Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Quote "God governs all things"

Can someone with access to Tiner (1975), "Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist, and Teacher", check the following quote, please:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

In Google Books' snippet preview, the quote it preceded by a question "And why would that be?" Halley asked. So the whole thing seems to be a hypothetical dialogue between Newton and Halley. [1]

Surely Newton said great things about gravity and about God, I'm just not sure he put the two together in writing as closely. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It is page 106-107. It is available on archive.org, you need only open an account.

Halley entered the chambers. He found Isaac sitting on his bed, a blanket thrown over his shoulders. He had a thin face, eyes with a tired look in them. He was completely still, lost in thought.

Halley waited for Isaac to notice him.

"Oh, Halley, my friend!" Isaac said. His eyes lighted up in pleasure. "Come in and have a seat. There is food on the table. You can have it."

Halley asked "What were you thinking upon?"

Isaac said, "I fear my book will not be understood."

"And why would that be?" Halley asked.

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things, and knows all that is or can be done. God is the final cause, this we know. He certainly belongs in natural philosophy."

Halley said, "Maybe you can add a section at the end of the book and sum up both your scientific and religious beliefs."

Newton nodded in an absent-minded way. "The book is already too long."

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

... so the entire passage is clearly a fictitious invention, and these words should not be presented as a direct quote from Newton. GrindtXX (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that it is fictitious. Why would you say that? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it a little more and realized on the page before there is an exchange between Newton's servants and then an exchange between a servant and Halley and the rest of the book is like this as well. So unless Newton had a fairy following him around his whole life recording any exchange the might impact his life, the book must be a fiction base on Newton's life. I will replace the quote with one from here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the replacement. It seems that apocryphal quote has already crept in a lot of published books: [2]. fgnievinski (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Link #18 does not link to Isaac Newton

Also, it would advantageous if the article could further elaborate which kind of fellow Isaac Newton became at Cambridge, as there are many different varieties with vastly different duties. Thanks... 2001:A61:B23:BC01:3949:392:910C:1992 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the link so that it points to the entry for Newton, thanks for pointing that out. Nothing there about the type of fellowship that he had, however. Mikenorton (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Was Newton celtic or germanic or some other ethnicity?

Was an ancestry DNA test ever done on Isaac Newton to find out what his real ethnicity is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.45.239 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ask? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Alchemy was a big part of Newtons life, he has over hundreds and hundred of pages of hand written notes dedicated to the topic. He also wrote Index Chemicus which is a complete guide to alchemy, many people believe him to be the greatest alchemist who ever lived.. Alchemy was very closly related to chemistry and that is why he spent most of his time in the field. I think it is worth noting in the beginning sentence of this page that he was an Alchemist. Specifically to change "Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author" to "Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, Alchemist and author. Thank you for considering my edit and you are completely free to make a decision, and whatever it is I will be happy with it. Thanks for your consideration and time! Archemidestra (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Alchemy was important to him, but (not surprisingly), his accomplishments in that field are minimal. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

less words more simple 91.125.235.111 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Note that an article about Isaac Newton is available on the Simple English Wikipedia, and can be found at simple:Isaac Newton. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Date of death

Aren’t both dates in his date of death meant to be 1927? It doesn’t make any sense why they would be a years difference? Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gameshowandsportsfan2007, no. In Old Style dates, the year began on Lady Day, March 25. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 thanks Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Corpuscular theory of light & wave theory of light

In Fresnel's article on Wikipedia we read that his research in optics led: 'to the almost unanimous acceptance of the wave theory of light, excluding any remnant of Newton's corpuscular theory'. Yet in this article we read (and without any reference): 'Young and Fresnel combined Newton's particle theory with Huygens' wave theory to show that colour is the visible manifestation of light's wavelength.' First of all, I highly doubt this sentence, and since there's no reference it's impossible to check, and secondly, there's of course a contradiction here. This is something that should be looked at, because something is not right here (the wave theory is contradicting the corpuscular theory and both theories weren't compatible until the introduction of the photon as a kind of corpuscule...). 213.124.174.33 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The

DVdm I see you have reverted my addition of "the". Newton's book is universally referred to by the short title "the Principia". It is referred to as such (with a definite article) throughout this page. Why should the lead be at variance with normal English usage and the rest of the article? GPinkerton (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: In the article Principia Mathematica, there are 3 occurrences of the phrase "in Principia", one of which in the Stanford external link https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/ so I undid your edit. In that same article, there is one occurrence of "in the Principia system", which, through the addition of the term system refers to a different context, where indeed we need the article.

Indeed I notice that in the article Isaac Newton there also is an occurrence of "in the Principia". I have just now replaced that with "in Principia" for consistence within this article, and also with the article about the subject itself. Comments from others are welcome. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@DVdm: This is the opposite way round to how it usually is. The very article on the subject's first sentence is Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), often referred to as simply the Principia (/prɪnˈsɪpiə, prɪnˈkɪpiə/), is a work in three books by Isaac Newton, in Latin, first published 5 July 1687. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography always refers to "the Principia" in its article on the subject. The "the"s should be added back. GPinkerton (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this is yet another wp:engvar issue. Let's see what the other contributors here think about it. - DVdm (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For it to be an engvar issue there would have to be some variety of English in which "the Principia" is not used, but I don't think either EngvarA or EngvarB speak of the Principia that way. In 1987 there was an exhibition dedicated to this subject called "Isaac Newton and the Principia" at the National Museum of American History. It's always "the Principia". GPinkerton (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It certainly looks like the literature prefers "in Principia Mathematica" over "in the Principia Mathematica":

Google	Scholar	Books
"in Principia Mathematica"	3400	at least 13 pages
"in the Principia Mathematica"	790	8 pages

- DVdm (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Drop the article. There are good arguments for having it and not having it. If "Principia" is a book title, then it should not have an article, but there are exceptions. Ultimately, I like less verbose prose where possible. So less is better. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Separate page on Later Life of Isaac Newton

There is a separate page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Isaac_Newton

Should the page not be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerak99 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir Isaack Newton PRS(25 December 1642-20 March 1726/27)was English mathematician Physicist, astromer ,theologian, and author (described in his own day as a" natural Philospher").Who is widdey recognised as one of the most influential scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.133.90 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

The inclusion of 'In The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Newton is ranked the 2nd most influential person to have ever lived, ahead of Jesus Christ and behind only Muhammad. ' appears to be unnecessary/irrelevant, referencing a semi-popular book which is simply the opinion of one man does not add much to the page. I suggest removing this line. Also thank you for being a Wikipedia editor it really is an amazing resource!! 37.165.201.16 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Given the de-facto notability of the source this is most certainly not the opinion of one man. - DVdm (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

But of course this is just the opinion of one man: the very lead of our article on that book states that "It is a ranking of the 100 people who, according to Hart, most influenced human history." It is completely arbitrary and appears, moreover, to be self-published ("Hart Publishing Company"?). Yes, it is a best-seller and has caused a lot of controversy, and so Hart's book itself is surely notable, but that does not at all mean that is appropriate to quote Hart's opinion on a great physicist like Newton next to that of Albert Einstein or that of the 100 leading physicists. I'm removing it, because it is clearly WP:UNDUE. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Change the clip art image of crossbones as Newton's Coat of Arm's to an image of the his Coat of Arms on the side of the Woolsthorpe Manor 216.100.89.25 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Include positions in infobox: Warden of the Royal Mint (1696–1699) Master of the Royal Mint (1699–1727) President of the Royal Society (1703–1727) 86.129.44.80 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: What field in the scientist infobox were you looking to add? The references to the Royal Mint and the Royal Society seem sufficient for me, those specific positions would be a lot to add and be a less relevant part of his notability than being say the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Volteer1 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just dropped in to discuss the reversion of a recent edit adding four notable offices Isaac Newton held during his lifetime to the infobox; however, it seems I've inadvertently stumbled into an ongoing discussion. I'm afraid I don't agree with the assertion that these positions are irrelevant, particularly as they are summarising material that is already in the main text of the article. I can see an argument against the Warden of the Mint but I think the remaining three positions are justifiable inclusions given the prestige, power, and notability conferred by the offices themselves and the length of time Newton was in post in each.

