Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Family

Any heirs to Newton to mention? Any family?

See Isaac_Newton#Later_life:

Newton died in London on March 20th, 1727, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. His half-niece, Catherine Barton Conduitt^[1], served as his hostess in social affairs at his house on Jermyn Street in London; he was her "very loving Uncle" ^[2], according to his letter to her when she was recovering from smallpox. Although Newton, who had no children, had divested much of estate onto relatives in his last years he actually died intestate. His considerable liquid estate was divided equally between his eight half-nieces and half-nephews (three Pilkingtons, three Smiths and two Bartons (including Catherine Barton Conduitt).^[3] Woolsthorpe Manor passed to his heir-in-law, a John Newton ("God knows a poor representative of so great a man"), who, after six years of "cock[fight]ing, horse racing, drinking and folly" was forced to mortgage and then sell the manor before dying in a drunken accident.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

From His work in decoding the bible he found that the world would end in 1948 using not the skip letter code but rather the code being used by the lords witnesses today.(http://www.truebiblecode.com/press1.html)

Useful? -- Ec5618 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No. His best estimate was 2060. See [4]

Newton’s theory of chemical affinities

Does anyone know where I can find information on Newton’s chemical affinity theories? I keep reading about these in many places, for example: John Dalton Bio. Is there a good book on Newton’s alchemy? Or does anyone know some good links? If anyone is knowledgeable in this area, he or she should put it in the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Important books on Newton's Alchemy are:

• Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy: or, "The Hunting of the Greene Lyon". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. ISBN 052120786X
• Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Janus Faces of Genius: the Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0521380847

The excerpt from Janus Faces at [5] includes a discussion of the historiographical issue of Newton's alchemy and footnotes that provide a starting bibliography on Newton's alchemy. Dobbs's work came to an end with her untimely death in 1994. --SteveMcCluskey 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I have Newton's Principia (1687) and Opticks (1704) and there is a little bit there. I’ll check into the books you recommend. I also recently bought Trevor H. Levere’s 1971 book Affinity and Matter – Elements of Chemical Philosophy 1800-1865 and it has lot of Newton stuff in it as well as many other affinity theories. I'll add your suggestions to chemical affinity. Thanks again. --Sadi Carnot 12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible transmission of Kerala mathematics

I noticed that my addition of the "possible transmission of Kerala Mathematics to Europe" link was reverted. So I thought I'd clarify the doubts of original research here.
I believe the title of the article itself justifies the fact that the article is based on speculation that in turn is based on circumstantial evidence. Here are a few links that discuss of this transmission [6], [7], [8] (this one contains a list of seminars and conventions held worldwide to discuss the possible transmission), [9]. The opinions on this theory are greatly divided. Some take to the Null hypothesis, while others hang on to the alternative hypothesis. Since this is a disputed and widely debated possibility, it should not be omitted from the page (written in neutral terms, of course). If such a theory is proved, it could have disastrous impacts on Newton and other mathematicians' careers. Also, its omission would mean the article lacks comprehsiveness — thereby falling out on the criteria for featured status.
I'd like to hear the thoughts of other wikipedians. Comments, anyone?-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the key phrase here is "if such a theory is proved." If such a theory is proved--or even substantiated with some amount of evidence rather than speculation--then of course it should be included in Wikipedia. If that happened, I don't think anyone would fault WP for waiting until there was some evidence and not going forward based on speculation. There's no requirement that encyclopedias have to guess right about future facts. Nareek 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that this idea that the significance of a scientist, discoverer etc lies in 'being first' is childish and false. Newton's significance as a pioneer of modern science is assured whichever giant shoulders he stood on.--Jack Upland 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

