Talk:Time immemorial: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Dark wounds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Wrong; 'is said to have' is in this context used because this is the generally ASSUMED date, but the exact one is not known because it was never explicitly specified as such. If you had bothered to search any references on the subject of English heraldic law, you would have discovered this. [[User:65.13.28.4|65.13.28.4]] 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
Wrong; 'is said to have' is in this context used because this is the generally ASSUMED date, but the exact one is not known because it was never explicitly specified as such. If you had bothered to search any references on the subject of English heraldic law, you would have discovered this. [[User:65.13.28.4|65.13.28.4]] 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Then put those references in the article! |
:Then put those references in the article! |
||
::now, now children.. |
Revision as of 15:01, 31 January 2008
Heraldry and vexillology Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Second point: "The Court of Chivalry is said to have defined the period before 1066 as "time immemorial" for the purposes of heraldry." The "is said to have" sounds like classic weasel wording to me. 68.39.174.238 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong; 'is said to have' is in this context used because this is the generally ASSUMED date, but the exact one is not known because it was never explicitly specified as such. If you had bothered to search any references on the subject of English heraldic law, you would have discovered this. 65.13.28.4 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then put those references in the article!
- now, now children..