Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Date of death

Shouldn't his OS DOD be 1727 rather than 1726?--68.93.84.18 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia chooses to give the date which his fellow Englishmen would have given if you had asked them what today's date was on the day he died. They would have said that it was 20th March, 1726. However if you had asked a Scotsman for the date on that day, he would have said that it was 20th March, 1727. Asking a Frenchman would have given you the date, 31st March, 1727. The reason for the day/month difference was down to use of the Gregorian/Julian calendar. The reason for the Year difference among Julian calendar users was that Julian Old Style calendar users started a New Year on the 25 March rather than the beginning of January as Julian New Style or Gregorian calendar users do. For more info read our article on the Julian calendar.-- Derek Ross | Talk 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that WP's manual of style says that dates should correspond with usage at that time in that place; but it also says that the year begins on 1 January by default. That seems to imply 20 March 1727. 194.63.116.72 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The following parts of this article are incorrect

"and exercising his power to reform the currency and punish clippers and counterfeiters."

He had no power to reform currency only Parliament could do that, he also had no powers to punish clippers, only courts could do that.

"As Master of the Mint in 1717 Newton unofficially moved the Pound Sterling from the silver standard to the gold standard by creating a relationship between gold coins and the silver penny in the "Law of Queen Anne"; these were all great reforms at the time, adding considerably to the wealth and stability of England."

The relationship between gold and silver had existed for many centuries before this assumed date. One of the roles of the Master of the Mint was to report to Parliament on the difference in prices across the globe between gold and silver bullion which made up the bulk of the currency at that time. Nor is there a single “Law of Queen Anne”, there were many laws passed in her time as monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.213.118 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the text follows the standard biographies, especially Westfall. Newton for a while was an MP and worked closely with the legal officials. As for the clippers, he hired spies and tracked them down, assembled the evidence and in one case made sure a counterfeiter was executed as a traitor. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Newton prosecuted 28 counterfeiters and in his pursuit of the egregious William Chaloner, had himself made into a Justice of the Peace.--Streona (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And in the process of pursuing Challoner he would sit in the taverns dressed in disguise to overhear the plans of his confederates. This is the most astonishing fact I learnt about Newton. Torricelli01 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Newtonmas

Should this include a reference to Newtonmas, the secular/agnostic celebration alternative to Christmas? Cheers! Godot (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Newton himself wrote:

"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared."

He also wrote:

“Idolatry is a more dangerous crime because it is apt by the authority of Kings & under very specious pretenses to insinuate it self into mankind. Kings being apt to enjoyn the honour of their dead ancestors”

and:

“This was the {true} religion of the first ages till they forsook the right worship of the true God & turned aside to the worship of dead men & Idols, & then God gave them over to their lusts & passions for working all manner of unrighteousness.”

(Source: Newton Project Website)

So it is clear from Sir Isaac Newton’s own writings that he was against Atheism and that he clearly thought that the worship (or celebration) of “Dead men” was idolatry. So these people are free to do as they wish – but to associate a secular movement with Sir Isaac Newton on this page would clearly be against his own and easily verifiable beliefs and wishes. NorCal RS (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about endorsing Atheism nor honoring Newton's wishes because Wikipedia is not for advertisement nor a memorial site, it is an encyclopedia. Even if the celebration has a wrongful origin or mistaken interpretation, the fact is that exist, even if as a myth. If its existence is relevant, then mentioning this celebration in the main article may be valuable for the reader. By the way, despite his own beliefs, Newton's work was very influential in the development of western Determinism and the work of all the scientific community have ultimately shrink the domain of existence of an alleged god, and allowing more space to non theistic philosophies. Newton's contributions to secular causes is not limited to his own intentions, but to his acts. Godot (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

Quote from Wiki page: “Henry More's belief in the Universe and rejection of Cartesian dualism may have influenced Newton's religious ideas” – I think this needs a citation, I could find no link between the two men. Henry More is also listed as an “influence (see sidebar), but this too needs a citation.

Actual Quote from Newton: “Let me therefore beg of thee not to trust to the opinion of any man concerning these things {the Scriptures}, for so it is great odds but thou shalt be deceived.” (Source: The Newton Project Website)

Clearly from his own writings Sir Isaac Newton believed what he could discern for himself from the scriptures and not what he was told. -- NorCal RS (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless he was influenced by his teachers, and Henry More was probably the most notable of them. More's influence on Newton has been extensively documented, e.g. in Alexander Koyre's "From the Closed world to the infinite universe". BTW, it is grossly anachronistic to describe More as a theosophist. PaddyLeahy (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - So would inclusion of the citation make the article better? BTW - I didn't describe anybody as a theosophist. -- NorCal RS (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Information at odds with what Sir Isaac Newton actually wrote

Snobelen quote: “Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books)”

From the Socinian Wiki page: “The Socinians held that the Son of God did not exist until he was born a man.”

Actual quote by Sir Isaac Newton:

“And even Christ himself represents the state which he was in before his incarnation to be like that which he was to be in after his resurrection. Glorify me, saith he to his father, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was Iohn 17.5. He came out from God & went away to God Iohn 13.3. I came forth from the father & am come into the world & again I leave the world & go to the father. Iohn 16.28. & 13.3.” (Source: The Newton Project Website)

Sir Isaac Newton quotes the scriptures here to show that Christ himself proved that he had a pre human existence. Since Sir Isaac Newton believed explicitly in the truth of the scriptures, the Snobelen reference does not appear to be an accurate statement as to Sir Isaac Newton’s actual beliefs. -- NorCal RS (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Integration of polynomials

Am I right in thinking that the integration of x^n to x^(n+1)/(n+1) is due to Cavalieri not Newton in 1620s? So what was Newton's innovation then? Torricelli01 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Information possibly at odds with facts

Snobelen quote: “possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian”

Sir Isaac Newton quote: “..... their {false teachers} contradictions in matters of beleif are infinite. I shal only summ up such as I esteem most important either in the points themselves which they concern or in relation to our controversies in the Doctrine of the Trinity....” (Source: The Newton Project Website)

Sir Isaac Newton wrote extensively about his research into what happened to Arius and his followers at the Council of Niece (and others). I never could find a statement that Sir Newton ‘explicitly’ agreed with all the beliefs of Arius, but it is clear from his writing that he thought that the expelling of Arius and his followers from the church was wrong and no man had the authority to do this. Newton considered this the time when the true Apostasy reached the entire church. (Source: Newton Project Website)

As for being: “almost certainly an antitrinitarian” – this can be found to be absolutely certain because of his writings in the paper titled “12 Articles” – in this paper Sir Newton details how God the father is without beginning, The father is invisible (Christ is visible), The Father gave life to his son (Jesus Christ) before he became a man by Mary (hence Christ has a beginning), there is one mediator between the Father and man, namely Jesus Christ. These views fit none of the Trinitarian beliefs. (Source: Newton Project Website)

(Source: The Newton Project Website)

Further,

Quote: “In a view disputed by Snobelen,[20] T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that Newton held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.[21]”

from the Eastern Orthodox Wiki page quote: “Orthodox Christians believe in a God who is both three and one (triune).”

