Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Quart to liter conversion is not correct

Text claims that the new born Newton could fit in a quart mug, then says a quart is equal to 1.1 liters. In fact, a quart is smaller than a liter, about 0.946353 of a liter.

http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/us-liquid-quarts-to-liters.htm?val=1

Rich Dunsheath

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.187.97 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

US quarts differ from British ones. 78.145.115.12 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Having posted that, it occurred to me that the quart of 1642/3 wouldn't necessarily have been the same size as the current imperial measure, so I looked at what the quart and gallon articles had to say about it. Bit of a can of worms, as it turns out there are several historical values listed for the size of the gallon (and hence the quart), and no indication of which one is actually applicable here - but the ones that seem to relate to measures of ale (as opposed to corn, wine and so on) do all appear to be roughly the same. So we're probably OK with "≈ 1.1 litres".

PS I hope no one is tempted to "improve" the precision of the above value as a result of reading this... 78.145.115.12 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Newton was born several centuries before the Weights and Measures act of 1824; before then, the British quart was closer in size to the current US quart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.210.162 (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

Please add more details on his "Personal life", namely his relationships with people who are close to him. The excerpt and the source are as follows: "Just how friendly was he with John Wickins (his room-mate at Trinity College, Cambridge for 20 years) and Nicholas Fatio de Duillier (a Swiss mathematician 22 years younger than Newton)? Was he a suppressed homosexual? What about his relationship with his beautiful, gregarious, intelligent, excitable and flirtatious half-niece Catherine Barton? How could such a devout puritan like Newton condone the fact that his afore-mentioned niece (and housekeeper in London) and his best friend (Charles Montague, Baron Halifax) were lovers?"

Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/156180.article Mpang2000 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor <sup>Sing</sup> 06:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Some considerations

• The article doesn't mention that Newton was a great experimentalist.

Search for experiment in this article, and you will only find: 1) "Does Newton feign an hypothesis?, Early Modern Experimental Philosophy" 2) "Shamos, Morris H. (1959). Great Experiments in Physics." 3) The category "Experimental physicists".

This doesn't do justice to Newton, who was a superb experimental physicist and instrument maker.

• This excerpt: "In 1816 a tooth said to have belonged to Isaac Newton was sold for £730[81] (us$3,633) in London to an aristocrat who passed to have it set in a ring.[82] The Guinness World Records 2002 classified it as the most valuable tooth, which would value approximately £25,000 (us$35,700) in late 2001's terms.[82] Who has bought it and to whom it currently pertains are mysteries." is totally irrelevant for the purposes of the main article about Newton, and should be better moved to another article to give space here for more important matters...

• This article should also talk a bit more about Newton's self taught studies in mathematics. It should talk more about Barrow's influence on him, about his late reading of Pappus...

• It talks too little about his ideas in mathematics and physics, and how he reached them: What was his starting point? What was his approach? It doesn't talk much about who influenced him, how these ideas were later developed...

For example, his queries on the Opticks reveal a lot about his attitude in physics, and they are not even mentioned!

There are many important things missing... If they were added, this article would become much more interesting... For example, the texts https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Polya/07468342.di020729.02p0067y.pdf http://stephenhuggett.com/Newton.pdf http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm#Newton are written in such a manner that reveals more about his ideas and progress, and contain some important informations that are not in this article. There are many great references that were not used to write this article, but could be used to improve it greatly.

I don't feel comfortable writing in English, otherwise I would try to help more than just pointing what I see as faults. Anyway, I hope there is something here that can be useful to those interested in editing this article.

Chen10k2 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isaac Newton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll begin this review over the weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems fair at first reading. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No apparent edit wars. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   They all look to be free images. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• You discuss Newton's not taking holy orders three times. I'd leave it out of the earlier section and the "religious views" section, and keep it just in the "Middle years" part.