On a subsidiary note, I was surprised that this change was reverted rather than being edited to remove some of the positions. I like to follow WP:DONTREVERT to decide whether to revert an edit and recommend it to others, too. --  Newty  20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

forgive my rolling of a new account, but i'm a well known ip editor from the area of edmonton ab canada and i found my participation in this discussion would take away from the topics i've edited on my current IP. anyways i agree with Newty that these are useful additions. plus, from what i can see, every person who has been PRS has the infobox. on that criteria alone, that should be allowed. i find the warden of the mint also useful, given that sir isaac played a critical role in the value of the pound sterling (which is still felt today). in short, i concur with Newty (User:Wikipedian1337 [among others]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribhistorynazi (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm in the minority that's fine - just consider what you're placing above what and how long it will make the infobox in total when you re-add it. Regarding reverting, I think it's fine given WP:BRD seems to be the norm, but if you prefer "BD" conceptually I mean it's up to you I guess. Volteer1 (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

One possibility is to embed the officeholder infobox as a module within the scientist infobox. That pushes the positions beneath the "known for" and "fields" and hopefully addresses Volteer's concerns about pushing the existing content too far down the page. In that sandbox page I've also converted the "fields" from an unbulleted list to being separated by commas, which helps to reduce the length of the infobox. I tried the same with "known for" but thought it made it a bit harder to read. Lastly, I've merged the Warden of the Mint into the Master as a subsidiary position.

I think WP:DONTREVERT just expands on the suggested considerations listed at the WP:BRDREVERT essay so it's still consistent with WP:BRD. I find reverting can seem abrupt so prefer editing bold changes (if possible) and opening a discussion; however, as you say I guess it's down to personal preference at the end of the day! --  Newty  09:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The infobox you linked looks good. Volteer1 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and just added it in as you had it on your sandbox, feel free to change it more as you see fit if you want though. Volteer1 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff! Cheers! --  Newty  19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

He was a MP, shouldn't that be in his infobox?

I realised that Sir Isaac Newton served as a Member of Parliament for two non-consecutive terms representing the Cambridge University (UK Parliament constituency) in 1689 and in 1701. It so happens that a very few people actually know that he had been a MP at some point of his life, and remember him only a scientist and mathematician. I believe that being a MP, warrants that the information be added to his infobox for quick reference. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

I'm pretty sure that the apple incident section has a typo, but this may simply be my lack of understanding old English. "we went into the garden, & drank thea" I don't think thea is the right word. can someone please correct it?2600:1700:5790:1810:316D:3905:32D0:F589 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)PathMaker

Not done. "Thea" is, as you suggest, just an archaic way of spelling "tea", and we don't normally alter original spelling in direct quotes (see MOS:PMC). "Appletrees" (as one word rather than two), in the same sentence, is a similar archaism. For the full text of the source, see n162. GrindtXX (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

I would like to make some changes to the "Isaac Newton" Wikipedia page and add some new information to it and I would be happy to make some changes. Thank you. Dinu Weerarahne 2402:4000:12C0:566:6856:3B3E:161A:659A (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it woemen?

In the personal relations section, it is written that due to a mental breakdown Newton sent a letter to John Locke accusing him of making Newton do something with "woemen". Is the spelling correct? I cannot check the source so I cannot verify it. Kash Up (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that is how it is spelled in the book. See https://archive.org/details/portraitofisaacn00manu/page/219 Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Hello! I'm Dinu1133 and I will like to contribute to this page and do some edits to some sections and sources and I hope you will like my work and I am happy to edit this page. Dinu1133 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

These external link section are excessive and needed to be trimmed:

• ScienceWorld biography by Eric Weisstein
• The "General Scholium" to Newton's Principia
• Newton's First ODE Archived 5 July 2007 at the Wayback Machine – A study by on how Newton approximated the solutions of a first-order ordinary differential equation using infinite series
• "On The Shoulders Of Giants: The Digital Exploration Of Newton’s Career At The Royal Mint" on YouTube
• "The Mind of Isaac Newton" – images, audio, animations and interactive segments
• Newton biography (University of St Andrews)
• "Newton, Sir Isaac" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 583–592.
• Portraits of Sir Isaac Newton at the National Portrait Gallery, London
• Newspaper clippings about Isaac Newton/Archive 9 in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW

Writings by Newton

• (1704) Opticks – digital facsimile at the Linda Hall Library
• (1719) Optice – digital facsimile at the Linda Hall Library
• (1729) Lectiones opticae – digital facsimile at the Linda Hall Library
• (1749) Optices libri tres – digital facsimile at the Linda Hall Library

49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed most of the IP's suggested deletions. I'm not sure about the remainder. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Could "close friendship" as used to describe Newton's relationship to Nicolas Fatio de Duillier be changed to "profound relationship borne of mutual interest in topics ranging from alchemy to calculus?" Marlow111 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: "close friendship" seems like a better and more succinct way of saying basically the same thing. Details of the relationship might more aptly be included on the page about Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (if/when it exists), as they are likely to be more within the scope of that page than of this one, which is about Newton and already includes a fair amount of other content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Priest of Nature

Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton is a 2017 book by science historian Rob Iliffe on the religious views of Isaac Newton should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.97.147 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The reference "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" is no longer in use, it was removed by this edit. However it still appears in the reflist, which is causing a cite error.

The reference "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" should be commented out or removed from the reflist.

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Please try to add the word- 'Engineer'.

As far as Issac Newton's works go, can he be considered an engineer? So, the introduction can include 'engineer' as a profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AakashDhawan89 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Usually "Engineer" is taken to be a profession. I don't think this was his profession. - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of inverse square law

See https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath658/kmath658.htm . This site seems to be competent in maths and physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:4426:AC5:D31A:3DE4 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Emmm

Here are some fun facts: the Issac Newton page has been edited almost 8750 times! What a great job, should we cheer for it? (LOL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink0936 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

<!-Help. --> 192.124.203.14 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

With what? Say here what change you would like to make to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 january 2022

I want to change spelling and grammar 86.29.122.237 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

the birth date's wrong. jr. issac here. 106.195.67.150 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Are you taking into consideration Old Style and New Style dates? If that is not the issue, then please provide a reliable source to a different date. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

both bacon and locke were influences on newton

i thought this was obvious.

yes *newton did influence lock, but the opposite is also true. the best example of this their on Extension (metaphysics), where it is locke's prodding that enriches newton to distinguish it from the predominant cartesian definition.

• they were good friends. you should find the anecdote where locke sent a hooker to newton as a joke lol.

anyways, bacon and locke most certainly deserve to be in the infobox for influences given that, along with hobbes (who is #4 in this conversation), they are probably the "big three" in british history. one high quality source encapsulates this entire argument:

• janiak, andrew (2013). "Isaac Newton". The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549993.013.000.

you could argue, possibly, that the influence of boyle on newton somewhat covers bacon, but there is additional influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.154.63 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we provide this gentlefellow the service the contributors of this website pride themselves upon MiguelCabreraReal (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

These lads make a great point, and it's almost as if the contributors are deliberately working around their important suggestion. Is the primary goal of an encycloPAEdia not correctness?

let's not cut the nose to spite the face and all that.104.205.113.42 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Outdated "high-functioning/asperges"?

