nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + + + + + + + + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": On the contrary...
::: I think that "Sir" is a lot less meaningful and relevant than "Dr" or "Rev". Most readers have no idea what would qualify someone to acquire the title of "Sir". But even if I agreed with you, CP and other encyclopedias do not even usually use "Dr" and "Rev".
::: I think that "Sir" is a lot less meaningful and relevant than "Dr" or "Rev". Most readers have no idea what would qualify someone to acquire the title of "Sir". But even if I agreed with you, CP and other encyclopedias do not even usually use "Dr" and "Rev".
:::: On the contrary, "Sir" is a lot ''more'' meaningful and relevant that "Dr." or "Rev.". The latter can be "bought" (by plenty of hard study, etc.) by anybody will sufficient will to achieve them, and there are literally thousands of them in any one country. But "Sir" is a title that is reserved for someone who has achieved a lot more than just studying a few years—often it's bestowed for a lifetime (almost) of effort. It is a much higher honour than "Dr.".
:::: If most readers have no idea, we educate them with an article. That issue is easily solved.
:::: Other encyclopedias:
::::* My World Book encyclopedia on disk has its article titled "Newton, Sir Isaac".
::::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton Wikipedia] refers to him in the first line as "Sir Isaac Newton".
::::* [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108764/Sir-Isaac-Newton Britannica Online] has it's article on him titled "Sir Isaac Newton"
::::* [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ne/Newton-S.html Columbia Encyclopedia] has it's article titled "Newton, Sir Isaac".
::::* [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ne/Newton-S.html Encarta] is the only exception that I found, not using that title at all.
::::If we follow the norm for other encyclopedias, we should change the name of the page to include "Sir", but I'm not proposing going that far.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==