See the Snobelen quote above for the background – this appears to be totally against Sir Newton’s own writings (again see above for the proof). Source: “12 Articles” manuscript, Newton Project Website. -- NorCal RS (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing Monotheism as a religion is too general . At the same time , Arianism includes certain supernatural elements of which Newton most likely did not approve and generally relates to adherents from Arius's time . Newton's beliefs align almost perfectly to those of conventional Unitarianism . I invite suggestions for a better word before I make the change . --Frank.trampe (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

there is a large literature indeed on Newton's religion. The problem for Newton is that his bviews were heretical and he would lose his appointments at Cambridge & the Mint if they became known. So he never published his major thoughts and they have been recovered in recent years as his manuscriopts first become available to scholars. The conseensus of scholars such as Westfall is that he was an Arian. (I don't know any recent scholar who calls him a "unitarian"). Westfall, the leading biographer says: "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term." and his views "remained unaltered until his death."Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the problems involving sources , but there is clearly not a consensus of scholars that Newton was Arian . Arianism is a subset of Unitarianism ( whose terminology long pre-dates Newton ) , which seems a better choice in this case in light of Newton's seeming tendency to disclaim various mystic elements of religion as described on Isaac Newton's religious views ( In The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729), T.C. Pfizenmaier argued Newton was neither "orthodox" nor an Arian. He believed that both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation. However, S. D. Snobelen has argued against this from manuscripts produced late in Newton's life which demonstrate Newton rejected the Eastern view of the Trinity. ) . I would ask that you include and cite your quote on the aforementioned page . All the same , describing Newton as Arian when several seemingly credible scholars say that he is not seems to show some bias towards Westfall . The only major point of agreement is that Newton believed Jesus to be divine but not God ( the definition of Unitarianism ) . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Among contemporary scholars, the consensus is that Newton was an Arian" says Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" (1997). Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries‎ (1996) p 133 says Newton was an Arian and points out that modern Unitarianism emerged after Newton's death; David Nicholls, God and Government in an 'age of Reason'‎ (1995) Page 44, says Arianism came along in Newton's day and Newton was an Arian, but Unitarianism came later. We have dozens of references to Newton-as-Arian by the coauthors of Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton's Theology (1990), ed. by J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin; there is only one reference (p1) to Unitarianism-denying that Newton was one. So where is there a consensus of modern experts that says Newton was a Unitarian?? Alternative views come from people who lived over 100 years ago and never saw Newton's secret manuscripts, which were open to reaesrch only in recent decades. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Pfizenmaier quote seems to directly contradict my quote from Isaac Newton's religious views . Since you seem to have access to the sources , I hope that you can make the necessary changes . Although , as the more specific and apparently correct term , Arianism seems to be better here , Unitarianism is most definitely a correct term as a strict superset of Arianism ( see Unitarianism ) and one that pre-dated Newton by between 50 and 100 years ( once again , see Unitarianism ) . --128.237.96.187 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because Unitarianism arose early in parts of Europe like Transylvania, but later--after Newton's death--in England. The first Unitarian church opened in London in 1774. Arianism on the other hand went back over 1000 years. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some citations / clarification needed for this

Quote: “He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to find hidden messages within the Bible.”

The link goes to a page describing ciphering text to decode secret messages. I can find nothing in Newton’s own works to describe such a pursuit on his part.

Sir Isaac Newton actually wrote about his ‘Method’ of reading the Prophetic text, the Bible in a straight forward manor – it has nothing to do with hidden meanings but rather a through search and understanding of the many places in the Bible where the prophetic writings contain the same prophecy,

Sir Isaac Newton quote: “He that would understand a book written in a strange language must first learn the language & if he would understand it well he must learn the language perfectly. Such a language was that wherein the Prophets wrote, & the want of sufficient skill in that language is the main reason why they are so little understood. Iohn did not write in one language, Daniel in another, Isaiah in third, & the rest in others peculiar to them selves; but they all wrote in one & the same mystical language as well known without doubt to the sons of the Prophets as the Hieroglyphic language of the Egyptians . to their Priests. And this language so far as I can find, was as certain & definite in its signification as is the vulgar language of any nation whatsoever: so that it is only for want of skill therein that Interpreters so frequently turn the prophetic types & phrases to signify what ever their ffansies & Hypotheses lead them to. He therefore that would understand the old Prophets (as all Divines ought to do) must fix the significations of their types & phrases in the beginning of his studies. Something in this kind has been done by former writers, & as I have endeavoured in the following discourse to carry on the designe further so I hope others will bring it to more perfection. The Rule I have followed has been to compare the several mystical places of scripture where the same prophetic phrase or type is used & to fix such a signification to that phrase as agrees best with all the places, & if more significations then one be necessary to note the circumstances by which it may be known in what signification the phrase is taken in any place & when I had found the necessary significations to reject all others as the ofspring of luxuriant fansy. ffor no more significations are to be admitted for true ones then can be proved.” (Source: The Newton Project Website)

And he also said:

“The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions opinions or conjectures or on humane sanctions, but on the express words of Christ & his Apostles; & we are to hold fast the form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1.13 And further, it is not enough that a Proposition be true or in the express words of Scripture: it must also appear to have been taught in the days of the Apostles in order to baptism & communion.” (Source: The Newton Project Website)

He thoroughly rejected all that could not be proven or as he himself said: “to reject all others as the ofspring of luxuriant fansy. ffor no more significations are to be admitted for true ones then can be proved.” and “The first Principles of the Christian religion are founded, not on disputable conclusions opinions or conjectures or on humane sanctions, but on the express words of Christ & his Apostles;”

In fact on this same Wiki page a more clear statement of what Sir Isaac Newton did is more in line with his actual quote above: “Thus, the clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way to combat the emotional and metaphysical superlatives of both superstitious enthusiasm and the threat of atheism,”

This seems to me to be a more accurate statement. But perhaps it’s just me. -- NorCal RS (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing, NorCal RS, is WP:Original Research. That is, you are consulting the original writings of someone who lived 300 years ago and drawing your own conclusions. It's good you are confining this to the talk page because this is distinctly not allowed in the article itself. The problem is that it is very hard to correctly interpret such writings without taking into account such factors as the theological and intellectual debates of the time, the political situation (which would have influenced what Newton felt safe to write down, let alone publish), Newton's own intellectual development over time (you are mostly quoting from his writings as a very young man), and the gap between Newton's rhetoric and his actions (e.g. hypotheses non fingo vs. the queries in the Opticks). This is why our job is to summarise the results of scholars who have spent much of their careers working on Newton, and not to do their job for them. PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Still these private writings have come to light only recently. So the question should be able to be asked: Do the cited references adequately explain the content of Sir Isaac Newton’s known writings? If so – the question can be asked and perhaps should be asked – would this article be better if these apparent discrepancies were explained in the body of the article? -- NorCal RS (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain if this belongs on Sir Isaac Newtons page

Quote: “But the unforeseen theological consequence of his conception of God, as Leibniz pointed out, was that God was now entirely removed from the world’s affairs, since the need for intervention would only evidence some imperfection in God’s creation, something impossible for a perfect and omnipotent creator.[33] Leibniz's theodicy cleared God from the responsibility for "l'origine du mal" by making God removed from participation in his creation. The understanding of the world was now brought down to the level of simple human reason, and humans, as Odo Marquard argued, became responsible for the correction and elimination of evil.”

Isn’t this off subject – to be discussing what others believe the will of God is on Sir Isaac Newton’s page. I can find nothing in Sir Isaac Newton’s own writings to substantiate any of these other people’s views as being held by Sir Isaac Newton.

As for this quote: “as Leibniz pointed out, was that God was now entirely removed from the world’s affairs” –

Sir Isaac Newton actually wrote: Artic. 8. We are to return thanks to the father alone for creating us & giving us food & raiment & other blessings of this life & whatsover we are to thank him for or desire that he would do for us we ask of him immediately in the name of Christ

Artic. 9. We need not pray to Christ to intercede for us. If we pray the father aright he will intercede. (Source: 12 Articles manuscript, The Newton Project Website)

Sir Isaac Newton actually wrote that the Father would interceed for us if: “or desire that he would do for us we ask of him immediately in the name of Christ” and that: “If we pray the father aright he will intercede.”