Hello! i am relatively new to wikipedia, so this may be completely wrong

i saw that in the article it speculates as to whether newton was autistic, however it uses functioning lables and "asberges". as these are typically seen as ableist and outdated by the autistic community. I was wondering if there was any reason this wording couldnt be changed to person first language (e.g. autistic) (i tried searching the help pages for like an hour and i couldnt find anything so i thought i might as well ask), and if not, could it be changed?

if not, thats absolutely fine, just thought it might be worth mentioning

3cubedis27 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

There's a grammatically incorrect sentence in the fourth paragraph (second sentence). Change: "Unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty of the day, he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England."

To: "Unusual ..." Aidanjalili03 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted. The existing version is not grammatically incorrect. "Unusually" is an adverb modifying "he refused". To write "Unusual he refused" is grammatically incorrect. GrindtXX (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Information About sir lsaac newton

English 110.39.9.134 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Why did Newton have a coat of arms, and what do the crossed bones mean? I though that was something associated with aristocracy? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See Newton baronets#Newton baronets, of Barrs Court (1660). This article has a bunch of speculation about it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

year of Newton’s death

The OS and NS calendar difference is only about 11 days. The changing of the calendar system should not underlie the ambiguity of the year of Newton’s death as the wiki entry currently implies. 71.198.251.90 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference in year is because, before the change to "new style", the new year started on Lady Day (25 March), so in the old style he died on 20 March 1726. This is all explained in the first footnote (a), which is referenced in the opening sentence of the article and in the infobox. Mikenorton (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

... and dual dating (such as 1726/27) is a widespread convention specifically adopted to avoid ambiguity. GrindtXX (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Why does the article contain image of the coat of arms twice? Not Samuel Pepys (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Arrrh, ye can never have too many crossbones, matey! I've removed the one in the infobox signature field. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Newton's key discovery is not "superseded"

"In the Principia, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that formed the dominant scientific viewpoint for centuries until it was superseded by the theory of relativity."

Newton's most important discovery was that the laws of nature are universal. Up to that time, it had been generally assumed that the laws of motion applicable on Earth were different from the laws of motion applicable to celestial objects. This seems obvious to us now, but it was not obvious in Newton's day (indeed it was "obvious" that they were not the same). The details of Newton's laws of motion and of Newton's theory of gravitation have indeed been superseded, but the understanding that it is possible to formulate universal laws of physics has not. On the contrary, it underlies the whole of physics since Newton. The above sentence should be changed to make this distinction clear. Comment below if you disagree, otherwise I'll go ahead and correct this. Insulation2 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct to take issue with this sentence. Newton's laws were never really superseded, they were just qualified to apply only in inertial reference frames. That said, to the best of my understanding, universal gravitation was pretty much superseded by general relativity. And as you say, not even mentioned is the very important postulate that the laws of physics can be assumed to be universal. I would support a change to make this clear (without bringing in too much detail - this is a lead sentence, after all). — Jumbo T (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

+1, I also thought this phrasing seemed odd, though I admit I am not a physicist. Proxyma (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

i want to edit 46.11.242.49 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done To prevent vandalism, this page can only be edited by logged-in users with a certain amount of editing experience. You will have to create an account to edit the page. You can also make a specific request for a specific change here on the talk page. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The occult

The occult section is this In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 (never intended to be published), he mentions the date of 2060, but it is not given as a date for the end of days. It has been falsely reported as a prediction. The passage is clear when the date is read in context. He was against date setting for the end of days, concerned that this would put Christianity into disrepute.[144] - who can translate it for me? The section just tells that Newton mentioned 2060 in his notebook and that he was against date setting, and gives Newton's quote. If it's not a prediction, why mention it? Is it really that important? What did Newton mean by that date? Artem.G (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

hey, XOR'easter, sorry to bother you, but do you think this "occult" theme is important enough to warrant a section? The main article is in a poor state, and this short paragraph is too ambiguous. (And not only this article on Newton is in such poor state, Writing of Principia Mathematica should probably be merged into Principia Mathematica, but that's completely different question...) Artem.G (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That subsection is quite opaquely written. The Isaac Newton's occult studies article is somewhat more clear and provides an indication of why this passage might have been inserted here (a splash of sensationalist media), but I doubt it is worth mention here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that it's gives undue weight to a quite obscure topic. Thanks for removing it! Artem.G (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Isaac Newton sidebar

Template:Isaac Newton sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Newton's possible high-functioning autism

It is encyclopedic to add well-sourced and informative comments on Newton's personality. They seem to have been removed on the grounds that they "slander" him. First, a dead person cannot be slandered. Second, this seems to assume that describing someone of extraordinary intelligence as - possibly - reflecting high-functioning autism or Asperger's as some sort of slur or charge of moral turpitude, is frankly an extraordinarily outdated and ableist attitude, breaking all sorts of WP guidelines. Obviously the exact cause of Newton's unique genius and ability to see the universe in an original way, may remain a mystery, but surely there is value in adding to the article reliably-sourced attempts to do so.Straw Cat (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How is it 'reliable'? How can any modern attempts to diagnose a person dead for hundreds of years be reliable? Artem.G (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of any such material would be subject to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and due weight. Firestar464 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

In the Mid-life section of the article, the following line contains a {{Weasel inline}} tag:

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.

I don't think whoever included the word "presumably" intended to call question to the terms themselves as opposed to point out that Newton had very different reasons to avoid church participation. However, I can see why people thought it referred to the terms themselves.

The solution would be to remove the word to alleviate the confusion. Firestar464 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Please note; there is real concern that the leading painting displayed with this article on the astronomer NEWTON is actually that of someone he knew and worked with but is not he himself. The painting in Portrait format is that of Richard Andrew Wardle (born Hampstead, North London: 1637); who died within 24 hours of the painting being completed (painted over a 45 minute period by the noted painter, as stated under register). Richard, a naval artificer; lost part of his left hand: followed by amputation of the remaining forearm. The year date is 1689. The causal link was a broken flywheel, which he stopped dead with the left hand before it broke away; saving the lives of two other men and his wife and partner. His own body of work is pre-James Watt in character but without the real mathematics to codify as far as the formal record. His relationship to NEWTON was business like to say the least. They were both men 'of real worth'; in the language of the 17th Century. If there was an arguement, it was with Richard's wife and partner; whose mathematics were better than NEWTON's. 46.18.177.138 (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the hatnote

from

This page is about the scientist and mathematician. For the American agriculturalist, see Isaac Newton (agriculturalist).

{{About|the scientist and mathematician|the American agriculturalist|Isaac Newton (agriculturalist)}}

to

This page is about the scientist and mathematician. For other uses, see Isaac Newton (disambiguation).

{{About|the scientist and mathematician|other uses|Isaac Newton (disambiguation)}}

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Controversy and fraud

The current article refers to some controversial elements of Newton's history, including those related to the Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy and Isaac Newton's occult studies.

However, it seems that the article doesn't clearly mention the fact that Newton is nowadays regarded by some as an impostor, who stole the ideas of many others, as suggested by relatively recent books like Out of the Shadow of a Giant: Hooke, Halley, and the Birth of Science (2017) by John Gribbin & Mary Gribbin and The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science's Greatest Fraud? (2018) by Nick Kollerstrom.

