooting from the hip here. It's looking more and more like the subject of "Howard family arms" and the subject of self-made ornaments are not going to be able to peacefully coexist within a single article, so perhaps they should be split up. And a reasonable argument could be made that the two are significantly different subjects, so splitting them up wouldn't necessarily be the tail wagging the dog. The question of where exactly the line should be drawn and what the resultant titles should be is, of course, up in the air. (BTW: I'm going to be out of contact from later today until Monday evening.) Sneftel 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we need entries for Usurping arms and Bogus arms. Me too (out of contact). Kittybrewster 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In order to inform the ignorant and point them in the right direction so they learn about the subject of arms, crests or whatever they want to know about - and to advise them why they have adopted a historically mistaken idea  and where they can learn more factual data. Kittybrewster 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And why can't that be done by simple redirection such as I suggested above?  Does every popular misconception need its own article, and one whose first sentence is not strictly accurate?  —Tamfang 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rights of the ignorant 

message: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you intend to add some content to usurping arms beyond the definition that's already here, but the concept of bogus arms is both parochial (it applies only within the jurisdiction of an arms-granting authority) and irrelevant to the topic (someone assuming an originally-designed coat of arms is obviously not purporting to use another's "family arms").  —Tamfang 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  usurping/bogus arms 

message: Language could usefully be borrowed from .  —Tamfang 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Anton.  Francois did a great job with that one.--Evadb 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rec.heraldry faq 

message: 'Strong Agree - Since no one has started the talk about the discussion, then I will.  I think it's a brilliant idea!!! Lets do this ASAP?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2006
: (Please sign your comments with four tildes.)  Well, we've tried redirecting it to Crest (heraldry), but somehow that didn't stick .. —Tamfang 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: Instead of continuing to argue, could this article have separate sections from both of your points of view ... one section written by each of you?  To explain WHY yours is a valid truth, you simply have to start your section with a heading like "Heraldry in England" ... how can this be possible you ask?  Perhaps there is no NPOV.  If Kitty is English, then what she says is true (except that I think she is still using the word crest to mean "arms", which is why I got into this argument in the first place)  If sneftel is German, then he could write the section called "Heraldry in Germany", (yes, I know you wouldn't type it like that.  I'm just an ignorant southern Yank.) and what he says is true as well.
And ALL of this could be contained in the "Heraldry" article, and there could be links to that from the "family crest" and "family coats of arms" section.  And I'm glad to see that the argument has subsided since February.  And I guess this is a very big planet after all.  And life is good.  and... and...
Leesonma 04:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitty is British, living in England and Scotland which are different heraldic jurisdictions. In both, there is no such thing as a "family crest". Tamfang says there may be in other parts of Europe and that in parts of Europe it is entire families rather than individuals that are made armigerous (which is not so in UK). - Kittybrewster 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June thread

message: Boutell's Heraldry (edition of 1978 by Brooke-Little) p.123: "Persons of illegitimate birth may not assume at will the arms of their putative father with an appropriate difference. They must prove their paternity, and petition for the arms to be granted."
—Tamfang 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In England that would be correct. In Scotland that applies also to legitimate people. - Kittybrewster 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  exceptio probat regulum in casibus non exceptis