I don't see this in the Middle years section, where is the mention there?--ɱ (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph under "Mathematics". --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now I see. The different wording threw me off. The middle years and religious views mentions do go into varying levels of detail, so I wouldn't suggest simply removing one or the other; a merging of the two would be best.--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd merge the two. Middle years is my preference, but putting it in religious views makes sense, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this parenthetical represents: "(Opticks, 8th Query)."

We can link to the article on The Queries, you can see the text at page 314 of this Google Book: [1]--ɱ (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought we should make it into an footnote. It seems odd to have a cite in the middle of the text, since that's not how any other citation is formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The German poet, Goethe..." might be better as "The German poet and scientist, Goethe..."

Done.--ɱ (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• The "Law of Queen Anne" part is confusing. Is there some particular law passed during her reign that you mean? And Anne was dead by 1717, didn't the recoinage start earlier?

I don't understand that either. If needed, I could try to get the book from a library, else we should just remove it. The date is already there.--ɱ (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing it makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon, do you know why it's there or what it's trying to convey?--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Newton was the second scientist to be knighted, after Sir Francis Bacon." This needs a citation. There were many gentlemen-scientists in the Royal Society, weren't there? Some surely had knighthoods.

I don't know whether The History Channel or this book, a Capstone Publishers work, qualify as reliable sources, but I'm not sure there are any better ones. --ɱ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They're weak, but if there's no dispute, it's good enough. I was hoping that the nominator might have a better source. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's all the comments I have for now. Looking forward to your responses. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw you put this on hold; I'll try to respond to some of these.--ɱ (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for seeing this that late... --Good afternoon (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If no one responds to this in a few days, I'll have no choice but to fail it. It would be a shame, since it doesn't need much to get to GA. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you wouldn't mind, I would like your input on how to merge the "holy orders" sections in the best way, and if we should wikilink "8th Query" to The Queries. Also, do you think either of the sources I provided are sufficient in attributing the "second scientist" fact?--ɱ (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I replied above. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll go about implementing.--ɱ (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Are there any further concerns?--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for stepping up on this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work here--it looks good to me too. If other WP editors want to know what the first part of this discussion is about, they can do a FIND in the article on [ holy ] and see five 'hits' including the very interesting sentence about Sir Isaac Newton: "he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England..." -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad OS date

There is bad OS death date in infobox. It should be: OS: 20 March 1727. --D'Arnise (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The first note explains it. The year end was different in Old Style, although as it goes on to say that the 1726 is normally adjusted to 1727 (as it is in the first sentence of the article). Mikenorton (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

Why is there a "personal life" section after the "life" section? It seems a little redundant to me. Would anyone mind if I tried to merge it into the "life" section? --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Most articles distinguish between professional life and personal life, and some even add early life. I think the separation is good. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that improvements can be made. I think 'Personal Life' is too long, and may be in the wrong place, (now after 'Later Life'); maybe you are right. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've moved and renamed that section. However, I don't think it's too long. Newton's the most famous alleged virgin after Mary. I've also moved "After death"; it doesn't take a genius to figure out it doesn't belong in the "Life" section. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Mint

His work there is already touched on in "Later life", yet it makes a reappearance in its own section. IMO, it should either be merged into "Later life", moved to Later life of Isaac Newton or perhaps a bit of both (my preference). Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As an additional point? I’m very aware that — according to Douglas Adams, anyway — Sir Isaac is supposed to have invented the mill-edged coin, as part of his anti-fraud measures. I couldn’t find any mention of it, in the various Royal Mint articles, or in the piece about the Great Recoinage of 1696. Has anyone found a definite citation for that … ? Cuddy2977 (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Factual error - invention of infinitesimal calculus

I would like to indicate a factual error, the inventor of infinitesimal calculus is Bhaskaracharya, the 12th century Indian mathematician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skuman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Bhaskaracharya implies more documentation may be needed: "While Newton and Leibniz have been credited with differential and integral calculus, there is strong evidence to suggest that Bhāskara was a pioneer in some of the principles of differential calculus." Something about the "coefficient". Did his work spread to the world and advance science? Was his work important, or was it left to others to rediscover? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

