1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: − + Line 130:
Line 130: + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": Yes, I'd expect the Encyclopedia Britannica to use "Sir"
::Thomas Jefferson referred to Sir Isaac Newton by his title, in a letter written on February 25, 1809 to the French author Monsieur Gregoire (''The Writings of Thomas Jefferson'' (H. A. Worthington, ed.), Volume V, p. 429), where he writes: ''Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others.'' If it was good enough for Jefferson, it's surely good enough for Conservapedia.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 09:45, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::Thomas Jefferson referred to Sir Isaac Newton by his title, in a letter written on February 25, 1809 to the French author Monsieur Gregoire (''The Writings of Thomas Jefferson'' (H. A. Worthington, ed.), Volume V, p. 429), where he writes: ''Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others.'' If it was good enough for Jefferson, it's surely good enough for Conservapedia.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 09:45, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::: 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". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:::: 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.".
:::: 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.
:::: If most readers have no idea, we educate them with an article. That issue is easily solved.
::::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.
::::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)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Yes, I'd expect the Encyclopedia Britannica to use "Sir" as it pretends to be a British encyclopedia. This example should be added to the list of biases in Wikipedia. I tried another name in the Columbia Encyclopedia, Elton John, [http://www.bartleby.com/65/jo/John-Elt.html] and it does ''not'' use "Sir". It only says, "He was knighted in 1997."
::::: Sir may be a higher title than Dr, but how do you know it hasn't been bought? I don't know much about British titles, but I would assume that many or most of those titles were given out for political and other reasons. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:03, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==