Should this be noted in the article? — Renardeau.arctique (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

here is a review of the first book, I don't see that it calls Newton a "fraud", though I just skimmed it. I couldn't find any non-trivial review of the second book, and know nothing about the author. It seems that it's not a widespread view, but I'll try to read more. Artem.G (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Issac Newton was born on December 25th

103.148.182.52 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There is already a note about this. See Isaac Newton#cite note-OSNS-5. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dates (birth, death): Please revert to the to the double "O.S.", "N.S." notation.

It is grossly incorrect to say that "Isaac Newton was born on December 25" without specifying that it refers to the (nowadays dismissed for civil uses) Julian calendar. Please restante that "He was born on Dec. 25 1642 [O.S.], Jan. 4 1643 [N.S.]" and similarly for his death date, as it was correctly stated some time ago. 190.151.145.145 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE

BBC and Brittanica hold more info. Please link to the BBC Teach and Brittanica pages, and show the BBC's Issac Newton: The Last Magician film and that would greatly improve stuff. - Aiden Morris 74.131.154.157 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Cambridge religious requirements

I merged two descriptions of Cambridge's fellowship Anglican requirements as best I could. The only thing that appears a bit odd to me is the bit about "By 1675 the issue could not be avoided". However, he became Lucasian Professor in 1669 and used that to get a royal dispensation. So what am I missing/ignorant of? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is odd. - Aiden Morris 74.131.154.157 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

Therealissacnewton (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) someone misspelled his name and I want to change it

@Therealissacnewton  Not done Where? I'll fix it for you but you'll have to show us where that is. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

TherealissacnewtonI will look. - Aiden Morris 74.131.154.157 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Issac Newton = The Real Issac Newton [404: Page Not Found] - Aiden Morris 74.131.154.157 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

Sir Isaac Newton FRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English polymath active as a mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist, theologian, and author who was described in his time as a natural philosopher.[7] He was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed. His pioneering book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687, consolidated many previous results and established classical mechanics.[8][9] Newton also made seminal contributions to optics, and shares credit with German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for developing infinitesimal calculus, though he developed calculus years before Leibniz.[10][11] He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history. 213.6.39.154 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2024 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Puffery

There was a practice here to eliminate the puffery that was included in many articles of scientists as much as possible. This was also done for this article. Now, we read: "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." Along with five sources, of which many are childish and others (New Scientist) are not even supporting the claim. Is Wikipedia now going the other direction? In that case we can make the claim in every article of every scientist in the list of that absurd book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present (one of the sources here). What a childish and petty practice. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is puffery. I think it should stay there, but the sources should be improved. Britannica, a very reliable and reputable source, says that Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687) was one of the most important single works in the history of modern science. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not puffery when it is pretty much universally recognized as true. Also, WP:PUFFERY states, "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." There are plenty of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is interestingly absurd and rather silly but easy to refute and reject. We can add ODNB as a good source, which says at its conclusion: "There has never since been a time when Newton was not considered either the greatest scientist who ever lived or one of a tiny handful of the greatest. His Principia marked the culmination of the scientific revolution, which ushered in modern science, and through its legacy the work may have done more to shape the modern world than any other ever published." Westfall, R (2009). "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642–1727), natural philosopher and mathematician". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/20059. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

I've added ODNB as a more mature source than some that were mentioned on the page, that would be fair criticism of one or two of them. Jim Killock (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jim Killock, it's not a matter of agreeing with the sentence or not (of course I agree with it). It's a matter of everyone stating this about every scientist. On top of that, we see elsewhere that sentences like these are being removed. The question is then, why are we keeping those childish sentences here (as if it's a competition; and okay, perhaps it is...). If we say this about Newton, why not about Galileo? Or Copernicus, Huygens, Kepler? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Like: "Galileo has been called the father of observational astronomy, modern-era classical physics, the scientific method, and modern science."

"Copernicus's model in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), just before his death in 1543, was a major event in the history of science, triggering the Copernican Revolution and making a pioneering contribution to the Scientific Revolution."

Christiaan Huygens "is regarded as a key figure in the Scientific Revolution"

Johannes Kepler: "The variety and impact of his work made Kepler one of the founders and fathers of modern astronomy, the scientific method, natural and modern science. He has been described as the "father of science fiction" for his novel Somnium."

These seem similar in terms of their assessment and place in scientific stardom? Jim Killock (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jim Killock what are you talking about? These are sentences that highlight the importance of those scientists. They are all similar to the first two sentences in the Newton article: "was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed". I have no problem with that sentence at all. I have a problem with sentences like "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." This is the way religious fanatics talk about their prophets and football fans about their favorite players. It is a subjective qualification that doesn't do justice to the very nature of the scientific process.GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend, of course there are plenty of sources! No-one is disputing that, but that is not the issue. The issue is, that we have a lead that is proclaiming Newton as a kind of demi-god (of perhaps even without the demi). This lead (like many others) has religious connotations, where Newton is being presented as a kind of Jesus (sorry Germany, our prophet is better than your prophet (Kepler, Leibniz, Einstein, you choose...)).

Newton's importance is already sufficiently stated in the first sentences, why bragging on about his importance, it's never-ending.... We read formulations like, 'a key figure', 'seminal contributions', 'one of the greatest and most influential', 'the superiority of', 'the greatest genius who ever lived'; give me a fucking break...even the muslims are not that positive about their prophet. These formulations even go against Newton's own idea of what science truly is: building upon the works of predecessors... GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is basically an argument about the great man theory of history, which peaked in the 19th century, but has now been largely debunked and abandoned by historical scholars, while remaining popular among the wider public, who love to see the past as a story of heroes and villains. But the fact remains that Newton is widely regarded as highly pioneering and influential, and that is a point worth making in the lede. From the point of view of Wikipedia, the important thing is to remain neutral and balanced, and to report what secondary sources have said, not to offer value-judgements of our own. I would suggest that the solution might be to replace "He is considered ..." with "He has been described as ...", followed by one or two quotes from authoritative sources. GrindtXX (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@GrindtXX to be clear, I have no problem with stating that Newton was highly pioneering etc. But two things: first, it is in fact already stated in the first two sentences of the article ("was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed"), second, we see that sentences like this have purposefully been removed in other articles (e.g. you won't see anything like this in the articles of Galileo, Kepler or Huygens). Why keep it here then? It reminds me of the way they talk about football players. Who's the greatest, Messi or Ronaldo? And what about Pelé? Who's greater Newton or Maradona? Ridiculous! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not stated in the first two sentences. "Key figure" doesn't really say much, and in two particular periods only understates his importance. Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. In the latter case, neither Kepler nor Huygens are anywhere close to being in Newton's league, nor would you be able to find sources claiming them as being all-time greats, so add WP:STRAWMAN to the list. (Galileo is debatable.) It's not puffery and is verifiable, so you really have no grounds. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend, Huygens is a greater physicist than Newton in my view, to say that Huygens and Kepler are not in Newton's league is utterly absurd (not in the least since Newton's work was unthinkable without the work by Kepler and Huygens). For instance, Huygens's work on the nature of light is objectively superior to the work done by Newton.