See Archimedes and the Ancient Egyptians, about calculus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.14.43 (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See Calculus#Ancient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.14.43 (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

"Laws of Motion" before "After Death"... maybe added to "Early Life" 184.8.107.61 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that section even there? It goes into an inappropriate level of detail for such a long article. I propose deleting it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: I don't think it should be deleted outright, since it's such a major part of what he's known for. Perhaps a more concise summary is needed instead? Stickee (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Natural philosopher"

I question the use of this phrase, since though it is certain that Newton did "natural philosophy" and that this term was current in his day, I have never heard the phrase "natural philosopher" and believe that this cognate of the original phrase does not exist. I would be interested in seeing a citation which proved that he was "described in his own day" in this way. (Froggie213 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC))

Er, how about the book he wrote and published in 1687, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

The clue's in the title... Straw Cat (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And the term philosopher and naturall philosophy of what we would call scientists (a term not invented in the nineteenth century), in Aubrey's Brief Lives. Not, I concede, the term naturall philosopher though. But a bit of googling should find it used in his time, and ever since. Alan Turing is called one by his biographer. Straw Cat (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Old Style vs New Style

The text states: "His death occurred on 20 March 1726 according to the Old Style calendar, but the year is usually adjusted to 1727. A full conversion to New Style gives the date 31 March 1727."

The difference between the Old and New Style dates is here more than a year. The difference between the Julian and Gregorian calenders has (so far) never been more than 13 days. Therefore the difference in dates cannot be just due to different calenders. The reason for why "the year is usually adjusted to 1727" should be explained. Wikiborg4711 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already explained in some detail in note 1 from which you have taken your quote. Anyone wanting further explanation can click on the link to Old Style and New Style dates. (This article is supposed to be about Isaac Newton, not about a really rather obscure and arcane technicality regarding his dates.) The Old Style/New Style distinction covers what are really two different changes to the calendar, which were implemented in England at the same time: the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian system (which accounts for the 11-day discrepancy between 20 March and 31 March); and the switch in the start of the year from 25 March to 1 January (which accounts for the 1-year discrepancy between 1726 and 1727). GrindtXX (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand why one would want to note the date of his birth and death as recorded. However, the actual dates of birth and death are generally more interesting and these are only properly recorded in the New Style. Therefore, I think the New Style date should be the ones following his name. --JorisvS (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, with very few exceptions, all biographical articles in Wikipedia seem to adhere to New Style birth/death dates. The only reason I can imagine this particular exception being allowed is the sentimental coincidence with a certain Christian holiday. In my opinion, that's not reason enough to be inconsistent. Krychek (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Please change "Barnabus Smith" to "Barnabas Smith. Telivuo (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Fixed - thanks for spotting that. Mikenorton (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Here there was a mistake of translation which was rather silly:

This page incorrectly declared that "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" was translated into English as "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" when it obviously said "Philosophy(Philosophiæ) [on/of the] Natural(Naturalis) Principles(Principia) [of] Mathematics(Mathematica).

I think that such a cringe-worthy mistake should be corrected unto proper Latin format, however small it may be.

If need be that you argue my correction any; I index here some informal sites to support this proper format of Latin-to-English translation:

http://www.latinandgreek.org/_files/live/LCCS__DOCUMENT__GRAMMAR__LATIN_IA__SENTENCE_STRUCTURE.pdf

http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/learn:sentence-1

http://linguapress.com/grammar/word-order.htm

Maxisaurus (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Pretty much all the sources call it "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", including the Encyclopædia Britannica: [2]. Stickee (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That is the correct decision. the first two words of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" are in the genitive singular feminine case and the last two are in the nominative plural neuter case, so the correct English translation is "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". If the correct English translation was "Philosophy of the Natural Principles of Mathematics", the original Latin would have been "Mathematicæ Principiorum Naturalium Philosophia". -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

Gottfried Leibniz had stolen the calculus idea when it was not yet published.

