Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
6,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: +
Talk:Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms (view source)
Revision as of 21:46, June 14, 2009
, 21:46, June 14, 2009no edit summary
:Thanks for your insight, but I don't see any reason to change the entry. You're simply reinforcing what the entry says: "fission" is not a new concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks for your insight, but I don't see any reason to change the entry. You're simply reinforcing what the entry says: "fission" is not a new concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::Well, the word is fine but maybe you should change the description. Because fission in the 1600s did ''not'' mean nuclear fission, as the description implies. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
==Hello==
==Hello==