World-machine

World-machine is an orphaned article. I have tagged it to be merged with this one, but I am not comfortable inserting it. I leave that up to the caretakers of this article. meatclerk 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it should be linked with deism,which is an older concept than Newton. I shall unorphan the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks meatclerk 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed -- but I've just noticed that there is a clockwork universe article!  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why are the footnotes not in numerical order? Why don't we use the <ref></ref> format, which numbers them automatically? Nareek 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some editors dislike the Cite.php system, mostly i think because the <ref> tags are inserted directly into the text, sometimes making editing confusing. I've also seen the opinion that citations are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and all the references should be on a separate page; there was some talk of software support for this idea but i don't know what the outcome was. Mostly as an experiment, i've started a fact checking page for this article (Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts), but am only making slow progress.EricR 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the out of order footnotes a real pain -- the <ref></ref> format I find easier. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to <ref> (can't really because i haven't actually edited the article) and also find that format much easier to use. If there are no objections, then in a week or so i'll switch everything to Cite.php.EricR 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea Eric, thanks for taking on the task. --SteveMcCluskey 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the <ref> tags, later i'll go through and check what i can and clean up the citation templates, but for starters the Lagrange quote(footnote 3) seems to be incorrect. The cited work is here: "aussi M. Lagrange, qui le citait souvent comme le plus grand génie qui eût jamais existé, ajoutait-il aussitôt: et le plus heureux; on ne trouve qu'une fois un système du monde à établir." If babelfish is correct, this is the author partialy paraphrasing and partialy quoting Lagrange.EricR 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't footnote 1 read: The remainder of the dates in this article follow the Julian calendar? EricR 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disenchantment of Christianity?

The following statement, though cited, is I think highly suspect and debateable.

The perceived ability of Newtonians to explain the world, both physical and social, through logical calculations alone is the crucial idea in the disenchantment of Christianity.

Is this from a poll or study on people who have stopped being Christians or just the author's opinion? Newtonian physics and worldview has certainly not disillusioned the more than 2 billion Christians living today, nor really in any great numbers the followers of any other religion, nor even Newton himself. One might say the Newtonian worldview gave certain people, especially certain intellectuals, disillusionment about Christianity or religion in general, but that's a different statement altogether. Roy Brumback 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The line puts forward the disenchantment of Christianity likes it some sort of established fact. If it is I'm sure we have an article somewhere noting this important fact. If not it's POV. Mathiastck 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see why some people might become disenchanted with Christianity but to say that Christianity itself has become disenchanted doesn't make any sense -- Christianity is neither enchanted nor disenchanted nor can it be. Thus there can be no such thing as the disenchantment of Christianity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence is meaning to say "disenchantment with Christianity"; I believe this is the meaning under question here. The statement is POV -- I never liked it, but never had time to challenge or change it. Roy is correct. Not only that, but Newton himself considered his "Natural Philosophy" to be positive proof of a rational Creator -- just the opposite of what this statement proposes. This statement is POV and incorrect, and should thus be changed. LotR 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Newton disagreed with the dogma of the Trinity. He did however keep this hidden from public knowledge as it would have caused serious problems from him. Having issues with the Trinity does not imply that he was disenchanted with Christianity at all nor that he disbelieved in a creator. In fact, Newton, through his studies, seemed to become more convinced of a creator.

Candy 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence?

Was/has there been any evidence that Newton lived a Homosexual life style? Gagueci 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Newton's comment at the Parliament of England

In the article, the only recorded comments were to request that the window be closed. But I've seen on the web many times that the request is to open the window, as well as to close it. My colleague suggests there is "to open" in Asimov's Book of Facts. Can anyone comment to this? And what is the actual record for this? ja:User:Mzaki --133.11.37.208 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The anecdote is from the Convention Parliament 1689-90: "According to a story that rests solely on anecdotal authority, he spoke only once; feeling a draft, he asked an usher to close a window." (Westfall 1980, p. 483) But Westfall also states that none of the surviving accounts contain any record of his participation.

For his participation in 1701: "As before in the Convention Parliament, he was not prominent in any respect. The one division of the House that a contemporary recorded in print saw him vote in support..." (Westfall 1980, p. 623)EricR 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with style

"Newton played a major role in the development of calculus, sharing credit famously at time with Gottfried Leibniz (and later with Archimedes and Madhava)."

What is this supposed to read? Sharing credit famously at THE time, or credit OF the time? I don't know enough history to be able to say whether Leibniz or Newton aknowledged each others work.

--Alex Kozak 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Bipolar Disorder?

Is there any evidence that Newton had bipolar disorder? If there is, should it be included in this article?