98.203.196.219 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

=== God, Christ and Religion in Newton's own words

"We are, therefore, to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy. We must love him, fear him, honor him, trust in him, pray to him, give him thanks, praise him, hallow his name, obey his commandments, and set times apart for his service, as we are directed in the Third and Fourth Commandments, for this is the love of God that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous (I John 5:3). And these things we must do not to any mediators between him and us, but to him alone, that he may give his angels charge over us, who, being our fellow servants, are pleased with the worship which we give to their God. And this is the first and the principal part of religion. This always was and always will be the religion of all God’s people, from the beginning to the end of the world."   

"God made and governs the world invisibly and has commanded us to love and worship him, and no other God; to honor our parents and masters, and love our neighbors as ourselves; and to be temperate, just, and peaceable; and to be merciful even to brute beasts. And by the same power by which he gave life at first to every species of animals he is able to revive the dead, and has revived Jesus Christ our Redeemer, who has gone into the heavens to receive a kingdom and prepare a place for us, and is next in dignity to God and may be worshiped as the Lamb of God, and has sent the Holy Ghost to comfort us in his absence, and will at length return and reign over us, invisibly to mortals, till he has raised up and judged all the dead; and then he will give up his kingdom to the Father and carry the blessed to the place he is now preparing for them, and send the rest to other places suitable to their merits. For in God’s house (which is the universe) are many mansions, and he governs them by agents which can pass through the heavens from one mansion to another. For if all places to which we have access are filled with living creatures, why should all these immense spaces of the heavens above the clouds be incapable of inhabitants?"   Mrzuniga333 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

We already have a section of his religious views. The article is for a summary of his views. If a reader wants to read the entire text, they can follow the links in the references section. Stickee (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015

I believe the conjecture "perhaps because he privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity" as found in paragraph four should be deleted. It is an obvious violation of Newton's own Rule Number One of Reasoning. Such a conjectrure seems wholly speculative with no substantiation whatsoever. Perhaps he had 500 other, UNKNOWN reasons. Who knows? Why pick this one and just throw out there as speculation? Reeks of bias.

76.99.66.65 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be sourced though. Later on in the article: "a number of authors have claimed that the work might have been an indication that Newton disputed the belief in Trinity". Stickee (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

Isaac Newton born 04/01/1642..Not 1643.

please check 86.132.105.17 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The article already says 1642, with a note that there were two calendars at the time, so 1643 could also be correct. RudolfRed (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Athanasian Creed ("Religious views" section)

Very few informed people have thought that the Athanasian Creed was written by Athanasius for about 200 years now, and its authorship was already being questioned during Newton's lifetime. The current wording on the article seems confusing... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Newton and the "boy on the seashore" quote under "Fame"

The listed source is Brewster's 1855 biography. But Brewster does not claim that Newton wrote this in any memoir. Brewster got the quote from Joseph Spence's 1820 "Anecdotes, Observations, and Characters of Books and Men." Spence cites Andrew Ramsay as the one who heard this from Newton "a little before he died" - but Ramsay was in France from 1724 to 1730, and Newton died in 1727. The quote is almost certainly not authentic. --CharlieHnmnn (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

remove alhazen. please read the damn article being cited before approving the change. the article does not provide any evidence that sir isaac newton was INFLUENCED by Alhazen. all it says is that alhazen existed first, and muslim scholar khalili then tries to say alhazen was superior to newton. this is all a lie. i cannot believe you approved this addition without READING khalili's article. can someone please READ the article that is being used as a SOURCE? if an article does not CLEARLY demonstrate that sir isaac was influenced by alhazen (either through citing CORRESPONDENCE between newton & colleagues, OR a citation in one of his literary works), then it does not uphold the original claim. i'm quite shocked the editors allowed this addition without research. at the very least, alhazen should be removed until a proper source DEMONSTRATING his influence (in the ways i mentioned above) can be found (it doesn't exist). 96.52.168.137 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed Alhazan as the source does not say that Newton was aware of Alhazan's work, which I think is required for establishing influence. Not all important scientists before Newton are automatically influences. Gap9551 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

alhazen as an 'influence'