But apart from this, the way you're talking about these matters says everything: 'all-time greats', 'league', etc. That's the way they talk about football players, not physicists. And if you don't understand why 'key figure of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment' doesn't explain his importance, then I guess we're finished talking. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Lionel Messi and Pelé both include "widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time" in their intros, Wayne Gretzky "the greatest ice hockey player ever", Tom Brady "the greatest quarterback of all time", etc., etc., further undermining your position. What's wrong with acknowledging greatness? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Charles Darwin is "one of the most influential figures in human history". It ain't puffery ("exaggerated or false praise") if it's true. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend further undermining my position? My lord, are you even reading what I said? My whole point was that this "greatest of all time"-thing is primarily done by fans and worshippers of athletes. It therefore has no place in an article on science, because the entire scientific process (which is historical and cumulative) doesn't work like that. But apparently sports and science are the same to you. Apparently Wayne Gretzky and Newton pertain to the same logic in your view. In that case this discussion becomes next to impossible. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

From the top of WP talk pages: "Assume good faith". "Be polite and avoid personal attacks" Jim Killock (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion that Huygens is a greater physicist than Newton is not shared by anybody else. Also, I just realized you used another strawman argument: This has nothing to do with the "greatest of all time", as you claim and which is open to debate. The wording is "one of the greatest," which is not debatable. Furthermore, for you to argue that bringing in sports figures is somehow illogical is itself illogical. You're the one who brought them up in the first place! Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Because you know 'everybody else'? I know plenty of physicists who share my opinion, for instance Vincent Icke who also wrote several books on the work done by Huygens. Recently Hugh Aldersey-Williams notes in his biography of Huygens: "Huygens's standing as the greatest scientist in Europe was eclipsed by Newton at the end of the seventeenth century, even though Huygens's achievements exceeds that of Newton in some important respects". Perhaps you're lack of understanding has to do with the fact that you're part of Wikipedia's film project?

I see you also have problems understanding logic. The fact that I brought up an analogy to point out that I disagree with something, obviously does not mean that we should copy it; if you don't understand that then I think we're finished talking. Also, what makes you even think that I agree with this? Nowhere did I write something that even comes close. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's real simple. As I stated before, it's not puffery if it's true and verifiable, so you have no valid justification for your position. You tried to weasel out of it by bringing in a different, strawman argument (i.e. the greatest vs. one of the greatest). Also, how does quoting "Huygens's standing as the greatest scientist in Europe was eclipsed by Newton" bolster your argument? That's a real head scratcher. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the way you're reasoning, pretty much everything is a head scratcher to you. My entire point - if it wasn't already clear enough - was that it's quite absurd to make rankings when you're talking about science. Also, you're presenting subjective arguments as objective facts, which is absurd. Sentences like the ones we're talking about cannot be stated objectively and therefore have no place in these articles. I could understand sentences on the influence or importance to a certain period, but to mention them ten times in a row (even if they're true and verifiable) is absurd and unnecessary; I made this clear from the beginning (just like I made it clear that it's against Wikipedia regulations). I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoneWithThePuffery I would suggest calming down a bit. As said by another editor, no one will take you seriously if you are insulting other editors or describing your perception of their inability to comprehend your arguments. People these days call this average Redditor behaviour. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu, I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. I'm completely calm. I simply disagree vehemently with some of the users here. And frankly I'm baffled by the kind of arguments some of them are using to maintain those petty and childish statements (like "Wayne Gretzky and Tom Brady are being called the greatest, so it's also okay for Isaac Newton to be called the greatest"; comparing an American Football player to a scientist...). In my opinion the fact that Newton was indeed a great scientist should be connected to his contemporary importance; i.e. in Newton's case the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You did it again, "petty and childish statements". —Panamitsu (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu, they are petty and childish! How else would you call a sentence like: "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." after it's been made perfectly clear that Newton was a key figure in this and that and had seminal influence. It's childish and petty to speak about scientists as if they are football players or ice hockey players; as if you can turn their achievements into rankings. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe in your view but that is not how to conduct a civil conversation. I would recommend stopping with this language immediately and show some sympathy to your fellow editors. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu, you're taking it far too personal. Petty and childish refers to the sentence, not the user. And why should I have sympathy for people who obviously don't know what they're talking about, but still bragging about the subject as if they think they know it all. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is some anti-social behaviour if you ask me. End of conversation. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu, but my dear Panamitsu, I didn't even ask your opinion!! Haha! :) Btw, if this is anti-social behavior then I'm afraid almost any criticism is. So if you ask me: grow a pair! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Despite reverting the removal of the 'one of the greatest' sentence, after some thought I fundamentally agree that this adds nothing to the article and ought to be removed. The achievements of great and influential scientists should speak for themselves.

On a separate note, GoneWithThePuffery, to put this maybe a little bluntly, I can't help but feel you would get more people on your side if you could be a bit more civil in your communication. Words like 'ridiculous', 'petty', 'absurd', as well as the way you are choosing to communicate (e.g. on your talk page, 'why do you feel the urge to bother me with your take on [scientific practice]' and 'why is it so hard for you to understand') come across as abrasive at the very least. Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

The Info table is missing from the Isaac Newton article due to a recent edit by user BettyRavioli , i can't revert myself bcz of the semi protection DeltaV20 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done by @William M. Connolley. Thank you! Irltoad (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: should the sentence "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." be removed from the lead of this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To better structure discussion around this seemingly contentious issue, I think we ought to do this as described at WP:RFC. Please keep this civil and show some sympathy towards each other.

Should the sentence "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." be removed from the lead of this article? — Jumbo T (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• Support. Newton's greatest achievements are listed in the lead: "key figure in the Scientific Revolution", "made seminal contributions to optics", etc. and don't fail to paint a picture of a great scientist. The sentence "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history" does indeed seem unnecessary, as well as comparatively subjective. It may well be true, but truth is not the only criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article! — Jumbo T (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support It seems redundant to me. I am in favor of describing Newton's overall influence in science, but using the terms "the greatest" and "most influential" is stating the same thing twice in the same sentence. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, although "most influential" is sufficient without "the greatest". While many of his accomplishments are described in the intro, their overall scope and profundity wouldn't necessarily be apparent to someone unfamiliar with him, particularly non-scientists. For example, "He was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed" seems to restrict his influence to those periods only. Furthermore, it is a fairly common practice to sum up a paragraph in the last sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Also, this is common in lots of other articles:

• Charles Darwin: "one of the most influential figures in human history"
• Richard Feynman: "In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World, he was ranked the seventh-greatest physicist of all time."
• James Clerk Maxwell: "Many physicists regard Maxwell as the 19th-century scientist having the greatest influence on 20th-century physics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In the millennium poll—a survey of the 100 most prominent physicists—Maxwell was voted the third greatest physicist of all time, behind only Newton and Einstein."
• Archimedes: "he is regarded as one of the leading scientists in classical antiquity. Considered the greatest mathematician of ancient history, and one of the greatest of all time"
• Carl Friedrich Gauss: "Gauss ranks among history's most influential mathematicians"
• William Shakespeare: "He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist."

Are you proposing to edit all of them? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I would be in favour of editing all of them (or at least the scientists). I think there are some very strong arguments against this practice of claiming 'greatness' in the lead. Here are a couple:

By talking about a select group of people in this way, we marginalise others with similarly seminal contributions to science. Take Marie Curie: despite being the recipient of a Nobel prize and pioneering research into radioactivity, she is not 'considered one of the greatest scientists of all time' as perhaps she ought to be if we follow the precedent of the articles you listed. Rosalind Franklin jointly discovered the structure of DNA(!), and yet all she gets in the lead of her article is pity. Is this simply oversight on the part of the authors of these articles, or reflective of a deeper prejudice that we scientists hoped we were overcoming?

You've picked a few articles which do talk about greatness, so let's look at just a couple which don't.

• Galileo Galilei: despite appearing above Feynman on this 1999 strawpoll of a handful of physicists, there is no such claim of greatness in the lead for his article. The same is true for Niels Bohr and Erwin Schroedinger (at #4 and #9 respectively), to pick just a couple more examples.
• Enrico Fermi made groundbreaking contributions to a very wide range of fields in physics (to evidence this, you simply need to look at the list of things named after him!). Yet, he is not described as 'one of the greatest' or 'the most influential' anywhere in the lead.