--[[User:Anonymous] 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But if we have a reliable source that says so, we should put it in Borisblue 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed. Along with autism, poisoning etc. There is some evidence that Newton had a psychotic episode but diagnosis a few hundred years later is unreliable - particularly as no one knows what "bipolar disorder" is.--Jack Upland 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Counterfeiters

"Despite this, convictions of the most flagrant criminals could be extremely difficult to achieve; however, Newton proved to be equal to the task." Is this a typo? Should it read "...convictions of even the most flagrant criminals ..." or "...convictions of all but the most flagrant.." As it stands it make little sense. I suspect the former but could someone clarify please?

Candy 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Despite this" doesn't make sense either.--Jack Upland 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts

I'm hoping to get some feedback on my attempt at fact-checking. Is this a useful format, any suggestions for improvement?EricR 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Unsourced. Google search for Pater rotae yields nothing, and there is no reason to use an accurate value of pi to contruct round objects. -- Ec5618 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably his most underrated contributed to modern science is his correction to the wheel design. Due to an incorrect calculation of pi by Archimedes of Syracuse, the wheels used in Europe were not perfectly circular and would often buckle after continuous use. However Newton’s calculations introduced a new level of accuracy and meant that the wheels produced in England were now of international repute. It is for this reason he has been given the title ‘Pater rotae’, Latin for ‘Father of wheels’.

Julian calendar

The two full dates given in the article, 5 July 1687 for publication of Principia, and 20 March 1727 for the date of Newton's death are both dates in the Julian calendar. Furthermore, when months are give in the article i presume they are taken from source text which give old style dates. For instance, for Newton's early exit from Grantham the article states: "by Oct 1659 he was to be found at Woolsthorpe"; the origin of the statement most likely being a document dated 28 October, which would be November in the Gregorian calendar. Some effort would be required to verify that the months, and to a lesser extent the years, are still valid under the new calendar.EricR 20:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime reference

I feel that the reference to an anime cartoon is not apropo to the subject, and is not even a significant use of his image in art. We mine as well just add "my 12 year old kid wrote a play where Isaac Newton is satan." I've removed this reference.

Fair enough. For an historical figure of Newton's age, I think it's probably reasonable to expect that cited fictional references be of age sufficient to be sure that they're memorable. --FOo 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Science and Religion

"He also was a devout Christian, studied the Bible daily and wrote more on religion than on natural science." Seeing as how Newton contributed so much to modern science and scientific thought, shouldn't this particular quote be cited, or explained upon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.33.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:55, September 19, 2006 (UTC)

You must provide citations for anything you quote, but minding that, yes, you can contribute. There is already a section here and a separate article on Newton's religious views--Blainster 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Early life deletion

I don't see the logic for deleting the text:

According to E.T. Bell and H. Eves:

Newton began his schooling in the village schools and was later sent to The King's School, Grantham, where he became the top boy in the school. At Kings he lodged with the local apothecary, William Clarke and eventually became engaged to the apothecary's stepdaughter, Anne Storer, before he went off to Cambridge University at the age of 19. As Newton became engrossed in his studies, the romance cooled and Miss Storer married someone else. It is said he kept a warm memory of this love, but Newton had no other recorded "sweethearts" and never married.

However, Bell and Eves' sources for this claim, William Stukeley and Mrs Vincent (the former Miss Storer - actually named Katherine, not Anne), merely say that Newton entertained "a passion" for Storer while he lodged at the Clarke house.

Which seems well balanced. Is it a correct quote from Bell or not? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an accurate paraphrase of Bell (tho he refers to Miss Storey not Storer), but not a quote. The relevant text from Men of Mathematics is on Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts. The passage could be quoting Eves (Eves, Howard (1961). An Introduction to the History of Mathematics.) but this seems doubtful. I removed the text because: it was formatted as a quote but was not, the last sentence would be very difficult to verify (Bell for one does not mention any sources) and neither of these sources are a Newton biography. Wouldn't we do better having some text on "Quaestiones" and the Anni Mirabiles instead?EricR 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for not mentioning them all. Certainly the stay at the apothecary's should be mentioned (especially given Newton's later alchemical work), along with Miss Storer's later claim. Thanks for reminding me about Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts -- looks like a good job you've done there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it's nowhere near complete tho. I put the passage back in the article, but think it needs some clean-up. While on the subject of quotes, the latter: "His genius now begins to mount upwards apace..." is not from Stokes or a Grantham teacher, but "Conduitt's account of Newton's life before going to university", describing his return to the school and not the completion of his education at Grantham. I was going to delete it, but maybe we should fix the quote and attribute it to Conduitt?EricR 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Newton was not the top boy in his school according to Professor Dr Tristram hunt and the Cambridge university Newton institute of mathmatics