i cannot revert due to the protected level. can someone please provide evidence of this? rigorous evidence. citations of, say, muslim scholars who CLAIM newton was influenced by alhazen aren't admissible here (imo) i think Bacon or Descartes (moreso the latter) are worthy of insertion, but not alhazen edit: like, is this edit a joke? haktarfone is a joke. a failed academic who pads his apparent interests, yet his edit history is full of soccer-related subjects. edit2: stop idolising jim al khalili, who isn't even a real scientist. jim just likes hyping up al hazen (it's his only hobby). https://www.google.ca/search?q=alhazen+isaac+newton

i am so tired of these religious fundamentalists disguising themselves as so-called 'scientists'. this is what happens when people are determined to show MUSLIM POWA.

al hazen sucks, user:haktarfone. what don't you understand? he's not sir isaac newton and your false insertion is inappropriate.

user:haktarfone's fanfare of prominent muslim soccer player zidane has spilled over to science with khalili, and it's poison. please learn of objectivity.

i await your obscure citations and evidence that allege newton was influenced by alhazen. i am eager to see what shoddy sources you will champion to ensure this edit is permanent

96.52.168.137 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a BBC WP:RS which is sufficient. Please see WP:NPA JRPG (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

wrong, khalili provides zero evidence that sir isaac newton was influenced by al hazen. when we use the term influence, it implies that newton either was aware of, or read, his works. this did not happen. thus, your claim that khalili's article is valid is FALSE, because that article does NOT provide proof newton was influenced by al hazen; it says that al hazen existed before newton, and then khalili tries to put alhazen on the same footing as newton.

edit2: did you even read my original post, JRPG? it seems it went in one of your ears, and out the other. i don't know where you get the idea that my proactive refutation of the inadmissibility of khalili's garbage is something you can ignore. as is, your edit and substantiation are invalid as they deliberately ignore my initial point to uphold a FALSE claim. show me PROOF that sir isaac newton was INFLUENCED by al hazen by providing CITATIONS of either his CORRESPONDENCE or WORKS that REFLECT IT. khalili's work is HARDLY proof of anything. especially when all he does is fawn over al hazen and being muslim. Gagz7 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

user 96.52.168.137, I can confirm your edit was detected optically and processed cognitively without signal loss. I’m hoping to resolve this issue. Newton disputed the contributions of Hooke, Leibnitz etc. & didn’t mention Alhazen. The latter’s wiki article says he was known in medieval Europe as "The Physicist" and Al-Khalili says “certainly in the field of optics, Newton himself “stood on the shoulders of a giant who lived 700 years earlier” –clearly a reference to Alhazen’s lifetime. As mere editors, our personal views on Al-Khalili don't matter. Whilst it is rational to assume Newton was fully aware of the work of others, all I suggest we do is wp:ATTRIBUTEPOV and add a half line saying “Newton may have been aware of the work of Alhazen” That's it -it’s then covered which will prevent others adding further to it. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Death date makes no sense

The difference between julian and gregorian calndar was max 11 days... not 1 year + 11 days.

79.250.32.194 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates#Start_of_the_year_in_the_historical_records_of_Britain_and_its_colonies_and_possessions, the year started on 25th March (Lady Day) in the 'Old Style' calendar, hence the difference. Mikenorton (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

== Birth date shown [25 December 1642] is the Julian calendar date. Western calendar birth date should be used for consistency which is [4 January 1643].