The fact that some deserving scientists aren't described as such is irrelevant. It just means editors haven't gotten around to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully I've made clear some of the inconsistencies and problems with this approach to talking about the people of science.

Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I would be in favour of opening an RFC (after this one concludes) at somewhere centralised like WikiProject Science to coordinate guidelines for this across all science biographies. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose changed my opinion based on arguments presented here. Unless all scientists called "great" are also changed, changing Newton is just another front in the silly Hooke debate. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Support. "The greatest" is a meaningless argument starter that works best after a couple of beers. "Influential" at least has some potentially measurable meaning, but I have not seen any data analysis to support it. These terms are used by people trying to sell books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. In agreement with the above explanation. To add to that (and to emphasize): I'm against including these subjective statements in ALL articles. Also in Albert Einstein's article for instance it should be removed. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, this is an RFC for this article only. Consensus here does not extend to other articles, though could certainly be cited as evidence if there were an additional RFC to do so. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement is qualified. The statement already says "one of the greatest" not "the greatest", which is milder. I don't see any issue with it and Clarityfiend's examples shows that other scientists have such statements in their articles too. At least with Newton, if you have numerous universal units like N for force and is found in other fields like fluid mechanics (Newtonian fluids), it is a big deal since his contributions are not narrow. He also was key a pioneer in mathematics (co-creator of calculus - one of the most powerful tools in all mathematics - with Leibniz ). Plus that statement is supported by multiple sources making such a claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I apologise if I'm bordering on bludgeoning here, but I would really like to point out that the 'other articles do it' argument doesn't stand up particularly well, since there is a distinct lack of consistency. There are plenty of scientists who don't have such statements, but who could be considered to deserve them. Take Fermi: like Newton, whom you mention, he has the Fermi energy, fermions, Fermi-Dirac statistics, Fermi paradox, etc. - any physicist will tell you how ubiquitous his name is in physics! His contributions are hardly 'narrow'. Yet he lacks any 'greatest' or 'most influential' claims in the lead. Furthermore, I think the question "can only white men be 'great' in science?" is certainly not to be overlooked. — Jumbo T (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The statement says "one of the greatest" not "the greatest", which is milder. He is a foundation of modern science, physics, astronomy, fluid mechanics, chemistry (alchemy at the time), mathematics, the modern scientific method, was part of the first scientific organization (the Royal Society), helped establish peer reviewed literature precedent, and many more iconic events in the history of science etc. Scientists continually hold Newton in high esteem like biologists hold Darwin in high esteem. He usually tops charts like this in scientific magazines and in academic sources like this [3]. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone doubts Newton's phenomenal impact. What we doubt is the value of "greatness" as a replacement for exactly the list you just provided.

So would you give Newton a Greatness rating of 8.9? or 9.1? Is the bar for "one of" set to 9.0? 6.0? How would Hendrik Lorentz rate? 7.1? Richard Feynman? 7.4? Aristotle? 9.9?

Is it difficult to come up with a single number for each scientist? Yes. That is why "greatness" is just for fun, a form of gossip, of entertainment. "Greatness" is perfect fit for pop-sci magazines for exactly this reason. "Greatness" ratings are not knowledge.

We could replace the contested sentence with

• He helped to found the Royal Society, the first scientific organization, helped establish peer reviewed literature precedent, the modern scientific method, as well as the fields of physics, astronomy, fluid mechanics, chemistry and mathematics, making Newton one of the most influential scientists in history.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Landau did it, actually. Lev Landau#Landau's ranking of physicists. The highest ranking, 0, was assigned to Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein was ranked 0.5. A rank of 1 was awarded to the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Satyendra Nath Bose, Paul Dirac and Erwin Schrödinger, and others, while members of rank of 5 were deemed "pathologists". Do you think WP editors can rank physicists better? Artem.G (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Ramos. It's supported by sources. The status quo is perfectly fine. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another example, this time from the competition: "Einstein is generally considered the most influential physicist of the 20th century." Clarityfiend (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend, just to clear one small thing up. I'm not necessarily against these kind of sentences (i.e. stressing his importance, although 'one of the' would already be much better), but more against an almost endless repetition of these kind of sentences; which is the case in the article on Newton. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It never said "the greatest". It was and is "one of the greatest". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This might have been a better point to make. However, what the sentence in question does (on a quick re-read) is summarise how his various contributions is viewed by society at large, which seems to me an undisputable fact, even if, as has been said, there is a socialised overemphasis on personal greatness going on in said society at large. Jim Killock (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support - "greatest scientist" is meaningless, there is no championship to defend. If that part were removed the sentence would be fine. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's not "the greatest/most influential", it's "one of the greatest/most influential": big difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  True, but I more meant that greatness in science is meaningless. The world's greatest pole vaulter can jump higher than anyone else, but what does it mean to be one of the greatest scientists? That's why only "...most influential" should be retained. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Greatness in science is meaningless"? Where the heck did that come from? So the Nobel Prize in Physics is given for what, outstanding mediocrity? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  People above have said it better, maybe you should reply to them instead. The Nobel prize in physics is given to "those who have made the most outstanding contributions for humankind in the field of physics". Any other questions? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a point regularly if not universally made in other biographies and summaries, to the point of being a commonplace remark. It would be very odd for Wikipedia not to report a widely held view in this way. I agree with the wider criticism of what society does by focusing on individual greatness to an excessive degree, etc, but that is be better dealt with in WP articles by ensuring wide sources are used recognising he contributions of scientists' colleagues, etc. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The rather broad characterization is not necessary when there already are more specific descriptions in the first paragraph. "He was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed. His pioneering book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687, consolidated many previous results and established classical mechanics." Senorangel (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I have run into this a couple times this week, I wouldn't mind a statement like this if its attributed to a qualified source, it gives the vague description "one of the greats" some context. If no attribution and just something like "was considered one of the most influential ________ of his time", I think it's just fluff.MaximusEditor (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Did you look at the article? The sentence has has four different sources. — Jumbo T (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: surprisingly most of the views here seem not to reference WP editorial policy but express personal views about what constitutes acceptable characterisation of scientists, which AIUI isn't directly relevant. What is permissable, if the sources say something that people find strains our more enlightened, collegiate modern sensibilities? Is it OK to ignore what the outside world thinks and states, and to impose our own view? Should we perhaps look back at how Newton is framed by reliable sources? --Jim Killock (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that editorial policy is fluid and never set in stone (and, in fact, is derived from RfCs like this one in the first place). That said, WP:SUBJECTIVE may have some relevance to this discussion. — Jumbo T (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is to clarify "He is considered" (by whom? not by Wikipedia, for sure.) Jim Killock (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support (removal) John Maynard Keynes put it better than I can: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians." (from Isaac Newton#Optics, which ends with the incredible and uncited assertion This was at a time when there was no clear distinction between alchemy and science, and had he not relied on the occult idea of action at a distance, across a vacuum, he might not have developed his theory of gravity. which, btw, is wrong twice over: (a) the motto of the Royal Society declared Nullius in verba, is Latin for "Take nobody's word for it", adopted to signify the fellows' determination to establish facts via experiments; so if there was no clear distinction between alchemy and science then it was contrary to the Society's founding principles. (b) Hooke had established the principle in 1665 while Newton was still fantasising about the motion of the planets being due to vortices in the aether. It took Halley to persuade him to get over his animosity for Hooke and find the mathematical proof that became the Principia.)

