nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": It should be "Sir"
:::I note that we call Margaret Thatcher 'Lady' Thatcher in more than one article. Does the 'American's aren't interested in British nobility' rule not apply to the good Baroness then? Newton provided every bit as much service to science as Thatcher did to politics, and arguably had a longer-lasting influence. I say give him his 'Sir'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I note that we call Margaret Thatcher 'Lady' Thatcher in more than one article. Does the 'American's aren't interested in British nobility' rule not apply to the good Baroness then? Newton provided every bit as much service to science as Thatcher did to politics, and arguably had a longer-lasting influence. I say give him his 'Sir'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Having not read this discussion (until now), I changed it to "Sir Isaac Newton" in the first sentence, only to have RSchafly revert it without explanation. However, I continue to believe that the first reference should be to "Sir Isaac Newton". What weight Americans give to British titles is irrelevant, if only because Conservapedia is not (any longer) as exclusively American as it was, such as dropping the requirement for American spelling. And this is a similar issue. If articles on British/Australia/etc. topics are appropriately spelt using British/Australian/etc. spelling, then articles on British people should use their British titles.
Unless someone offers a good rebuttal to that, I will reinstate the knighthood title.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==