This does not fit with the statement on the Newton Wiki page: “But the unforeseen theological consequence of his conception of God, as Leibniz pointed out, was that God was now entirely removed from the world’s affairs...” Sir Isaac Newton clearly believed that Proper Prayer to the Father would bring about intervention. -- NorCal RS (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article's comments on the implications of Newton's work seem to me to attribute to him the positions of Leibniz, which of course Newton vehemently disputed. The Principia (General Scholium, added in the second edition) Somewhere (Opticks?) Newton explicitly appealed to active intervention by God to keep the system stable. Leibniz (In the first letter of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence) then accused Newton of proposing an imperfect system which required God to "repair" his work, whereas Newton's disciple Clarke pointed out that Leibniz's God, who initially designed a perfect system, was effectively atheism, since God had no further role to play. PaddyLeahy (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your above comments are much more informative than what is on the page. It would be good to include what Newton actually wrote, then what the debate with other men was about - if the debate was a central theme in Newtons life. Much as you just did above, that's a nice synopsis -- NorCal RS (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The man is called Newton, or Sir Isaac, or Sir Isaac Newton but not Sir Newton. Calling him Sir Newton is like calling me Mr Derek, instead of Mr Ross. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected - I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. In the British Honors system the addressing may be: Sir Isaac or Sir Isaac Newton, but not Sir Newton. I fixed my edits (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight). -- NorCal RS (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mint master

The previous edit appear to imply that Newton's repricing of gold and silver coin was another act of genius. This isn't the case. Shortage of coins was considerable problem restricting the economic activities of pre modern era. Most nations, for this reason, try to utilise both gold and silver coin to ease this problem. Unfortunately, relative price of gold and silver fluctuated and there were no centralised market for bullion. So the mint master had to guess the right relative price for gold and silver. Newton, in this instance, got it wrong. Due to his error, it became profitable to exchange British gold coin into British silver coin, melt it and sell silver bullion for gold British coin. Newton's inability to guess the correct relative price of gold and silver, rather than his genius, took Britain into gold standard. Vapour (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know what you're talking about. Please provide a citation. PaddyLeahy (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Was he a German astronomer?

Was Isaac Newton a German astronomer, Who discovered the laws of planetary Motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.50.111 (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Whatever he did, he was English. And he wasn't an astronomer. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Newton was not German, and not an astronomer. Johannes Kepler was a German astronomer, who discovered Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Newton is one of the greatest names in the history of astronomy, both as a theorist (laws of planetary motion and gravity) and as an instrument maker (he invented the modern reflectibg telescope). Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Newton was actually a very influential astronomer, one of the all-time greatest as a matter of fact. The person above might confuse the word astronomer with astronaut – the latter he clearly wasn't, since there wasn't any back then! Also, Newton was 100% English. Sure, as a polymath, he could speak (I think) German, along with Latin & French. --Pgecaj (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: it was pretty clear to me that the person was looking for Kepler, so I didn't choose the preceding words carefully. I should have said that Newton was not primarily an astronomer but a mathematician, but still, I guess that's subjective. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Emerald Tablet

In the article on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismetigus it cites Newton as one of the translators of this text and provides his translation. Should this be mentioned in this article? Lily20 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I noticed that the article had been nominated for delisting as a featured article. Although the discussion about that has focused mainly on citations, I don't think that's at all the main issue. The article is very well referenced, IMO, and lots of the [citation needed] tags just seem to have been sprinkled in mindlessly. E.g., is it really important to have a citation for "This he did at the age of eighteen, achieving an admirable final report?" The fact that he dispersed white light with a prism is more important, but still completely noncontroversial.

IMO the main issue is organization and style. I think the article devotes far too much time some things, and far too little to others. I would say there are five main areas that Newton worked on in his life: math, physics, alchemy, theology, and his work at the mint. Now if you go purely by the word count of his writing, the theology is probably the biggest category. If you go by the amount of time and effort, alchemy may actually be the winner. But we remember him mainly as a mathematician and a physicist, not as an alchemist, theologian, or government employee. In math and physics he was a pivotal figure in history. In the other areas he had virtually no lasting influence. The article, in its present state, devotes far too much space to his theological work. It's too much in relation to alchemy, which he was roughly equally interested in. It's way, way too much in relation to the math and physics.--Fashionslide (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the most influential

is there really a point in saying "one of the most influential men in human history" in the first paragraph of the article? i mean, in my view his influence can be inferred from what's written later in the article. furthermore, there is in my humble opinion no real need to mention in jesus' article that he was one of the most influential, especially in the first paragraph, people in history. in einstein's either. Twipley (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is universally accepted, among scientists, mathematicians, theologians, historians, and others, that Sir Isaac Newton's role was of essential importance, not only at his time but also in an all-time sense. Moreover, if one clicks the link that makes the claim, will find out that it was actually a book written that positions Newton as the second most influential men in history. Of course, we cannot be so much explicit and rank him (in other words, we cannot say "Newton was the second most influential men in history"), but denying a commonly accepted notion as being such, goes against our guidelines. Basically, to sum up, I'm all for keeping the phrase, as it is presented by concrete evidence. --Pgecaj (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, in response of your "einsten's [sic] either" phrase, I'd say that not all of our articles need to be edited using the very same type of construction – using the phrase "one of the most influential men..." for Newton, Einstein, etc. would be, in my personal opinion, a demonstration of a would-be lack of variety in style. But, as long as permitted by the range of variation dictated by the rules, I think that articles should—if not must—be at least slightly different. As for "there is in my humble opinion no real need to mention in jesus' [sic] article that he was one of the most influential", I agree with you on that one; we let the actions speak for themselves, and two billions of adherents and 2000-year survival of worship clearly speak for themselves in something that even if not noted, is still known by a vast majority. --Pgecaj (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One needs to be careful when bandying about the term "influential". Newton certainly was influential in a parochial sense by obtaining his position at the Royal Mint. His work on ToG and calculus has been very influential. However, was Newton himself influential. That would be very subjective I feel without a great deal of qualification. --Candy (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"One of the most influential" is a classic example of a peacock term, which are to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. --FOo (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peacock says:

This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic.

and since Newton is among the greatest, achieving success in many fields, and recolonized by the vast majority of scholars and historians for his concrete works (laws of gravity, calculus, etc.). --Pgecaj (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to say Newton was "one of the most influential" for the same reason you don't have to say Hitler was "a very bad man": if you describe their deeds accurately, the reader can conclude that for themselves. --FOo (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing FOo: influence can, to some degree, be measured, or at least, it can estimated. While, on the other hand, "badness" cannot. For example, in Germany, many people today view Hitler as a monster; however, at his time, Germans loved him very much. Basically, that feeling has gone some radical evolution over time. But Newton's achievement were considered influential in the 18th century and so they are considered today – it's satndard! If he was introduced as "one the greatest men in history", then I'd have reservations, but now by "one of the most influential", which happens to be true – at least it satisfies today's dictionary definition of influential. --Pgecaj (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue still is whether Newton or his works are considered the influential part and this needs to be clarified first. Then, the issue needs to be decided whether it is appropriate to even use the phrase, To me, as FOo points out, it is a peacock term. Also, the arguments in this section of talk are becoming close to original research. So, if influence can be measured then cite someone who has measured Newton's influence to support the case. Personally, I find it very subjective. --Candy (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Candy! Allow me to quote you for a sec: "The issue still is whether Newton or his works are considered the influential part and this needs to be clarified first. Then, the issue needs to be decided whether it is appropriate to even use the phrase..."

