nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 188:
Line 188: + + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": I DID look it up in SEVERAL dictionaries
: Philip, I suggest looking up "consensus" in a dictionary. What is your position now, that "sir" should always be used with men who got real knighthoods, but not with those who got honorary knighthoods? How about Elton John and Paul McCartney? My position is that the title is inappropriate for an encyclopedia based outside of England. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
: Philip, I suggest looking up "consensus" in a dictionary. What is your position now, that "sir" should always be used with men who got real knighthoods, but not with those who got honorary knighthoods? How about Elton John and Paul McCartney? My position is that the title is inappropriate for an encyclopedia based outside of England. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:: I ''did'' look "consensus" up in a dictionary. Several in fact. That's why I said what I did—I do my research before making claims like that.
:: Yes, "sir" should always be used with men who got real knighthoods (obviously not for honorary knighthoods, for reasons explained above), but ''perhaps'' allowing an exception in special cases, such as where they did not use it themselves.
:: Your US-centric position is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that is trying to be more than just an American encyclopedia, and continues to fail to recognise that knighthoods apply in more than just England. And your position is not even merely US-centric, as even US-based encyclopedias mostly recognise knighthoods.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:59, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==