Star Trek

Is the Star Trek reference really necessary? Frankly, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections for serious topics, and I wouldn't mind the entire section here removed. Newton would naturally make appearances in countless cartoons, books, and movies- allowing the star trek bit to stay is just asking for a huge mound of cruft on this article. Borisblue 03:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Isaac Newton

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pope epitaph (Nature and Nature's laws...) should stay in the main article (or appear in both). It is one of the most famous quotations about Newton. Carcharoth 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted it more in context. Borisblue 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Newton homosexual?

I think I saw a video about this and that his 'intense relationship' with the young Swiss was sexual. Enlighten me. Skinnyweed 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always difficult to know for certain whether any individual in the past was a homosexual or not. It is always based on writings that has to be interpreted as to whether or not there was anything physical. However you may be interested in a book by Michael White called Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer. The author mentions the possibility that he Newton may have had a reltaionship with a friend by the name of John Wickins who he lived with for twenty years and Nicholas Fatio De Duillier who was twenty years younger than Newton. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Template Discussion - Keep or Delete?

Section header retrospectively changed by SureFire with this edit, and votes added to the first two entries in the discussion with this edit.

Isaac Newton's
Sir Isaac Newton at 46 in Godfrey Kneller's 1689 portrait
Born	4 January [O.S. 25 Dec. 1642] 1643 Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, Lincolnshire, England
Died	31 March [O.S. 20 Mar.] 1727 Kensington, London
Nationality	English
Alma mater	University of Cambridge
Known for	Gravitation, optics, Calculus, mechanics
Awards	Knighthood
Scientific career
Fields	Mathematics, physics, Alchemy, astronomy, Natural philosophy
Institutions	University of Cambridge
Doctoral advisor	Isaac Barrow
Notes
Note that Newton did not have a PhD, however Isaac Barrow is considered by scientific genealogy authorities [10] to be the equivalent of his doctoral advisor in terms of mentorship.