Personally, I find very unprofessional to even try to distinguish a person, any person, from his/her works, because, in part, if not entirely, it is the works that basically form the person. And, in our case, Newton's achievements in the fields of science, mathematics, astronomy, an theology are unquestionable; therefore, they (the achievements) are influential. As a direct result of this, by default, Isaac Newton—being the man finalize his deeds—must be influential as well. and again, I wouldn't consider it a peacock term because it doesn't apply. A peacock term is a half-truth or lie; this is neither! as for how do I measure his influence, of course, I do NOT have a device that actually really does that, nor do i no anybody else who duz, but i believe it's a well-accepted consensus that the laws of gravity, and those of motion, the invention of integral calculus--among many other things--are extremely important. Now, does it mean that a consensus makes something true? Not necessarily, of course. Nonetheless, it can be used as an observation and cannot be ignored. If we were to ignore Newtons influence as "subjective", then anything thing in the world is subjective—even his name. --Pgecaj (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Pgeca, please do not label me as unprofessional. Wikipedia does not condone personal attacks. I wrote in good faith but I find your remarks offensive. --Candy (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never did! Maybe my language was blunt and unclear but I never meant to insult you, and I am highly supportive of the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks.--Pgecaj (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "one of the most influential" should remain, because it's true and belongs to the introduction. If somebody actually needs an introduction, then this information will serve them well! In any case, I think the link to this Michael Hart guy's random 100 list is inappropriate. Who is he to judge whether Newton had been influential? I find these "top 100" lists suspicious and stupid anyway. You don't need those to reach a consensus that Newton was one of the greatest scientists ever. Possibly it could pass as a reference footnote if you absolutely want it. If you want to make "influential" blue, let it point to an article like Isaac Newton's impact on science or something. Also, "most influential men" carries an unwanted undertone, either assuming that women can't be that important, or making a totally artificial separation. I can see no problem with "most influential people". 81.182.216.42 (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Better delete the link to the list by Hart, who's the only one profiting from it

I agree, I think one should delete the embarrassing links from Newton and other truly notable personalities to this rather ridiculous list of most influential persons, written by a rather irrelevant author (Hart), who seems to be the only one profiting from those links. Many other authors came up with wildly varying lists of the most influential people ever. Like Hart's list these are just personal opinions, and should be treated as such. A few of them are mentioned below.

A top 10 list at http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/1338,Most-Influential-People-of-All-Time : 1 Manu (Shanker Mishra), 2 Einstein, 3 Socrates, 4 Aristotle, 5 Plato, 6 Newton, 7 Lao Tzu, 8 Moses, 9 Darwin, 10 Franklin.

A Japanese top 10 list http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/01/historys-100-most-influencial-people-hero-edition-video/ : 1 Sakamoto Ryoma, 2 Napoleon I, 3 Oda Nobunaga, 4 Saigo Takamori, 5 Miyamoto no Yoshitsune, 6 Jean of Arc, 7 Hideyoshi Toyotomi, 8 Albert Einstein, 9 Yutaka Ozaki, 10 Akechi Mitsuhide.

A top 7 list http://www.rateitall.com/t-1283-most-influential-people-in-world-history.aspx : 1 Jesus Christ, 2 Muhammad, 3 Adolf Hitler, 4 Ronald Reagan, 5 Albert Einstein, 6 Buddha, 7 Johann Gutenberg.

LIFE magazine's top 10 list http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/goth/MainPages/100_most_important_people.pdf : 1 Edison, 2 Columbus, 3 Luther, 4 Galileo, 5 Leonardo, 6 Newton, 7 Magellan, 8 Pasteur, 9 Darwin, 10 Jefferson.

Several lists are topped by Gutenberg, e.g.: http://www.falls.igs.net/~dphillips/biography3.htm

Another top 10 list http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173626 : 1 Mohammed, 2 Aristotle, 3 Tsai Lun, 4 Johann Gutenberg, 5 Jesus of Nazareth, 6 Paul of Tarsus, 7 Shih Huang Ti, 8 Louis Pasteur, 9 Plato, 10 Siddhartha Guatama.

Yet another list found on the web: 1 Mitochondria Eve, 2 Jesus, 3 Mohammed, 4 Columbus, 5 Confucius, 6 Darwin, 7 Sun Yat-sen, 8 Karl Marx, 9 Buddha, 10 Rousseau.

Some of the numerous additional lists of this kind:

http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-influential-person-of-all-time.asp

http://www.worldtop.org/Culture/People/Most+influential+people+ever/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_25_most_important_people_in_history

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=2971

Should we create Wikipedia articles for all of them? Or better delete Hart's list of personal opinions? Gimmemoretime (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} incorrect footnote

The issue number in the footnote is incorrect: 41 ^ Pfizenmaier, T.C. (1997). "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?". Journal of the History of Ideas 68 (1): 57–80. should be 41 ^ Pfizenmaier, T.C. (1997). "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?". Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1): 57–80. Thanks in advance for correcting to whoever has access.

 Done Please do not put the template in the header. That will break the formatting of the page. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 07:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Newton---the alchemist

One of the most important time investments by Newton is his work on alchemy. He spent about a dozen years on this endeavor without much success, more time on any other subjects he devoted to. He made a whole mess in experimenting with various metals in Trinity's dormitory (for faculty then and for students now). Writing about Newton without this part of history would do gross injustice to him. My memory is fading from the days reading his biography in Trinity but I wish a younger reader with ready access to a good copy of his biography may be able to contribute to this. [Above unsigned note was added 18:13, 28 May 2009 by 208.27.203.128]

New comment (to above unsigned): Yes, Newton is often referred to as the "Last of the Alchemists" --Candy (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] J M Keynes seems to have been the first to use the expression "last of the alchemists" (Royal Society, Newton tercentenary celebrations (Cambridge, 1946), 27, 32). But in Newton's time alchemy was not yet distinct, or not yet fully distinct, from chemistry. To call Newton's (al)chemical experiments "a whole mess" ignores many of the verifiable facts: the record shows he kept systematic notes and not only acquired systematic chemical and metallurgical knowledge but also later put it to use, e.g. in matters of assay and quality control, in his later official function when supervising the work of others at the royal mint (as shown in papers published in the volumes of his collected correspondence). Also, Newton did not experiment in a "dormitory": he had a small laboratory built in his garden. Trinity College is quite misdescribed as a "dormitory for faculty then and students now". Terry0051 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Conditions for stable orbit

Shouldn't "Newton showed instead that all that was needed was an inward attraction from the sun." instead end as "... from the sun, and a non-zero initial angular momentum." ? Profsjt (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] The proposed emendation would bring in an anachronism rather than a correction. The literature shows rather clearly that Newton did not leave any fully-developed concept equivalent to angular momentum, let alone use the name (though he did make important uses of one of its near relatives, areal velocity). (See for example, C Truesdell, 1968, "Essays in the History of Mechanics", Ch.V, pp.239-271.) The context of the sentence in the article as it stands: ("Before Newton, it had typically been assumed that a planet orbiting the sun would need a forward force to keep it moving. Newton showed instead that all that was needed was an inward attraction from the sun.") also makes clear that the discussion here is limited to a situation ("planet orbiting the sun") which clearly involves non-zero angular momentum (when expressed in modern terms), so the emendation also appears unnecessary. Terry0051 (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] P.S. But there is something else wrong about the sentence or paragraph involved in this discussion. A pre-Newtonian assumption is mentioned/alleged, that forward force was supposed to be needed to keep a planet in motion. I can't find positive references right now, but I recall seeing accounts of several different sorts of assumptions around. What I have been able to do, though, is check the citation actually relied on in the current article (presently numbered #70, Rouse Ball 1908 at p.337): to find that it says nothing about this matter at all. So some clean-up and a proper RS is needed. Terry0051 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor error on page

In the attribution for the photograph of the telescope presented to the Royal Society, it is identified as a REFRACTING telescope. It is of course a reflector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.49.65 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Newton and Cotes

The two are said to have made remarks about getting a number down. If it was nought, Newton's theory would seem to be proved. I wonder if anyone can produce an exact reference. See "Newton and the Fudge Factor", by Dr. Richard S. Westfall, in "Science", Feb., 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Edybevk

Where did you find that Newton studied Kepler? For you say: Instead of Aristotle he preferred to study Galileo, Descartes and Kepler. Do you know where to find the letter to Halley where N says he saw Kepler's third law? Edybevk (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick search of JSTOR gave me this - while it doesn't prove Newton studied Kepler, it does strongly indicate that he had; evidence below. It is hard to believe Newton would not have studied a (or the?) great astronomer of the late 16th century; contrast this to the very poor status of Aristotelianism amongst practically all natural philosophers of the 17th & 18th centuries.