45.48.50.250 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Mike Anderson

recent revision by user:chamithN

i don't think business insider is a sufficient source, the title "isaac newton is a genius but even he lost money in the stock market" is pretty telling of the intentions. in fact, if you search the term "stock" on the entire page, the only mention is of the recent edit.

if someone wants to actually dig into his correspondence and divulge the exact details, that's fine, but this business insider source has no place on the page of sir isaac newton without appropriate sources. i have no doubt that somewhere in our archives there will be documented correspondence that fleshes out his involvement exactly in the south sea company, and how much he lost.

until then, i think it's better we leave it without a weighty source. i'm not even sure if his the entirety of his correspondence is digitised, so it will cost money to dig into these archives. this is one of the things on my 'to do' list in the near future, as i plan to do this for many legends) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagz7 (talk • contribs)

@Gagz7: The important thing here is that, even though the source is weighty like you pointed out, biased sources aren't disallowed based on bias alone. As WP:NPOV#Bias in sources states Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. That said, the source itself mentions The Intelligent Investor as the source for quoted text mentioned within. So, if you really don't prefer using Business Insider as a source in this case, we could just directly cite the book. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

hi, i appreciate your response. i do not think citing the book you're mentioning, nor or talking about the acceptability of biased sources, has anything to do with what i'm saying. we do not know the real truth about sir isaac newton's investment in the south sea company until we analyse his correspondence. sir isaac newton was not an "investor" in today's sense of the definition. when i say correspondence, i am referring to the mounds and mounds of handwritten letters that are stored away.

in that trove will be his explanation and account of the entire situation, which would then serve as sufficiently-strong evidence, and thus could act as a singular citation that needs no added support.

his wealth was put into this company, and he lost money. if you re-read what i said: his CORRESPONDENCE Is the ONLY way to discover the truth, and much of it (i suspect) has not been digistised. you're using the citation as a way of subtly implying "even geniuses invest wrong" but that's an incorrect insinuation, as again, sir isaac wasn't an "investor" by today's definition. thus, care must be taken in explaining what happened. he definitely did lose money, but the genesis of the entire situation isn't clear (for good reason).

further, if you think about it, imagine how many people "invested" money in today's "market" on the premise that the great sir isaac "invested" (even though, again, it was in a completely different sense than today). i therefore re-assert that both the businessinsider link and requisite book citation are insufficient.

this is one of the most foremost figures in the past 300 years, and i do not think a book about "investing" or a link from "business insider" are adequate support. any real scholar knows that.

anyways i take it you are going to try and keep it, that's fine. just don't be surprised if the citation is deleted&replaced in the future.

there are too many external interests in sir isaac's "investment" (see rothschild banking family, who have greatly benefited off a selective account of history, are one such family that benefits from exaggeration of facts such as "investing" in the south sea company.

again, i do not dispute he invested in this company, but there are stories that he was big into tulip frenzy and whatnot. i am not as inclined to believe those claims, but i do accept that he did lose a substantial amount of money in this venture. but again, the genesis of his parttaking in this investment isn't clear (for good reason, see above).

I get what you are trying to say. I merely ignored you comment—"his CORRESPONDENCE Is the ONLY way to discover the truth, and much of it (i suspect) has not been digistised"—as it sounded like WP:OR to me. I'm trying to keep it simply because it's better than nothing. But, I do not oppose replacing the current source with a better one (why would I?). So, if you are convinced that could find a better source (or a replacement), please do so; trust me, I wouldn't be surprised. But, for the time being, I insist on keeping the current citation. Cheers! -- ChamithN (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

As for the death date, I do not believe that at the time he died both calendars were exactly a year off. Also, it cites an unreliable source (a personal weblog), and none of the reliable sources I could find agree with it. In fact, all of the reliable sources I found said that on the Gregorian calender he died March 31, 1727 and that the Julian calender was 11 days behind. --Proud User (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

His tombstone gives March 20, 1726 - as seen here. See Old Style and New Style dates for an explanation. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See also three entries up on this page. Mikenorton (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the 11 day lag of the Julian relative to the Gregorian calendar, in England up until 1752 New Year's Day was celebrated on 25 March (Lady Day). I think that this was because in Roman times that used to be the day of the vernal equinox (much like 25 December used to be the day of the winter solstice). In Newton's day it was customary to double-date letters written between 1 January and 25 March (see, e.g., [3]). So I believe that it's correct to translate 31 March, 1727 (New Style) as 20 March 1726/27 (Old Style). - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] say 1727 and not 1726. --Proud User (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This Westminster Abbey page explains it clearly. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proud User, you appear not to have understood the sources you yourself cite.

