Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 1

message: I have a project due on Newton tomorrow and i have no clue about him. If anyone can help with the questions below please repost asap.
- What language did he study in school?
- What were the names of three famous people he studied?
- Who encouraged Newton to publish his book? 
- What was the name of his most important book?
- What are the three subjects covered in the book?
- What was the unfortunate event that occurred in 1693?
- How did Newton change his life in 1695?
- What were the three areas of science where Newton made his most outstanding investigations?
- Where is Sir Isaac Newton's grave located?
thank you so much!
Hope you managed it because all of that is ridiculously easy to find online. --JamesTheNumberless 10:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Needed Please

message: From the article: "During this time he obtained the confessions he needed and while he could not resort to open torture, whatever means he did use must have been fearsome because Newton himself later ordered all records of these interrogations to be destroyed." The "must have been fearsome" bit bothers me a little, as I don't see any evidence backing this up; it seems like speculation to me. Also, when mentioned in the same sentence as not being able to "resort to open torture", it seems like he used "closed" torture or some other cruel means of extracting confessions. Again, this seems unsubstantiated. Any ideas?
--Lord Shah 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure speculation?

message: I've had to correct vandalism on this page three times over the last 24 hours...I suggest locking the article from editing for a bit? I don't know, it's fine either way, I guess.
:I've noticed this happens with EVERY page on the main page, not just featured articles. if you look at the history its ridiculous. I suggest that ALL featured articles are locked for the duration of their stay on the front page, its so lame that it has to be reverted every 10 seconds. --Wesman83 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See User:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The current opening makes clear the difference between Newton's birth and death dates in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. However, the next sentence mentions the date of publication for Principia without indicating which calendar is being used. I'm guessing we need a statement that the rest of the dates in the article are all Gregorian dates. But how to do this without being too obtrusive - a comment in small text italics at the top? an asterisked footnote on the next date used? or perhaps a small right aligned sidebar, like an infobox. -- Solipsist 19:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote formatted per Manual of Style. Ancheta Wis 21:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates and calendars 

message: I modified the sentence to be more neutral. Petrvs
An editor added the following paragraph which has POV problems
:Newton attempted to find secret meanings within the Bible. His attempts were not successful, as it was impossible without modern computers.
I can't remember exactly, but it seems likely that Newton did look for secret meanings in the Bible. The problem is that most people would then continue - His attempts were not successful, as there is no secret meanings to be found.
If someone can come up with an NPOV phrasing, it is probably worth including in the article. -- Solipsist 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret meanings in the bible 

message: The spurious sentence about being a childhood prodigy reminded me that he really didn't excel in school until after he beat up an older boy. Also he built a lot of fun toys, using a guide book given to him.  More relevantly, he was a very poor shepherd, and  his mom and stepfather concluded that he shouldn't remain in that field. Probably these stray facts could be collected into a paragraph sometime. Ancheta Wis 22:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With or without the sheep puns? --Instant Classic 21:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood 

message: Can anyone fact-check the Susan Storer/Anne Storey change? a google search turns up both as having no link to newton. time to go to the old paper and ink. Bonus Onus 03:28, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the way it can be.--66.65.63.154 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Storey vs. Storer

message: This is from the 3rd paragraph of the main article:
He was quite simply the greatest scientist in the world. Ever. No-one would challenge his basic laws governing the universe until Einstein, and even then his ideas only apply if you're travelling on a beam of light or if you're out in deep space.
Is it just me or is the a little too editorial? This is hardly an objective observation about Isaac Newton. Perhaps it should be changed?
Nigelquinine 00:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the few cases where hyperbole is close to fact. Newton may not have been the greatest scientist in the world ever but it is difficult to think of another who could come so close to filling that position. He fundamentally changed our worldview and over 300 years later, despite advances in scientific knowledge that have improved upon some of his work, we still live in a fundamentally Newtonian world. There are many people who have done admirable work in Science but anyone who studies the History of Science will quickly come to realise that Newton really was in a class of his own. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 15:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nigel's comment.  This is not a neutral entry, but a hagiography.  The mosy important scientist in history?  Would have to say Ptolemy, though Galen comes a close second.  His scientific work is of the very first degree, and he is one of the most important scientists ever but I think objectivity is being strained here. -- Emre Yigit 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant scientist, TERRIBLE teacher -- first hand accounts described his lectures as extremely dull.  AHHHH, irony lives on...--64.12.116.6 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Newton may have been the "greatest scientist in the world".  I'm not about to deny it.  However this does not belong in the article.  Also Einstein's ideas have far more reaching application than "only if you're travelling on a beam of light or if you're out in deep space."  That's plain nonsense and wouldn't really be relevant even if it weren't.  Jimp 15Dec05
What if yo usaid most influential scientis in history, most influential man since Jesus/in modern history. he was surely all that. And this business about Ptolemy or Galen being more important, I'd be impressed if it could be substantiated and proven more than opinion. I've also heard that his lectures were intentionally difficult and that he meant to off-set his students. Supposedly he could be a real prick. It would interesting to see what research one could do on that subject.[poster didn't sign]
To the preceding poster: I would try to copyedit your comment if I could understand it.
I don't think Newton's "laws" have ever really been conclusively proven, although I don't doubt the man's immensurable dignity. I mean, I could say we live in a Copernican world, couldn't I? Peace out.--66.65.63.154 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Editorial? 