On Consensus and Stability in Science; Author(s): Brian S. Baigrie and J. N. Hattiangadi; Source: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 435-458

"Book II of Newton's Principia persuasively argued that the mechanism of a vortex could not be reconciled with the mathematical relations implied by Kepler's laws of planetary motion (see Koyre [1965], esp. Appendix A)."

See "Baigrie[ 1987] for a discussion of Newton's deployment of Kepler's laws as anti-Cartesian devices"

"Book I of the Principia shows that Kepler's area law... is an implication of an inertial physics, its applicability to real planetary bodies is secured by experiment and observation."

In answer to your question about Kepler's Third Law see for example the very short: Note Pertaining to Kepler's Third Law by D. H. Richert in The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 38, No. 9 (Nov., 1931), pp. 521-522

Hope this helps! Birdoman (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] It's an interesting point, but the evidence cited here doesn't show (I'd suggest) that Newton read Kepler at first hand, quite possibly he got his acquaintance at second hand and in part. There are signs (noted I think in several places by D T Whiteside & I B Cohen but I can't pinpoint them right now) that Newton wasn't very widely read in astronomy, also he didn't pretend to be an astronomer himself, he was a 'geometer' (i.e. mathematician). Also, while he was writing the 'Principia' in 1685, he wrote to Flamsteed to ask about observations of Jupiter (or maybe it was the satellites), mentioning something rather specific about how he had not attended to astronomy for several years, until matters now in hand made him 'more to seek'. Terry0051 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

Refer to him using his family name. Please, change "Instead of Aristotle he preferred to study Galileo, Descartes and Kepler." to "Instead of Aristotle he preferred to study Galilei, Descartes and Kepler." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.96.60 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

I thought it was universally known that Newton was born on 25th December. What is this with 4th Jan? Wasn't he born on 25th Dec according to Gregorian Calendar? What is Old Style and New Style of Dates. Please someone elaborate. If someone were to celebrate his birthday today, what day would he celebrate it on? And if his birthday was celebrated in his lifetime then on what day was it celebrated then? ankit 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No he wasn't born on the 25th Dec according to Gregorian Calendar; he was born on the 25th Dec according to Julian Calendar. Old Style is Julian; New Style is Gregorian. Today someone would celebrate his birthday on the 4th January. During his lifetime his birthday would have been celebrated on 25th Dec by someone living in England and on 4th Jan by someone living in Italy. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Newton's law of cooling

The fact that the heat current between two bodies is approximately proportional to the temperature difference is often called “Newton's law of cooling”. I would like to know what was Newton’s contribution to “Newton's law of cooling”. If Newton really stated this law what kind of heat concept did he use? —Preceding Lesche (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)unsigned comment added by 200.17.69.109 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answers to either of those questions but you can read his article, "A Scale of the Degrees of Heat", published anonymously in Latin in 1701 in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. or the English translation published in 1749 in the third edition of the Philosophical Transactions Abridg'd by Henry Jones for further information. That article is discussed quite thoroughly in a more modern article published in 1990 and available here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A huge THANKS for the enlightening answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.17.69.109 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found the answer interesting too! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen Newtons grave! (As if anyone cares) --Misortie (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Portrait?

Who put up the portrait of Newton? I want to use it for a printed article that I am writing, but I needed further details about the source and copyright. Jfgrcar (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Newton's sexual orientation irrelevant, bad-sourced, speculative, or derogatory?

I've included a statement about Newton's sexual orientation, which was reverted [1]. Would you care to state the reasons for the revert, please?
I can think of the following possible reasons: (i) the claim is irrelevant; (ii) the claim is bad-sourced; (iii) the claim is speculative; (iv) the claim is derogative to Newton himself.
For which I give the following counter-reasons: (i) the article already includes information arguably even less relevant than the proposed inclusion, such as Newton's views of the end of the world; (ii) the source is a reliable, third-party, published book Wikipedia:RS, and the quote was taken exactly as is; (iii) I'd leave the burdern on the shoulders of the quoted author -- if he dared to make a statement about the likelihood of Newton's sexual orientation, let the reputation of that science writer serve as safeguards to the statement; (iv) (I won't present any counter-reason for that). --Fgnievinski (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We have ample evidence of Newton's somewhat weird notions from his own papers. Speculating on people's sexuality from the flimsiest of evidence is not what Wikipedia does. --Pete (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But the inclusion of the proposed quote wouldn't imply that the speculation is made by Wikipedia itself -- Wikipedia would be just reporting what's already published about Newton in external primary sources. What if we let the intelligent reader judge for himself or herself if the credentials and reputation of the original quoted author warrant any trust to his speculation. --Fgnievinski (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many levels you want to remove it to, it's still spurious speculation. You got Newton's contemporaries saying he's homosexual? We could include that. You got a lawsuit from a jilted lover? That would be historic. You get some jerk on the internet saying he never had a girlfriend so he must be gay, that's rubbish. --Pete (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pete, your last sentence describing "some jerk on the internet" is a very unfair description for the source that I was quoting: a reliable book published by a major house. Surely it's speculation, but the author's reputation (check it!) gives credibility to his claim. That being said, I agree with you that we should avoid polluting the Wikipedia with speculation. Therefore I take back my original proposal for inclusion, due to lack of evidence by the original author. I wonder, though, if this move agrees with the Wikipedia policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."--Fgnievinski (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This notion is without substantial proof whatsoever, even if you can find a book where someone's opinion is stated, it still doesn't have a place here. How many times has Tom Cruise been associated with homosexuality in published works? Its one opinion, which doesn't appear to be backed by anything other than the belief of that author that Newton had more male friends than female (which was the norm during Newton's time, when the genders did not mix as often as they do today, if they "mixed" at all), and from that the author draws a rickety conclusion (probably to sell books). Considering Newton was devoutly religious (which we DO know about him), and homosexuality to him (and others of the time) would be considered a sin, the opposite conclusion can be more easily drawn. I've read similar speculation that Newton may have been asexual, also without any proof. The only thing I've ever encountered in regard to Newton's sexuality that has a shred of substance was a claim that Newton made (while having a nervous breakdown) against his good friend John Locke, saying that Locke had somehow "tried to embroil him with women", which appears to have confused the heck out of Locke and Newton later apologized. As to relevance, I don't see why his sexual orientation has any bearing (one way or the other). The "end of the world" section are relevant because Newton actually wrote (though didn't publish) more on "occult" topics than he did "science" and math combined. Also, end of the world stuff is found in Isaac Newton's occult studies, and mentioned here only in brief. --Trippz (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) in many areas was he cosidered many downfalls on life to himself, which led him to suicide.