Delete. I've just read the discussion here, and I came here hoping this article, about one of the most famous scientists of all time, didn't have a biographical infobox. Sadly, I see it does. I think it looks awful, with the England flags and the misleading "doctoral advisor" bit (even with the corrective note at the bottom of the infobox), and the "fields" and "known for" and "religion" bits oversimplifying stuff that has to be presented as well-written prose to communicate the concepts to the reader. Anyone reading the infobox would then start reading the article in totally the wrong frame of mind. The correct way to present the information is as a well-written article that introduces the relevant points at the correct moment, and builds up a picture of Newton and his times and his scientific works, and places it all in context. This is what the infobox miserably fails to do. Carcharoth 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, the infobox should go. The information presented is misleading, and it attracts cruft. Borisblue 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's standard and in already >250 scientist biographies. I personally find it useful. An infobox is a summary, and by definition it simpliflies things. In the same way the article is a condensed simplification of a full-blown biography of Newton. Let's not fall into the trap of dictating to the reader how he/she should approach the article...the average reader does have the intelligence to seek expansion of summarised facts...to think otherwise would be patronising. SureFire 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The proper place to summarize the article is in the lead section. It does not make sense to have a summary in the lead section and a summary in the infobox just next to the lead section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree the article should be summarized in the lead section. True. However that is no reason to exclude an infobox. It still makes sense to have an infobox. There are many reasons why they are still useful, even if repeating some info in the lead. That's why there are tens of thousands of infoboxes on the 'pedia. Your argument is general to all bio infoboxes and not specific to this article. Infoboxes make it easy for the reader to make comparisons between articles (for example). When thinking about an infobox, one has to think beyond the immediate article. Also remember it is now the WPBIO: policy to start all biographical articles with an infobox. bunix 12:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I agree that there are some reasons why infoboxes are useful. However, there are also reasons why they're harmful (mentioned in my comment below). Weighing them against eachother, my conclusion is that the infobox here should be short. As you say, WPBIO policy is to start the article with an infobox, but it says nothing about the length (as far as I know). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. as per SureFire's reasons: it's standard and in already >250 scientist biographies. It's a summary, like the rest of the article. If you have an objection to the contents then change them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. On the other hand, there are more than a thousand bios in which it's not. What is so good in any case about its being standard? It's detracting, it takes up space, it clutters the view, it repeats information, and it's a bad way to summarize the article. Is it that important to know that he was born in England, is English, lived in England, studied in Cambridge, and worked in Cambridge? I can live with Template:Infobox Biography, as is in the article now (though I find the occupation row strange), but the Template:Infobox Scientist being discussed here has too many problems. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. The place to argue general principles is not in each and every bio. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. What? I'm saying that this infobox is bad for this article, and I'm using general arguments like readability for it. Surely, there's nothing wrong with that? How otherwise are we suppose to come to a conclusion? Now, if there were a guideline like the Manual of Style for this, then I can imagine that this is given some weight. But in this case, the template itself is controversial so we have to discuss it article by article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Discuss it at: Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Template talk:Infobox Scientist is where I'd discuss it if I'd change the template. For instance, changing "alma mater" requires an edit to Template:Infobox Scientist and hence should be discussed on that talk page. On the other hand, putting a template on this article requires editing this article, and should thus be discussed on this talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The infobox looks fine to me. To summarize things in an infobox is indeed an art, but it can be done with a bit of creativity. Just because sometimes it can be a challenge is no reason to throw the infobox out with the bathwater. Please be specific about which fields are a "problem" and why. We can then collaborate to creatively alter them by concensus. I personally do not as yet see any such problem in this case, so please explain the points at issue. bunix 11:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The infobox that is in the article presently is fine. The one shown on the talk page has too many things (in small print that nobody is going to read); one-three core points in a caption is a general rule in writing. One should never put paragraphs in captions. Extra information is good, but it should go into the article somewhere? --Sadi Carnot 11:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. The small font you are referring to is the footnote field. It is not a caption. It is standard to all bio infoboxes and is there by consensus. bunix 12:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. My point was that, having read several theories with regard to online reading I am very aware that attention spans are severely limited. The more easily accessible information is the more people will tend to read it. Spend a few weeks reading articles on web-page design tips and it will change your perspective. Many people can't read small font. Just an opinion. Later: --Sadi Carnot 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Those people whose attention span is so short that they can't read an infobox are unlikely to read the main article in the first place :-) Let's not sweat small stuff. Sorry, the awful pun was irresistable. bunix 12:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "please explain the points at issue": "residence" is implied by place of birth, alma mater, institution, place of death and hence superfluous; the flag at "nationality" does not look nice; "fields" is implied by "known for"; having both "alma mater" and "institution" is too much, I think; "doctoral adviser" is both misleading and of little use; knighthood is not that important; "religion" is misleading. If it seems like I'm putting every word under a magnifying glass, that's because I am. The top of an article is the most important part, that's why every sentence in the lead section of an important article is discussed and every word has to prove its mettle. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Response. The trick is to see this template with a wider vision than just this page. There are many readers who will use these infoboxes to make quick comparisons between different scientists. So if you leave out a field, it makes comparison difficult and spoils the unformity of an infobox in a biography project. Fields can be left out sometimes----yes----but this should not be overdone as you appear to propose. It is far better to creatively work out the best wording in each field. Now let me go thru' your points (i) Residence is not implied by birth...you can be born in one country and move. A reader encountering Newton for the first time may not know he always stayed in one place. The infobox makes this clear for all scientists in a very structured and uniform way. (ii) "Known for" is more fine-grained than "Field"...again you have to assume a reader might only be just starting to learn physics and may not be at your level. (iii) "Alma mater" and "Institution" are different things. It happens to be the same for Newton, but the new reader will not know that and the infobox makes it immediately clear. (iv) The anomalous case of "Doctoral advisor" is taken care of in the footnote field. That's what footnotes are for! Note that Isaac Barrow is selected by the authorities on such matters [11](v) "Knighthood" ---- I agree, please delete it :-) (vi) "Religion" ...hmmmm...Michael Price is the expert on that one. Please ask him his justification for that label. I do not claim expertise on that one and defer to his superior knowledge on that score. bunix 10:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. - except for the non-English "Alma mater", see also Talk:Albert_Einstein#Alma_Mater. Such infoboxes give a handy first impression. Harald88 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If you want "Alma Mater" changed to "Studied at" you need to propose it on the talk page of the template. Not here. bunix 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia is article-based, not infobox-based. Consensus is per article. If the consensus for this article would be that this article should have a purple infobox then it would be done so. Harald88 17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "There are many readers who will use these infoboxes to make quick comparisons between different scientists." - quoted from a post by bunix above. My response here would be that this is metadata, which is all well and good, but this risks having areas of Wikipedia looking like a database, rather than an encyclopedia. There is a good reason why metadata such as "Persondata" (I think) is hidden and not directly displayed. People reading a database of tables will learn less than if they read a series of article on a subject. At worse, the database of tables being used to compare different scientists will be misleading, or require clumsy footnotes. In essence, the lead, infobox and main article are different ways of presenting information. At the moment, they can conflict can cause problems. I totally agree with those that say that Wikipedia, being based on modern technologies, can do new things, but it needs to be carefully thought out, widely discussed, and valid objections addressed. Organic growth, as seen on a wiki, works well for editing article text, but trying to organically grow a metadata system without careful planning could end up a mess. Carcharoth 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply. It has been widely discussed on the Talk Page of the the template. The planning was careful. The present structure has been determined by concensus. Your above points are not specific to Newton, but are general. So your discussion is innappropriate here. If you are concerned, do an RfC or take it to the Village Pump. But personally I believe your comments are not well thought out as they apply to 1000's of infoboxes...not just this one. You need to define more clearly the specifics of this case. Also note that all bio infoboxes have a footnote field. Its standard. bunix 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying about how some discussion should be at the template talk page, and some at the article talk page, but inevitably there will be a large degree of overlap, as you have to use examples to illustrate what is being discussed. As a matter of fact, I am already discussing these issues on the talk page of the template. I'd be interested to hear what you think, over there, as not many people are participating yet. I really would be interested in an in depth discussion of this, using examples of many different infoboxes and trying to reach consensus on some of the common mistakes made when designing and implementing infoboxes. Consensus can change, and there is always room for improvement. Are you up for a discussion like that? You could show me examples from the 1000s of infoboxes that that you consider to be good examples of how an infobox should be presented to the reader, and what advantages they have. Carcharoth 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Originality

