Matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.80.107 ( talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Kittybrewster-- Reverting with no discussion isn't nice. Do you have specific comments on the material I put in? (In the meantime, I'll leave your original form, and just put on a POV tag.) Sneftel 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there still be discussion of family crests such as those in Japan, where there are "such a thing"? That's what I was looking for when I came to the page. A blanket statement that proposes "there is no such thing" is only looking at the perhaps improper use of the term in regards to European regalia, but the term is still very much used in regards to the Japanese form and I've never heard any objection such a usage. Let's not be too Euro-centric, shall we?
A Google search for "unicorn" gave 12,500,000 results, thereby proving conclusively that there are lots of references to unicorns on the internet. Wow! I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to do a "cursory" search which would enable me to use Google to prove that unicorns exists. Advice, sought please. Matt Stan 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I question the value of this article's existence. It would suffice for Family crest to redirect to Crest (heraldry), which can have a note at the top such as The word "crest" is often mistakenly applied to a coat of arms; for further information see Heraldry. (And perhaps Heraldry needs a section on "bucket shops".) Meanwhile, the key sentence is not strictly accurate: crests are hereditary, and usually not differenced when the shield is (the royal crests being an exception because they double as badges of sovereignty). The common misconception that needs fighting is that all of a given surname share a lineage and a single coat of arms; this is a subtler point but not so subtle that it helps to distort it into "There is no such thing as a family crest." — Tamfang 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
So why is there a Wikipedia entry for something that doesn't exist? — Tamfang 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Kitty asks: And why would one call that "thing" one is choosing a family crest? Am I choosing it for myself and my parents children and first cousins or what? I gather that it's not uncommon for Lyon and other authorities to grant arms to the (deceased) father or grandfather of the petitioner, to be borne with appropriate differences by all descendants thereof. In the informal world, obviously the inventor of a symbol decides what it symbolizes; I could invent a device and assign it to my grandfather (I don't know any more distant kin because he was a black sheep), and bear it with an appropriate difference — but it's up to each of my kin to decide whether they adopt the same device for the same purpose. Of the many coats of arms assumed (or authoritatively granted) in recent times, it would be interesting to know how many have actually been used by any adult other than the first bearer! — Tamfang 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I raised the question of grants to ancestors in rec.heraldry; answers were inconclusive. [7] — Tamfang 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Language could usefully be borrowed from [8]. — Tamfang 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
'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
Support - I think that the article ought to be merged. An article about actual heraldic crests would lead quite well into discussion about supposed "family crests."-- Evadb 15:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support with reservation. Crest isn't the best place for this material, either, since it's not really about crests! I've broken off the last paragraph of Heraldry#Origins and history into a new section (provisionally titled "Rights and wrongs") into which I'd put this material. — Tamfang 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Qualified Disagree. There might be a place for some of this information under the Heraldry article, but I think it would merge better with Coat of arms. -- EncycloPetey 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Even in Scotland, crests are not differenced, and the bearing of a differenced coat of arms does signify membership in a family. In some countries, all members of a lineage bear exactly the same arms and crest. So it is not true that "there is no such thing as a family crest" no matter how many times you write it; and every time you write it, I'm going to alter it in an attempt to make it accurate. If you can't work with me on this, I'll have to work against you, and the result will continue to be unsatisfactory all around. — Tamfang 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.80.107 ( talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Kittybrewster-- Reverting with no discussion isn't nice. Do you have specific comments on the material I put in? (In the meantime, I'll leave your original form, and just put on a POV tag.) Sneftel 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there still be discussion of family crests such as those in Japan, where there are "such a thing"? That's what I was looking for when I came to the page. A blanket statement that proposes "there is no such thing" is only looking at the perhaps improper use of the term in regards to European regalia, but the term is still very much used in regards to the Japanese form and I've never heard any objection such a usage. Let's not be too Euro-centric, shall we?
A Google search for "unicorn" gave 12,500,000 results, thereby proving conclusively that there are lots of references to unicorns on the internet. Wow! I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to do a "cursory" search which would enable me to use Google to prove that unicorns exists. Advice, sought please. Matt Stan 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I question the value of this article's existence. It would suffice for Family crest to redirect to Crest (heraldry), which can have a note at the top such as The word "crest" is often mistakenly applied to a coat of arms; for further information see Heraldry. (And perhaps Heraldry needs a section on "bucket shops".) Meanwhile, the key sentence is not strictly accurate: crests are hereditary, and usually not differenced when the shield is (the royal crests being an exception because they double as badges of sovereignty). The common misconception that needs fighting is that all of a given surname share a lineage and a single coat of arms; this is a subtler point but not so subtle that it helps to distort it into "There is no such thing as a family crest." — Tamfang 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
So why is there a Wikipedia entry for something that doesn't exist? — Tamfang 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Kitty asks: And why would one call that "thing" one is choosing a family crest? Am I choosing it for myself and my parents children and first cousins or what? I gather that it's not uncommon for Lyon and other authorities to grant arms to the (deceased) father or grandfather of the petitioner, to be borne with appropriate differences by all descendants thereof. In the informal world, obviously the inventor of a symbol decides what it symbolizes; I could invent a device and assign it to my grandfather (I don't know any more distant kin because he was a black sheep), and bear it with an appropriate difference — but it's up to each of my kin to decide whether they adopt the same device for the same purpose. Of the many coats of arms assumed (or authoritatively granted) in recent times, it would be interesting to know how many have actually been used by any adult other than the first bearer! — Tamfang 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I raised the question of grants to ancestors in rec.heraldry; answers were inconclusive. [7] — Tamfang 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Language could usefully be borrowed from [8]. — Tamfang 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
'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
Support - I think that the article ought to be merged. An article about actual heraldic crests would lead quite well into discussion about supposed "family crests."-- Evadb 15:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support with reservation. Crest isn't the best place for this material, either, since it's not really about crests! I've broken off the last paragraph of Heraldry#Origins and history into a new section (provisionally titled "Rights and wrongs") into which I'd put this material. — Tamfang 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Qualified Disagree. There might be a place for some of this information under the Heraldry article, but I think it would merge better with Coat of arms. -- EncycloPetey 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Even in Scotland, crests are not differenced, and the bearing of a differenced coat of arms does signify membership in a family. In some countries, all members of a lineage bear exactly the same arms and crest. So it is not true that "there is no such thing as a family crest" no matter how many times you write it; and every time you write it, I'm going to alter it in an attempt to make it accurate. If you can't work with me on this, I'll have to work against you, and the result will continue to be unsatisfactory all around. — Tamfang 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)