We certainly can't speculate about his sexuality off our own bat, but we can report the speculations of others particularly if they're reputable authors supported by major publishing houses. We report similar speculations all over WP. Also, it's not about WP coming to its own conclusion about the matter and stating it as if it were fact. It's about giving a more complete picture of the man, from the perspective of those whose opinions are based not just on "I wonder if ..". Whether anyone else agrees with the speculation or not, including WP editors, is not really the issue here.-- JackofOz (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Speculation about Newton's homosexuality has appeared in reliable sources and should therefore be reported here. Anyone's opinion that it is not proven is irrelevant -- unless they can find a reliable source that agrees with them, in which case that POV should be reported as well.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unclear on the purpose of WP, but from my interpretation of things, WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. There is absolutely no validity to this writer's speculation. Simply because he put his unfounded beliefs in print shouldn't mean that it should be included here. It does not represent a world view about Newton, it is his opinion and he provides no proof to back it up. Clogging this article with individual unsupported allegations detracts from actual content. Basically, if his views are included, the article will be inaccurate, because its not supported by anything other than "John Gribbin says so". If Gribbin had some proof then that would be of interest. But, aside from all that, according to the author's reputation cited above, it appears he is not a historian and has only written books about science. He's not an expert on Newton, he's expressing an unsupported opinion, and it is one not even based on logic. i.e. Newton never married, Newton didn't have close female companions or friends, he did have friends who were male, so therefore he's a homosexual. How does that compute, and what purpose would it serve here. If Newton had proclaimed himself homosexual, if there were contemporary citations from reputable sources and not some guy two and half centuries later stating a belief, then it should included. Otherwise, no place here. If Ozzy Osbourne does an interview with Rolling Stone and says, "... that Newton guy was a homosexual", should that be included? And what possible purpose would it serve? It doesn't illuminate anything about Newton, and it doesn't provide an accurate picture of him. It would, however, let us know what Ozzy thinks, which again, shouldn't be here either. --Trippz (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't resile from my general position outlined above. But if Gribbin's is the only published opinion on this matter, then I agree it is not noteworthy enough to include. He's not known as a distinguished Newton scholar; he's better known for predicting the Jupiter effect, from which he had to make an embarrassing retreat after the end of the world didn't come to pass. If he were a noted Newton scholar, however, I'd be saying his opinion is worthy of inclusion. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gribbin is not the only source for this POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unmitigated gossip. If one wants to get the latest scoop on celebrities from People magazine, by all means, knock yourself out. But such unsubstantiated "speculation," sensational though it may be, has no place in a biographical sketch on a long deceased physicist/mathematician. LotR (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is reliably sourced or not is the only pertinent issue. Please confine yourself to commenting on the rules here and spare us your opinion on what is "gossip" or not.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable speculation about personal information is gossip (that's the definition, not opinion), and regardless of publication this remains an issue of reliable verification. Regardless of source it remains unwarranted fringe theory at best. Gribbin has already expressed fringe theories (see Jupiter Effect). On top of that, the quote used was "It is quite likely that Newton was a homosexual", so now he is speculating upon what he feels is likely? If you'd like to to cite another reliable source (as you mentioned above), by all means go ahead, though it still may fall into the fringe category (sadly, Newton is an attractor of fringe theory). Personally I'd be interested in seeing why those conclusions were reached, because everything I've read about Newton points the opposite direction. However, despite all of that, Newton's sexual orientation (if he had any) remains speculative and therefore does not represent an accurate picture of him, so I can't see why it should be included here, unless its being done to support an unfounded POV. --Trippz (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia just has a policy of not publishing anything personal or controversial about famous people, no matter how widely discussed such matters might be, and no matter how famous the subject of the biography may be. We have to make the Wikipedia a dull and sterile text because young kiddies copy from it to do their school projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.110.18 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is a biography about Newton and as such his personal life is of interest. Ones sexual orientation can have a great impact on ones life, feelings and motives so it is highly relevant and interesting. If there are reliable sources saying Newton might have been gay, then that definitely should be mentioned in the article. It's certainly not a fringe theory.
—Apis (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut out the dogmatism and go to the facts. A quick search in Google Books gives at lest two other entries on serious books quoting Newton's alleged homosexuality. (Sir Isaac Newton: Brilliant Mathematician and Scientist - Page 83 by Natalie M. Rosinsky - Juvenile Nonfiction - 2007 , Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - Page 332). Indeed it is speculation in the sense that there is no hard evidence such as a confession letter, but it is the speculation of scholars based on reliable indirect evidence.

Arguments on the line homosexuality is a sin for christianim, Newton was christians, ergo he couldn't be homosexual are just empty. Also assuming that any claim about sexual conduct is gossip, falls in the same level of triviality. Let's be serious.

In my opinion the topic doesn't deserve a section by itself, but it could well be incorporated on other aspects of his personal life, together with other characteristics of his personality. There ARE enough reliable documents to support the claim as valid, even if not necessarily to prove it is true beyond doubt. Go for it! -- Godot (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire above "discussion" (actually an uninformed set of opinions by amateurs) illustrates why Wiki will never achieve authoritativeness of any genuine kind. If an author of a published book (Wiki's touchstone for inclusion) had presented evidence or reasoned argument for Newton's having had a secret marriage, there is no question that a reference to that would be included in this article, which is concerned not only with Newton's scientific achievements, but with the events of his personal life as well. The only reason that reference to Newton's homosexuality (or not) is objected to by some is their personal feelings about being gay. Would an article on Bertrand Russell leave out mention of his four wives, or on Einstein his wives and lovers, or Richard Feynman his skirt-chasing? Of course not. To be sure, the research or whether or not Newton was gay is still in early stages, and certainly not confirmed. But avoiding mention of this issue entirely? Let any properly-sourced material be inserted, on his sexual orientation. As probably the greatest scientist of all time, how can anyone suggest that such material is "irrelevant," let alone "derogatory?" Leave your personal prejudices at home, and Wikipedia will be better for that. 66.108.147.72 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Allen Roth

Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Newton, whose only close contacts with women were his unfulfilled relationship with his mother, who had seemed to abandon him, and his later guardianship of a niece, found satisfaction in the role of patron to the circle of young scientists. His friendship with Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss-born mathematician resident in London who shared Newton’s interests, was the most profound experience of his adult life." --Enciclope2009 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence (to an unprejudiced observer) strongly suggests that Newton had homosexual inclinations, and many biographers refer to it; but it is even clearer that anybody seeking to deny this claim will always be able to point out that we cannot know (and never will know) the truth of it, not least because Newton was (probably) celibate all his life. A reference however should be made to the closeness of his friendship with Nicolas Fatio de Duillier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.14.64 (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Newton was engaged to be married to one Catherine Storey. When Dr Barrow stepped down from the position of Lucasian Professor, Newton filled it. Trinity Professors could not marry. The engagement was called off. See page 78 of Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist, and Teacher by Tiner--81.159.57.205 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Newton a poof? To me he seems so much an asperger case, that of his contemporaries, only King Charles XII of Sweden seems more likely. Even that King is also alleged to have been poof. Newton would easily loose his bearings in the University, though he knew all about the universe. As an MP, he was not doing much. Once he had a new job, he was leathily efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stat-ist-ikk (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Poof? Loose? Leathily? What we have here is a failure to communicate. The argument should be settled by the many admissions, written and spoken, by Newton himself regarding his inversion. Not to mention the innumerable eye–witness accounts by observers who saw Newton engaged in inverted activities. These many proofs should easily allow Newton to be included in his Wikipedia biographical article as as invert, along with every other notable person from world history.Lestrade (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I understood what Stat-ist-ikk meant when he used the badly spelled terms, "Poof", "Loose", and "Leathily". However I did not understand what Lestrade meant when he used the perfectly spelled word "invert". So on the evidence so far, Stat-ist-ikk is a better communicator than Lestrade. Ironic, or what, <grin>! -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "invert" is available in any reputable standard English Language dictionary.Lestrade (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Did someone ask three questions in two seconds. If a journalist is to ask Obama any questions at a press briefing, the journalist is entitled to shape/compess his questions in to one. I hope these journalists are not inversive, because it soun ds so much like negative vibes.--85.164.222.45 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Information possibly at odds with facts

Snobelen quote: “Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser.... (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books)”

Definition: Sympathiser: “someone who shares your feelings or opinions”

It seems that just because Sir Isaac Newton owned and read books of some other beliefs than his, this is no reason to conclude that he held these beliefs. Sir Newton may have had the books to do research on the ways that these folks were in error (according to Sir Newton’s own research) – perhaps to be able to better explain these errors to others that held these views. I’m sure all of us own books that we do not believe the teachings of, perhaps for this very reason. This however does not mean in and of itself that we share these views - just because we own the books. I think the point needs to be proven or clarified as it seems to draw a very uncertain conclusion. -- NorCal RS (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I recall socinians don't believe fully in the omniscience of God, and yet Newton himself stated that "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done". I think this is evidence enough that he was almost definitely not a socinian. I think the article should be changed to make this clearer. 75.146.5.193 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Newton was an asexual. True or false?