Newton's laws of motion were not brand new ideas. Descartes expounded them before, and before him Beeckman. You can actually see in the origional manuscripts (of Newton's works) where Newton crossed out references to Descartes. I think this should be included in the article since very few people are aware of this. UAAC 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Borisblue 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The original manuscripts of Newton's works? :-) Seriously, pictures of the original works would be very nice (does Wikisource have them?), and a reference to a scholarly paper or book about this, is what we need. Carcharoth 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Newton's Laws of Motion are rightly attributed to Newton himself -- this is the established historical fact -- anything else would amount to original research. He was the one, among all others, who came up with the radical and history-changing idea of Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Galileo, for that matter, had already, through experimentation, established the notion of intertia, but only Newton was able to abstract the idea into a physical theory comprised of a self-consistent set of generalized mathematical postulates. LotR 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

LotR, actually no. He was influenced greatly by Descartes and literally expounged him from his own works ... and, ergo, exounged him from the Newtonian mechanics of motion. Rightly, it would be attributed to Beeckman (he was persuaded by Descartes not to publish). I will try to compile something in the next few days. If anyone actually does any research on the topic, he/she should find something similar. UAAC 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was not until much later that the mathematical equations were so focused (ie F=ma). Newton did not like calculus in physics, but rather much prefered geometry. UAAC 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard such claims. Even if he was influenced by Descartes, that's all it amounts to: He was influenced. If you look at most of the great physicists, they were all "influenced" by someone before them. I would have no problem with a statement such as "Newton was influenced by Descartes," but it would have to be verifiable.

