:::I think there is a bit of confusion here. The appropriate distinction is not between honorary and "real" knighthoods. I think that all of the knighthoods we are discussing here are honorary. Knighthoods should not be confused with hereditary titles, which is a completely different thing. As discussed above, it is ''not appropriate'' for '''American citizens''' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". It is ''only'' appropriate for ''British citizens'' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". This is why "Sir Elton John" and "Sir Paul McCartney" are correct, but "Sir Bob Hope" or "Sir George Bush" would not be correct, even though Bob Hope and George Bush have been knighted. This is why no encyclopedia should call an American citizen "Sir". I think a sensible approach for us would be to call the article "Isaac Newton", with a redirect (or whatever the proper term is) from "Sir Isaac Newton", and to leave the "Sir" in the first sentence. --Hsmom 10:00, 8 July 2007 (EDT) | :::I think there is a bit of confusion here. The appropriate distinction is not between honorary and "real" knighthoods. I think that all of the knighthoods we are discussing here are honorary. Knighthoods should not be confused with hereditary titles, which is a completely different thing. As discussed above, it is ''not appropriate'' for '''American citizens''' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". It is ''only'' appropriate for ''British citizens'' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". This is why "Sir Elton John" and "Sir Paul McCartney" are correct, but "Sir Bob Hope" or "Sir George Bush" would not be correct, even though Bob Hope and George Bush have been knighted. This is why no encyclopedia should call an American citizen "Sir". I think a sensible approach for us would be to call the article "Isaac Newton", with a redirect (or whatever the proper term is) from "Sir Isaac Newton", and to leave the "Sir" in the first sentence. --Hsmom 10:00, 8 July 2007 (EDT) |