Newton was certainly a great mathematician but his irrational beliefs prevented him from being the great scientist that he might otherwise have been. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is great information and analysis; it feels to me like there is a case to say "while many biographers and scientists portray him as one of the greatest scientific minds, others see him as having hindered his work by continuing to focus onto older ideas derived from alchemy and occultism" Jim Killock (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you have convinced me to change my vote. I was in favor of removing "greatness" is a silly metric. But here you are claiming "great" should be removed because Newton was not "great". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear once more. I'm not disputing the fact that Newton was great. Of course Newton was great. My problem is the repetition and the hysteric tone. The first sentence (which is good in my view) goes: "He was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed". If that's not implying he was great, then what is? Moreover, we read in the next sentence: "Newton also made seminal contributions to optics". And then (accompanied by 4 sources, in case no-one believes us): "He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history." (And I'm not only talking about Newton, also Einstein and Darwin's articles are absurd in that respect.) It has religious connotations. Like I said, not even the muslims are that happy with their prophet. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Actually, I would be in favour of opening an RFC (after this one concludes) at somewhere centralised like WikiProject Science to coordinate guidelines for this across all science biographies. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]" I agree very much with this.... GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Clarityfiend's comments. There is a time and a place to use phrases such as "one of the greatest," and this is one of them. It's helpful for readers to understand the subject's significance within the context of the progress of science. Very few have earned the distinction, thus why it's a notable inclusion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, Newton is too significant, and here the phrase is totally justified. Artem.G (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, as he is certainly influential, which is why I would support a change to something like just striking "greatest" as that isn't quantifiable in the same way. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone else pointed out, this sort of language is commonly used when referring to prominent or historically significant scientists. Also, there doesn't seem to be any defensible argument to the effect that Newton was not one of the greatest scientists. Given the common usage and what might be considered the rather self-evident fact that Newton was a very significant figure in the history of science, I'd say the statement is appropriate to include.Coalcity58 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Coalcity58, the fact that it's 'commonly used' is a. not entirely true; we don't see this in the articles of Galileo, Kepler, or Huygens; b. it's not an argument; I'm also against the use of these statements in other articles. Last but not least: it's not about stating it; it's about repeating and exaggerating it. In other words: puffery; which is against Wikipedia policy.... GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@GoneWithThePuffery I think "commonly used" above refers to what is found in the sources about Newton, not other articles.

Another way of addressing your concern with potential exaggeration is to find sufficient consensus in other sources to balance the statement, eg that say "others while recognising his achievement see his achievements in this other context", if these do have consensus and can be found.

The "puffery" policy is clearly addressed at the tendency to present any scientists' achievements as "breakthrough", "revolutionary", "world changing" etc. In this case however, the sources are prominent, widespread, and are clear that they do not regard such statements as exaggeration, but go out of their way to present his achievements as very much not exaggerated when describing them in this way. The "repetition" you want removed is simply the often stated well citeably summary view. Jim Killock (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it occurs for me as a rather inconsequential one-sentence edit, and at this point it also looks like there is perhaps a bit more discussion than is warranted by such. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reflection: Looking at the lead, I think an improvement would be to explain to the generalist what the significance of his achievements actually was. It mentions that he was a key figure in the scientific revolution and links to "classical mechanics" (which explains this much better) but a few words saying why Newton's contributions matter for industrialisation and modern society would go a long way for people who aren't engineers or scientists. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that in the articles of Galileo, Kepler & Huygens (for instance), these sentences are purposefully left out (precisely for the reason of puffery). Are you saying that they're not 'one of the greatest' scientists of all time? And then the second question: where does it begin or end? Who belongs in the Champions League of Wikipedia's 'One of the greatest scientists of all time'? Of course Einstein, as we can read. But Niels Bohr is not on the level? Also not Werner Heisenberg? Not Paul Dirac? Not Hendrik Lorentz? Surely Einstein's work would've been impossible without them...

You write: "Why Newton's contributions matter for industrialisation and modern society...". This is not solving any problem, in fact, it's only making it bigger, as the same can be said for any other scientist of that period. Science is a cumulative matter, in the sense that scientists are building upon the works of predecessors; especially in the case of Newton this should be obvious. You're acting as if Newton's scientific work was created out of nothing, as if it came completely out of the blue; quite the contrary is the case. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This could be solved, for example, by saying "The understanding of mechanics and gravity that Newton and others developed, was fundamental knowledge for construction, designing machines and many other aspects of the technological changes experienced in the following centuries."

My point was about readers, not Newton's position in scientific history. There are some improvements available around the RFC topic (we have found two so far) that stop short of removing a well-sourced observation, whether it is accurate or not. Whatever editorial guidance may exist, WP's fundamental policy is WP:NPOV, all the sources: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic Leaving out a remark made frequently in a wide range of sources risks violating NPOV, whatever we might think of it "objectively". Giving further context around common statements, however, may not be, if this is also be found in the sources. Jim Killock (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these sentences are completely vague, not to mention the ridiculousness of the "Newton and others..." part (Galileo, Kepler, Huygens are merely 'others'). You write: "Fundamental knowledge for construction, designing machines", designing what kind of machines? Spaceships? Immersion blenders? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you suggested what in your view might work rather than simply rejecting what is put forward. Jim Killock (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you call someone who "was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed" and "made seminal contributions to optics, and shares credit for developing infinitesimal calculus"? Indeed, "great and influential". Therefore, the entire sentence is in my view unnecessary; not in the least because it was purposefully left out (precisely for the reason of puffery) in the articles of Galileo, Kepler and Huygens. Why then these sentences?

A compromise could be to leave out "greatest" (because this is in my view completely unmeasurable), but then again, a sentence like "one of the most influential scientists in history" is vague as well (which history? European history? The history of mankind? The history of the universe?). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

These are still comments about what you don't like about the current text, rather than suggestions of your own. It'd be great to know how you would like to ensure that we reflect the sources, and make the explanations clearer to the public. Jim Killock (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that those sources really need to be reflected in the lead. I already made clear that the content of the sources you're referring have already been sufficiently reflected in the lead.

And what would you like to explain in the lead? A lead is a reflection of what's written in the article. If you write: "Newton was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution", then the sentence refers to certain points in the text where the statements logically follows from. If you write: "Newton was one of the greatest ever", then (it seems to me) you're referring to exact the same points, with the difference that the first sentence is far more clear. Thus, the last sentence is completely redundant. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least the removal of "most influential." That's objective fact and important context. "Greatest," on the other hand, should be removed. NuanceQueen (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I guess the problem here is, for instance, by the same logic Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament. could be argued to be removable on the same basis (not objectively verifiable, or "puffery"). Compare: He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history. - both are arguably "faith based" statements, or beliefs and both beliefs can be demonstrated to be present in the sources; Christians believe and He is considered. Why is one opinion OK to report, while the other is not? Why do we follow sources on one, and not the other? (Or am I misreading the sources?) Jim Killock (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest rephrase to Newton is [often / usually] [believed / considered] to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history to ensure this is read as an opinion, not a factual statement endorsed by Wikipedia. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as a "factual statement endorsed by Wikipedia". Wikipedia presents information. The waffle words "[often / usually] [believed / considered]" are not information. You can say "one of the greatest" and back it up with reliable sources, but there is no practical way to poll all sources of rendering judgements on all scientists and conclude "often" or "usually". Johnjbarton (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jim Killock, this is of course even more absurd, that's only making the sentence more vague and unclear. Better would be (as an addition to the sentence above...): "He was a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that followed, making him one of the most influential scientists in the history of Western civilization." Something like that. Then at least it's clear that his influence is related to those facts. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Johnjbarton Without wanting to quibble too much "was an English polymath", is a statement presented as a fact by Wikipedia ("was"; sourced and verifiable); whereas "he is considered" presents an "opinion" as a potential non-fact; the fact presented is that the opinion exists. I agree that striking a better formula is difficult, but I think the confusion in the discussion here comes from people trying to judge this statement as if it were true in and of itself, whereas the statement s actually presenting an opinion. Some edit might make this clearer. An alternative may be to present any other relevant, sourced opinion on the point --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