All my textbooks on the matter credit Newton for the Laws of Motion. Newton himself was a brilliant mathematician who independently developed calculus to achieve his goals. His Natural Philosophy was the first mathematical abstraction of physical theory -- he invented what we now call physics. That is why he is considered by many to the be the greatest figure in science history. LotR 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not well known, LotR, but that means nothing. It was more than influenced ... Newton actually copied aspecs of his laws of motion verbatim. I have dispatched an e-mail to a professor I recently spoke to about this e-mail. I assure you, I will post evidence when I have time. UAAC 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An email from a professor will be original research. We need documented veriable sources. Newton was infuenced by Descartes' erroneous vortical theories of planetary motion, but abandoned them when he realised they didn't work. This is documented extensively by all of Newton's biographers (e.g. Westfall's Never at Rest, pg 88-100). Descartes was all the rage at the time -- Newton progressed by moving beyond him (and Aristotle, Plato etc). --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My professor has merely directed me to the books he used in an article that is about to be published. Don't worry, I will not cite his paper until it is accepted by a journal; however, the books should be sufficent. I apologize for my tardiness but I am extremely busy. UAAC 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Apple Newton

I'd add a link to the Apple Newton but I am not registered.

'Last Days'

Removed the following from article for comment/consideration:

Addendum/ General Question ref Newton and his belief in the 'Last Days'. I Understand that by Biblical calculation and especially with reference to the Book of Daniel, Newton had decided that the End of the World -(by Fire, Flooding was of course not a possibility, God having given his word to Noah) was to be for 2030. Has anybody any more on this? My reference is "La Malle de Newton" by the French historian Lemaine (PUF)

Seems to need rewording and complete reference if to be used. Vsmith 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Newton's calculation was 2060 - see further up this page. ^rossnixon 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

New Comments

I have added some comments in the Later Life section about a sentence that needs revision. I'd love to do it, but I have no way of deciphering the grammatic gibberish of the part after the semicolon. -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  11:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified it slightly. Enough or does it need more work? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good for now; thanks! -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

deists

wasnt isaac a deist? he saw the universe as a "machine". Deists beleive god created the universe and its like a machine... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.255.245 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

News from the Indiana University

Can this link be added to the article?:

New transcription reveals Newton's rare 'theory of everything'

Thanks, --213.58.99.68 12:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A link to the alchemy archive (not the news release) has been added. --Blainster 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious views: Trinity

"Newton may have rejected the church's doctrine of the Trinity."

I think "likely" or "apparently" is more accurate than "may have".

This first link is worth a citation and likely some quoting, appears to be an authority on him

"http://www.newtonproject.imperial.ac.uk/prism.php?id=76 http://www.newtonproject.imperial.ac.uk/prism.php?id=76

Muslim researcher quoting directly from Newton's texts http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/newton1.html

Since this next link is sometimes broken I include google cache of page as well, useful as phd researcher clearly doesn't like his own findings:

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no77/newton-b.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zUwyka952h0J:www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no77/newton-b.html+isaac+newton+trinity&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

Quote from above link: 'well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”'

-- (Side note that Revised Standard version of Bible - popular modern revision of King James version, and Wescott and Horts a popular compilation of original Greek source used by many/most modern tranlations agree with Newton and exclude those words. I base this on a 1952 revision copy of RS bible in my hands and using web to find greek text from http://www.scripture4all.org/) 198.53.235.197 07:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Source 2

Source 2, a Royal Society poll crediting Newton as more influential than Einstein seems to be have questionable neutraliry. The poll was based upon responses given by members of the Royal Society and the UK public. Newton was president of the Royal Society, while Einstein was not a member. Also, the public may have been more inclined to pick Newton, from their own country, over Einstein, a German.--Melonhead901 08:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Newton's Third Law

Newton's third law states that for every force exerted on one object, an equal but opposite force is exerted on another object, NOT for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, as it is currently posted.

Is that not two ways of saying the same thing? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but do keep in mind that this an introductory article on Isaac Newton himself, not a treatise on classical mechanics. Thus, colloquial language is totally appropriate. As it is, the 2nd Law had been modified to be more technical than I would prefer to see. We could modify the text to contain the more accurate definition (i.e., "equal-opposite force"), followed by the more common, colloquial way of putting it (i.e., "action-reaction"). LotR 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)