Changes

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.

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.  

: The article already says Newton got knighted. The title is meaningless to anyone outside England. Newton is in CP for his scientific and mathematical accomplishments, not for holding some silly title. To put "Sir" on his name would be like putting "Herr Doctor Professor" on the names of German scientists. Actually it would be worse. Please don't put "Sir" back in. You can boldface the name if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

 

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==

==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==