GWTP: The point is that (a) the suggestion to delete the sentence here potentially violates WP:NPOV as it would remove the fact of a widely held opinion; your issue is with the opinion; not the fact that the opinion exists; and (b) average readers don't necessarily understand what the implications of the "Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment" are, and this deserves context, as per WP:AUDIENCE. Jim Killock (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock Applying any of the analysis in this Topic to Newton alone is wrong and should be opposed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Jim Killock, a. No, my issue is with the repetition and glorifying tone of the lead, which is unencyclopedic in my view. Moreover, the result of this is that you can put this statement ("one of the greatest") in the lead of almost every great scientist of that period, because where does it end? What does "one of the greatest" mean? In other words: who is part of the club? You don't answer that anywhere; probably because you can't.

b. I don't care if the average reader doesn't understand the implication of the scientific revolution and englightenment; this is an encyclopedia, not a children's book. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AUDIENCE: People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Jim Killock (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton, I agree with that very much & I have also stated this many times myself. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

So, the purpose of the lead is to summarise the content: WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

If we look at Isaac Newton#Legacy, we have, (with some other relevant material):

In a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein, the members deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution. In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of the day's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever," with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton. New Scientist called Newton "the supreme genius and most enigmatic character in the history of science".

The summary given for these sourced opinions is that He is considered one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history. That seems a fair synopsis of that above. Given the statements are well sourced, I can't see a case for removing them. So if rectification in the Lead is needed, then more sourced information about his reputation is should be added to the "Legacy" section, in order that the Lead can reflect that. Jim Killock (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: the policy exists because, in the vast majority of cases someone is said to be the GOAT in his field, it's just shameless promotion of a garage band or a fan who wants to over-emphasise the achivements and recognitions of the subject of the article. But sir Isaac Newton? No, it's one of the few and limited cases when we can freely say that he's the GOAT because, well, HE IS. Cambalachero (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  With respect, I don't agree with your reasoning:

  1. The policy doesn't exist solely for the reason you give. It exists to encourage more encyclopaedic writing in line with the 'neutral point of view' principle. Sure, it also helps to prevent wacky statements from overzealous fans, but that it's deeper than that. (I mean, it even gives Bob Dylan as an example in the MoS, hardly a garage band.)

  2. By calling Newton 'the GOAT' without any further commentary you miss the entire point of this RfC. As far as I see it, the discussion is around (a) is this a claim that can ever be reliably sourced, and (b) is it encyclopaedic to report this claim in the article?

  Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  The example given though is a good example of why this may be acceptable: Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter. That is opinion presented as fact. The current text tries to summarise the opinions ("is considered", not "is"). One could take the advice and report "just the facts" aling the lines of "In recent years Newton has been voted first or second "greatest physicist ever" with Einstein taking the other place, and as having had the "greater effect" on modern society compared to Einstein." Or these could be summarised as more clearly "in the opinion of", eg Scientists frequently identify him in polling as one of the greatest and most influential scientists in history Jim Killock (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Well-sourced statement of fact as established and Isaac Newton#Legacy and should be included in the lead to demonstrate his importance is considered by others.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t really think this is a controversial statement. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it is well-sourced and seems to be general consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, first because I don't find the sources as satisfactory or universal (as in, not-Eurocentric) as I'd like, but mainly because I don't think it serves any purpose other than puffery. CVDX (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Puffery means exaggerating someone's accomplishments. That is most definitely not the case here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• support removal. There is a RFC of similar nature in the Yale talk page. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, opinions about the topic should either be attributed or claimed to be widespread. Both options must be supported with reliable sources. There is also the argument that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies for option#2. I think that current Yale article lede demonstrates that the subject's exceptional nature can be conveyed in an impartial voice by just laying out the facts that are commonly used to argue that the entity is exceptional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintheer (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the sentence in question is backed by multiple reliable sources. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  please see my response to JimKillock. I don't believe that the "greatest" part has any real backup (in the "widespread" sense as mentioned above). However I do agree that "most influential" does. spintheer (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a bit surprised that you're of that opinion; I ran through the same four sources below, and came to the opposite conclusion; three of four clearly use the term "greatest". Jim Killock (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies, then I might've misunderstood something. I'll respond directly to that post below. spintheer (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Could the opinions in this sentence be attributed more clearly to help with the issues raised? Jim Killock (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  The sentence makes two claims, one about each opinion: (1) "one of the greatest" and (2) "one of the most influential". When we consider them separately:

  (1) "one of the greatest": I couldn't see "greatest" being attributed directly to Newton in the references that follow the sentence in the lede (in 3/4 of the references, I couldn't get access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography one). I think that in this context we should require a strict degree of matching between source and article text given that there is enough editorial disagreement about this topic to reach a RFC. As a result, unless I missed something, I'd personally lean to avoid using "the greatest" in the lede.

  (2) "One of the most influential": Here there is a lot more to work with. The Royal Society poll can be used to make the "widespread" claim about this opinion. It is just one source though, and it would have been nice to have more RSes with polls. Other sources also say "influential", but they don't rely on a poll, so we can attribute this opinion to them directly if we wanted.

  Given that the above would require changing the sentence substantially, and that the RFC only has "keep" or "remove" options, I voted to remove since it is the better option imo. spintheer (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  The ONDB says "There has never since [his death] been a time when Newton was not considered either the greatest scientist who ever lived or one of a tiny handful of the greatest." The NS article starts with a description of his reputation. "New Scientist once described Isaac Newton as “the supreme genius and most enigmatic character in the history of science.” His three greatest discoveries — the theory of universal gravitation, the nature of white light and calculus — are the reasons why he is considered such an important figure in the history of science." The RS poll says "greater contribution"; the physicists poll was for the "the greatest physicist of all time". The physicists poll was for "which scientists have made the most important contributions to physics." It is less clear whether that is about influence or size (greatness, bigness) of contribution. Of course here the meaning of "greatness" is woolly (do we mean intellectual achievement, influence, or importance, or some combination). But for whatever reason, it is a theme out there in his reputation. I do think it would be worth tweaking the statement so it reads more clearly as "in the opinion of". Jim Killock (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ODNB summary. My current understanding of the sources is as follows:

  The scientific 100:

  - "Greatest": N/A

  - "Most influential": Directly claims this.

  Royal society:

  On a closer reading, this source appears to just show a poll that directly compares opinion about Einstein and Newton. It technically doesn't make any claim about "greatest" or "most influential" at all.

  - "Greatest": N/A

  - "Most influential": N/A

  New scientist:

  As mentioned above, this source doesn't directly make any claims relating to "greatest" or "most influential". In this setting, I tend to prefer a strict reading and not to extrapolate from text, so:

  - "Greatest": N/A

  - "Most influential": N/A

  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

  - "Greatest": Directly claims this.

  - "Most influential": N/A

  If this understanding of the sources is correct, then we really cannot say that "widespread" applies for either "greatest" or "most influential". We can attribute "greatest" to ODNB and "most influential" to The scientific 100 if we want though. spintheer (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.