I know the fact that there is no documented evidence of any sexual relation of his doesn't automatically make him asexual, but it can serve as a standpoint for the argument. I remember reading it somewhere, don't no where! whatcha think? --Pgecaj (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't original research, sir or ma'am; but apparently you don't think so. Anyway, I'm guessing I'd meet plenty of oposition if I try to incorporate it into the article, and not wanting to reach there, I will step aside... for now! --Pgecaj (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, likely false, It's just as likely (if not more) he was homosexual or bisexual. And since any mention of that has been censored out already I doubt this would survive either, even if it's less offensive to some perhaps. And no, it's clearly not OR if there is reliable sources. But if one wants to include anything about his sexlife into the article they would most likely need hi quality reliable sources to begin with at the very least, since it probably is a sensitive subject for some.
—Apis (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to extend this debate over Newton's sexual orientation, but feel like responding to "It's just as likely (if not more) he was homosexual or bisexual." Clearly—consisting of abstinence in sex—asexuality would be closer, from a general prospective, to newton's orientation than homosexuality, for which there's no basis. Now, you'd say "there's no basis for his asexuality either", but the fact that he wasn't even slightly sexual, nor publicized his sexual views, can support the asexual theory more. But as i said, I don't want to continue this debate. Let's declare it over!! --Pgecaj (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Newton, whose only close contacts with women were his unfulfilled relationship with his mother, who had seemed to abandon him, and his later guardianship of a niece, found satisfaction in the role of patron to the circle of young scientists. His friendship with Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss-born mathematician resident in London who shared Newton’s interests, was the most profound experience of his adult life." --Enciclope2009 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he was homosexual. It says they were friends, not that they slept together. 66.189.36.188 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying they slept together doesn't necessarily mean he was homosexual either, just that he liked to sleep together with his friend... and so on. I mean, if you use that argument, only a statement by Newton himself saying "I am homosexual" (did that term even exist back then?) could indicate he was homosexual. This comes to mind.
—Apis (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

was the most profound experience of his adult life..... If I was the editor of the Sun(newspaper), I would beg user:Enciclope2009 to work for me as a journalst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.4 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Embarrassing text on Einstein vs Newton, #1 vs #2 in 1999 Physics World Poll

The article says: "Newton remains influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of scientists and the general public in Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Newton was deemed to have made the greater overall contribution to science."

What an embarrassing statement in the eyes of those with some background knowledge! Newton was head of the Royal Society which conducted the poll. And then Royal Society members promptly voted him the greatest. How credible is that? I bet Newton would want us to remove this text which was probably planted by somebody who is not exactly a fan of Newton.

Note that there was a more credible poll where Newton did just fine: In 1999, 100 leading physicists voted Einstein "greatest physicist ever;" Newton was the runner-up. See BBC news, Monday, 29 November, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm Gimmemoretime (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The current paragraph is "Newton remains uniquely influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science and made the greater contribution to humankind, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution on both.[8]"--how does this poll confirm uniquely influential, except in that "we're all unique"? By uniquely influential perhaps it's meant "most influential" which to me is then weasel wording. But the poll only compared Newton to Einstein, and was done at the Royal Society. This isn't scholarship, it's infotainment about celebrity scientists.Perhaps we should change it to "At the Royal Society, Newton is considered more influential than Einstein." In addition, though I focussed on uniquely as a weasel word, I also wonder about "influential"--which is already in many wikipedia biographies.Rich (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by Sir Isaac Newton

Influenced Nicolas Fatio de Duillier John Keill

Come on people. Newton was basically God until the late XIX early XX century, and experiments such as those performed by Michelson and Morley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.9.27 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken link update

{{editsemiprotected}}

Broken Link update

Reference (was 93 at time of writing)

Conduitt, John. "Keynes Ms. 130.4:Conduitt's account of Newton's life at Cambridge". Newtonproject. Imperial College London. http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00167&mode=diplomatic. Retrieved 2006-08-30.

can now be reached at

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00167

I'd recommend the normalized version of the text since it is more readable. It has less fine details in transcription than the diplomatic version.

Whoever makes the update can view either and decide.

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 39° 48' 15" NET 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

News story: What really happened with the apple (January 2010)

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/01/newtons-apple-the-real-story.php Would this have bearing on the article? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1316435?seq=1 or this? The first pages basically talk about how the apple-head myth promulgated, followed by mentions of the alleged apple tree. 130.88.169.142 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the New Scientist page talking about the Royal Society releasing the 1752 biography here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Blake picture

The painting of Newton by Blake is provided with a misleadingly positive description: "Newton", by William Blake; here, Newton is depicted as a "divine geometer".

While technically this is correct, in the context it makes it seem as though the painting is a glorification of Newton, whereas in reality Blake hated Newton for the obsession with fact and reason he typified, and the painting really is to highlight his stubborn obsession with curves while ignoring the beauty behind him. The word "divine" is actually negative, Blake was against the modern ideas concerning God. Perhaps change the description to reflect this view more accurately? 78.144.245.253 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This could be remedied (by someone with the power to edit this locked page) through reference to Newton (Blake), which describes Blake's antipathy for Newton. -- 124.184.104.67 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the minimal change which achieves all these objectives. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Newton's views of Jesus

I have a source here that says " He was particularly attracted to the prophetic records of Daniel and St. John the Divine, which he regarded in agreement in the smallest detail"[2]. verses like these in revelations Alpha and Omega suggest that, from a Judaism standpoint Jesus is claiming divine attributes. if Newton agreed with those verses isn't he making Jesus out to be something much great than man ? i feel the article makes it seem like Newton viewed Jesus as just another prophet when according to his writing Jesus was someone much greater than man can be, but not an angel.(sorry if I said something here out of line, without proper references, I'm just looking to see if you think anything more should be added to that section)Grmike (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

NPOV/reference

"who is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential men in human history. " Not that I necessarily disagree, but surely such a statement requires a reference of some sort to back it?--93.166.213.4 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but as you read on it also says The 100 by Michael H. Hart ranks Newton as the second most influential person in history (below Muhammad and above Jesus), with the reference of Hart, Michael H. "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". New York: Carol Publishing Group/Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-8065-1068-2. As he is known for universal gravitation and the three laws of motion among other things, I think we can accept this view and let it pass as I cannot see anyone disputing it.--BSTemple (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's bad practice to assign thoughts to people in general rather than specific people at a particular time. I would definitely favour something along the lines of In a survey carried out by x on y date, IN was ranked 2nd. Otherwise there is no way for future editors to verify the claim. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think, unfortunately the ranking of 'importance in history' list of Hart should go - it's unscholarly, unprovable, and rather meaningless. I think we understand the truth that it hints at - that Isaac Newton discovered and published ideas that dominated much of scientific progress for centuries. Others would probably have got there sooner or later - the ideas would have come either in dribs and drabs or some other genius would have arrived. We wouldn't have sent men to the moon, understood the universe as well as we do, etc, without certain ideas - and because of Newton being the odd man he was, he discovered an extraordinary number of them in one lifetime. Best to say something along these lines rather than quote Hart as an authority ...