Newton died on 20 March 1726 (as it says on his tomb), according to the calendar then widely used in England, which was the "Old Style" calendar – that is to say, the Julian calendar for day and month, with the year assumed to begin on 25 March. So he died just before the year's end. To avoid confusion, in modern historical studies (not just in relation to this specific point, in all modern historical studies dealing with the early modern period) it is usual to adjust the New Year to begin on 1 January, as per the modern calendar: so on that reckoning he died on 20 March 1727, and that's the date that appears in many reliable sources. To make it absolutely clear that that's what's been done, it's a fairly widespread convention to give the year in "dual" form: i.e. to say that Newton died on 20 March 1726/7. That the date we have in the article, and it's perfectly clear to anyone who understands the convention (but, admittedly, not everyone does). We're still (again, following usual historical convention) retaining the day and month in Julian/Old Style form, because that's most useful for relating this event to other events that occurred in England around the same time, and that are dated using the same calendar (for example, if you wanted to know whether Newton died before or after somebody who was reported as dying on 24 March).

There are circumstances in which somebody might want to convert the date to the modern, Gregorian calendar – the two most likely reasons being either to relate this event to an event happening about the same time in continental Europe (where they did use the Gregorian calendar); or to relate this event to astronomical phenomena. That conversion involves, in the 18th century, adding 11 days; so by New Style (Gregorian) dating Newton died on 31 March 1727. Not many people will want or need to know that, but the information's in the article if they do.

All this is explained, in different words, in footnote 1, in the blog post cited there, and at greater length at Old Style and New Style dates. I agree the blog post isn't the most impeccable of sources, but it does discuss the issue, in accessible language, in specific reference to Newton, and I can't see any errors in it. If you want something more scholarly (on the calendar, not on Newton), look at Cheney, C. R.; Jones, Michael, eds. (2000). A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History (PDF). Cambridge University Press. pp. 12–15, 17–19..

In short, there is nothing "dubious" about the information in the article, and I am removing the tags you have added. GrindtXX (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be a much better idea to quote dates as they were used on that particular day. Wikip seems to have discovered in that last 6months that there was a change of calendar in the west, and there has been a massive fk*up in a lot of articles. Quoting old vs new is not a good idea. Just make it plain which calendar is being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.170 (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Exhumation

Several sources (of varying reliability) state that Newton's body was moved to Westminster (and that his body was found to contain "massive" (a verrrrry commonly used word in the sources) quantity of mercury). This article simply states he was buried there. Are we missing his body being moved here? Am I missing something? - SummerPhD<sup>v2.0</sup> 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

He was a closet alchemist and did many experiments in metal chelation. Mercury in metal form was unlikely to be swirling around in the coffin. Not unless his experiments were buried with him.220.244.73.170 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Newton (unit)?

I'm a bit surprised this article has GA status - there is very little on Newton's legacy. For example, there is no mention of Newton (unit), which is named after him. (It's in the template about him, but not this article.) Presumably someone thought a see also link to List of things named after Isaac Newton was enough. StAnselm (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

In the "Early Life" section on Newton the line

"Newton was educated at The King's School, Grantham which taught Latin and Greek but no mathematics."

is incorrect and should be changed to

"Newton was educated at the King's School, Grantham which taught Latin and Greek. He was also taught practical arithmetic for boys who were expected to become farmers, as well as the measurement of triangles and circles, instruction on how to calculate a table of sines, and a method for inscribing an equilateral septuagon in a circle."

See: D.T.Whiteside, Newton the Mathematician, Studies in the History of Modern Science, Vol 9, pgs 110 & 111 and the comments of Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, Paperback edition, Preface Pg vii

Don Martin

Don Martin 19 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Don Martin 19 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: From the Westfall source on page 56: "He studied what every boy in grammar school studied at that time as a matter of course. Latin and more Latin, with a bit of Greek toward the end and no arithmetic or mathematics worth mentioning..."  Paine  <sup>u</sup>/c 06:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)