Wikipedia:Peer review/Isaac Newton/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Isaac Newton)
Good images, meaty, well-referenced. I'm putting it up for FA soon. ANyone here note anything I might have missed? Borisblue 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article is not comprehensive. It does not mention Newton's effect on the thinkers who would later usher in The Enlightenment. This should be included in the section on Newton's legacy. I'm going to dig around my old papers from uni to see if I've got any usable material to add on that score. But the article won't be complete without it. —thames 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree most emphatically. First, I must say that the article struck me as very well-written, splendidly cross-referenced, and complete. Naturally, one could dig up a 300-page biography from somewhere and cut-and-paste it in, but an encyclopedia is not a library. Secondly, the ""thinkers of the Enlightenment" were a sorry bunch of fairly trivial-minded religious fanatics (believing as they did, to the detriment of any and all other ideas, in the non-existence of God), while Newton was, of course, among other things, a sound thinker and a well-mannered Christian and, occasionally, a sharp dresser.--Impressionist October 6, 2005
- The point is moot, as I've already added some material on his influence on religious thinkers and enlightenment philosophes. It is appropriate and necessary to discuss the influence of a thinker's ideas, no matter if his or her influence had unintended effects. Nietzsche's article, for example, would not be complete without a discussion of his legacy amongst the Nazis, even though he was anti-government and not anti-Semetic. Newton's influence is relevant, pertinent, and necessary for completeness. —thames 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- That, I'm afraid, is ... uh ... relative. Kind of. May be a NPOV problem. Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis was, as you yourself mention, minimal. They just talked about him a whole lot. His influence on Jack London was much greater, and in my book, Mr. London is far more important than the Nazis, and who's to say I'm wrong (for, look you, telling me I'm wrong about this WOULD BE, in fact, a NPOV problem). Also, let us not forget that Nietzsche's so-called philosophy was based almost entirely on the Third Act of Wagner's "Ziegfried," and Wagner himself very eloquently objected to Nietzsche's using his, Wagner's, important artistic creation for his own, Nietzsche's, lowly (in Wagner's opinion, which ran contrary to our NPOV rule) purposes. Incidentally, the Nazis are also said to have been "influenced" by Wagner. Yeah, right. In fact, I can see how Brunhilde's philosophy and that of Goebbels are virtually identical. However, if you chose to call those philosophes Newton's ungrateful and despicable parasites and ran for President in the next election, I'd probably vote for you. Not probably: definitely. That's a promise.--Impressionist October 7, 2005
- I have no idea what you just said. —thames 15:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll make it real simple. Has Newton influenced your outlook in any way? If so, put yourself in the article. As well as everyone on this page, including myself. And anyone who has had sex with a fat person knows that movement, force, and mass are interrelated. Put them in too. Expectantly, Impressionist October 7, 2005
- That's a strawman argument. Enlightenment philosophers are notable, whereas I'm not. His influence on them is notable. His influence on me is not. —thames 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Define notable Impressionist October 8, 2005
- That's a strawman argument. Enlightenment philosophers are notable, whereas I'm not. His influence on them is notable. His influence on me is not. —thames 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll make it real simple. Has Newton influenced your outlook in any way? If so, put yourself in the article. As well as everyone on this page, including myself. And anyone who has had sex with a fat person knows that movement, force, and mass are interrelated. Put them in too. Expectantly, Impressionist October 7, 2005
- I have no idea what you just said. —thames 15:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- That, I'm afraid, is ... uh ... relative. Kind of. May be a NPOV problem. Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis was, as you yourself mention, minimal. They just talked about him a whole lot. His influence on Jack London was much greater, and in my book, Mr. London is far more important than the Nazis, and who's to say I'm wrong (for, look you, telling me I'm wrong about this WOULD BE, in fact, a NPOV problem). Also, let us not forget that Nietzsche's so-called philosophy was based almost entirely on the Third Act of Wagner's "Ziegfried," and Wagner himself very eloquently objected to Nietzsche's using his, Wagner's, important artistic creation for his own, Nietzsche's, lowly (in Wagner's opinion, which ran contrary to our NPOV rule) purposes. Incidentally, the Nazis are also said to have been "influenced" by Wagner. Yeah, right. In fact, I can see how Brunhilde's philosophy and that of Goebbels are virtually identical. However, if you chose to call those philosophes Newton's ungrateful and despicable parasites and ran for President in the next election, I'd probably vote for you. Not probably: definitely. That's a promise.--Impressionist October 7, 2005
- The point is moot, as I've already added some material on his influence on religious thinkers and enlightenment philosophes. It is appropriate and necessary to discuss the influence of a thinker's ideas, no matter if his or her influence had unintended effects. Nietzsche's article, for example, would not be complete without a discussion of his legacy amongst the Nazis, even though he was anti-government and not anti-Semetic. Newton's influence is relevant, pertinent, and necessary for completeness. —thames 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree most emphatically. First, I must say that the article struck me as very well-written, splendidly cross-referenced, and complete. Naturally, one could dig up a 300-page biography from somewhere and cut-and-paste it in, but an encyclopedia is not a library. Secondly, the ""thinkers of the Enlightenment" were a sorry bunch of fairly trivial-minded religious fanatics (believing as they did, to the detriment of any and all other ideas, in the non-existence of God), while Newton was, of course, among other things, a sound thinker and a well-mannered Christian and, occasionally, a sharp dresser.--Impressionist October 6, 2005
- Comments added after PR complete
- Get a life Impressionist --Kstern999 16:45, August 19, 2006 (UTC)