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Date of Birth - Death: Old Style: "25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726"

should be changed to

"25 December 1642 - 20 March 1726"

"Birth: December 25, 1642 in Woolsthorpe, England Death: March 20, 1727 in London, England "

Source: "Isaac Newton." Scientists: Their Lives and Works, Vols. 1-7. Online Edition. U*X*L, 2006. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2010. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC 24.87.140.200 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, the reference you have provided requires a login to view the information, and as such, neither I nor any other editor can use this as a source. Please find another source to use.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP was only asking to have the dashes changed to hyphens, which I have done. Maurreen (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unitarianism; arianism

Hi, should we include something about Newton's interest/affiliation with arianism/unitarianism. I couldn't find it in the article (or was I missing something)?Bobbythemazarin (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction: fellowship of Cambridge and priesthood

The article states that

In 1667, he [Newton] returned to Cambridge as a fellow of Trinity.

And also that

He was elected Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669. In that day, any fellow of Cambridge or Oxford had to be an ordained Anglican priest. However, the terms of the Lucasian professorship required that the holder not be active in the church (presumably so as to have more time for science). Newton argued that this should exempt him from the ordination requirement, and Charles II, whose permission was needed, accepted this argument. Thus a conflict between Newton's religious views and Anglican orthodoxy was averted.

How come the ordination issue only arose in connection to the Lucasian chair and didn't arise in connection with his fellowship of Trinity two years before, if all fellows of Combridge had to be ordained?

Top.Squark (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fellows were expected to become ordained at some unspecified point in the future not at the commencement of their fellowships. However for a high profile new professorship (Barrow had been the first Lucasian professor) it would have difficult for Newton to avoid problems with his lack of ordination. TheMathemagician (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If this information comes from a reliable source, I urge you to insert it into the article Top.Squark (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I've clarified the article. My source is the Michael White book already referenced by the original author.TheMathemagician (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx! I've elaborated some more and removed the contradiction template Top.Squark (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Master of the Mint and Thomas Neale

According to this article

Newton moved to London to take up the post of warden of the Royal Mint in 1696... somewhat treading on the toes of Master Lucas... Newton became perhaps the best-known Master of the Mint upon Lucas' death in 1699, a position Newton held until his death.

Who is this Master Lucas? The text suggests he was Master of the Mint before Newton. However, both of the other articles state that it was Thomas Neale. According to the Thomas Neale article

He was Master of the Mint from 1678 to the date of his death [1699], when he was succeeded by Sir Isaac Newton.

Top.Squark (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article is incorrect. Thomas Neale was Master of the Mint when Newton was appointed Warden. He regarded the job as a sinecure and was probably happy to leave Newton in charge. Newton had several clashes with Lord Lucas, the Governor of the Tower of London. The Mint buildings were situated within the Tower of London complex and that led to disputes over various administrative issues. My source is Michael White's biography.TheMathemagician (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that everything attributed to "Master Lucas" in this article is actually about Thomas Neale? Can you verify the statements given here? If I just replace "Master Lucas" by "Thomas Neale", will the text become factually accurate? Top.Squark (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I believe so. "By the time Thomas Neale died, on 23 December 1699 (two days before Newton's fifty-seventh birthday), the Warden had accrued all the responsibilities and privileges of the mastership of the Mint save the name. His succession was seen as little more than a technicality." --- Michael White, The Last Sorceror TheMathemagician (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment about treading on the toes of "Master" Lucas was about Lord Lucas though. "But his most protracted and bitter feuds at the Mint were with the Governor of the Tower, Lord Lucas." [White] TheMathemagician (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thx! I corrected these points and removed the contradiction template Top.Squark (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

It sounds like I'm saying I was the one who semiprotected it because of my typo "i" in front of "rightly." I didn't semiprotect itsomeone else did; as far as I know I don't have that power, just being an ordinary contributor. Not a burning issue, but I shouldn't inadvertently claim to have done things I haven't done.Rich (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Formulas in the article

Newton's laws stated with Leibniz' notation. You've gotta love it. Ekwos (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Date

The article states that Isaac Newton died on March 31, 1727 by the New Style calendar and March 20, 1726 by the Old Style calendar. The only difference between the two should be 11 days, not an entire year! Please fix this. Mollymoon 16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is probably accounted for by the change of new years day from 25 March to 1 January. Keith D (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That could make sense, but I can't find anywhere else on the Internet where it says 1726. Everything says 1727. Mollymoon 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See "Date of death" section above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spalding Society

I've removed links at to Spalding Gentlemen's Society, fixing the apostrophe along the way (it was fouling searches), at the see also sections and inline at the Isaac Newton's occult studies that backlinked to the bad page name. I'm not clear on what the history is, but it needed better refs; I'll try to remember to fix it if I've got it wrong. That article is currently tagged for the primary source, because the DNB refers to a later founding of a "Spalding Club" (c. 1839 to 1870). cygnis insignis 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarify: The Spalding Club is an unrelated antiquarian society. Newton's involvement with the first mentioned needs proper referencing, so I haven't undone my changes. cygnis insignis 19:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Later Life: Silver Coin Values

According to the article:

As Master of the Mint in 1717 in the "Law of Queen Anne" Newton moved the Pound Sterling de facto from the silver standard to the gold standard by setting the bimetallic relationship between gold coins and the silver penny in favour of gold. This caused silver sterling coin to be melted and shipped out of Britain.

This implies Newton's adoption of the gold standard was to blame for this. According to Newton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson ISBN 057122993X (chapter 10), silver corrency had been in increasingly short supply since the 1680's because of the coins were worth more than their face value when melted, transported to Europe, and exchanged for gold. There was a parliamentary investigation into this in 1690. By the late 1690-s the shortage of low-demoniataion silver currency was acute and in danger of producing an economic crisis. Newton favoured reducing the weight of new silver coins during the Great Recoinage, but was opposed by John Locke and eventually over-ruled. The parliamentary act authorising the recoinage stipulated the new coins be of the same weight as the old, so the problem of persisted. Catsmeat (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixes and comments

Regarding the article page, I fixed the photos in the "Apple analogy" section because the quoted paragraphs did not look indented. I also divided the drawing of Newton and the apple from the photos of the trees. I believe they look better separated.

Regarding the discussion page, a few threads should probably be deleted. Some people like the genius who posted the "Yeah Ball" section above should probably read more articles, grow up and then come back to leave feedback on Newton and sign himself like everybody does when he is a grown-up adult.

ICE77 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in OS date of death?

OS: Born December 25, 1642, and died on March 20, 1727.

NS: Born January 4, 1643, and died on March 31, 1727.

The article starts by stating:

Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])

Should it not be March 20, 1727 for OS in the article rather than 1726? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrodynamics (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 130.207.34.212, 26 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There seems to be a discrepancy in the date of death between the Julian and Gregorian version -- both years should 1727. Please make the following correction:

replace: (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])

with: (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727])

explanation: while the birthday crosses years when adding 10 days to December 25 resulting in the year 1643, the date of death does not and therefore the year should be the same in both Julian and Gregorian calendars.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.34.212 (talk • contribs)

 Done GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of death should be in the year 1727 throughout the document

Only one date of death has been amended to 1727 in this document. There are at least two further instances which state that the date of death is 1726 in OS, one in the "Sir Isaac Newton" section at the beginning of the document and one in the "Later Life" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrodynamics (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)