message: What do you guys think of this? So far there's been no luck hunting down a reference. Is it a good candidate to be merged? Do you think it is factually accurate? --Davril2020 19:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a long comment on the Parable's talk page. I stongly oppose merging this into any Netwon article for the reasons given in that comment. There's too much questionable about it, and too little (ie, nothing -- at least that I can make out) to support it. ww 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[The Parable of the Solar System Model]]

message: Many of those books and websites listed under "Further reading" and "External links" would be better classified as References. I already moved all the ones I knew were being used as references to the section; if anyone knows that more are so, please move them accordingly. --DanielNuyu 05:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: I recall that scene as Hendrix playing tennis with Ben Franklin (not Newton, as stated in the article).  I could be wrong about that.  Does anyone else know for sure?--JW1805 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty certain Hendrix was playing with Bach, which for obvious reasons makes more sense.
*I'm going to go ahead and remove this from the article (unless somebody comes up with definite proof that it really was Newton). --JW1805 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons Reference

message: The cat has since been removed, but for future reference, there doesn't seem to be very much evidence that Newton was a conscious vegetarian. --Fastfission 14:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetarian?

message: In the Asexuality article, it claims that Newton was believed to be an asexual. Yet there is nothing in this article backing that claim up. Does anyone have any sources on that? Should it be added to the article? Ryan 06:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Newton's only known "romantic" friendship was with the stepdaughter of his landlord in Grantham when he was a boy -- and we only have her word on that. There is no other evidence of any kind that Newton had any female close friends or lovers. Interestingly we can also rule out male lovers because not even his enemies accused him of having any -- and Newton may not have had many firm friends but he certainly had a lot of firm enemies who would have jumped on such an accusation if there had been even the slightest rumour that it was so. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 16:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it makes sense for him to be listed in the Asexuality article as there is a reasonable position that he might have been, it's not really particularly notable as far as his personal history is concerned, particularly with the amount of encyclopedic information that should have a far higher priority on this page. Comparatively if we were talking about Oscar Wilde then his Homosexuality would be encyclopedic as it was a significant factor in his life and work. Sfnhltb 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexual? 

message: It is pretty well established that Isaac Newton invented the cat flap, but the cat flap article could use better references for this. I've started some discussion at Talk:Cat_flap and I'm guess that some folks here are reading the right biographies.
In particular it would be nice to determine the approximate year of invention and where. The story about not wanting to interupt optics experiments seems plausible and could pin point it to sometime in his twenties, perhaps during the two years he spent back at Woolsthorpe ~1665-1667. -- Solipsist 07:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cat flap]]

message: Newton apparently had a paranoid psychotic episode at age 51, but this isn't mentioned, though the article does mention supposed autism on pretty thin evidence.--Jack Upland 07:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some diagnosis_at_a_temporal_remove which accounts for this episode as mercury poisoning, occasioned by his alchemical researches. My own sense is that he was before and after a rather single mindedly straightforward person before and after. Presumably this supports the acute mercury poisoning explanation, and perhaps even the Ausperger's as well, though from the obverse reasoning. Maybe someone with expertise (eg, a professional qualification) in either mercury poisoning or mild autism/Ausperger's might chime in briefly? 68.161.41.143 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: edit was actually by ww 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Isolated psychotic episodes do occur. But I question whether any such posthumous diagnoses should be included at all - they tend to be dubious and have the quality of pet theories (i.e. pick their favourite condition rather than one that fits the evidence). Unfortunately this is a fad in popular history currently. But perhaps Occam's razor would suggest he was just an 'absent-minded professor'.--Jack Upland 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychotic Episode 

message: I've read (somewhere!) that he was an obsesive alchemist, but the article doesn't mention it??? --Concrete Cowboy 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, its mentioned in the lead para and at several places throught the article. See for example a couple of paras before the 'Gravity and motion' section. There might be some more that could be said on the subject, but although he spent a fair bit of time on alchemy, I'm not sure that he achieved much of significance. -- Solipsist 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to know what he achieved, because (unlike his physics/astronomy) he never published any of his alchemy work.  But the way I was taught in history of science classes is that he spent about as much time on alchemy, and that much time over again on Biblical/theological studies (his Chronology is the main result we have from that), as he did on what we know him for.  Someone should definitely added some material on Newton's alchemy; I'll get to it eventually if no one does, but I'm trying to rewrite the Work sections of Kepler right now.--ragesoss 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added this article to :Category:Alchemists. Maybe it was omitted because :Category:Isaac Newton is a subcat of :Category:Alchemists; but (a) the same argument would apply to all other supercats of :Category:Isaac Newton; and (b) even if it is, policy on listing articles in a supercat allows for this kind of exception. Joestynes 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that he should be described as an alchemist in the intro, however I note that Solipsist has reverted my deletion. The point is that Newton's fame does not rest on this and the current fascination is faddish. Of course, it should be mentioned in the article, as should personal details etc - but the intro should be reserved for the reasons that Newton is known and the reasons that warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia.--Jack Upland 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Upland makes a reasonable point. One might also add that, although he spent a significant amount of time on alchemical research, Newton didn't actually publish much on alchemy and quite possibly didn't actually achieve much either. On the other hand, he might feature highly in the 'list of notable alchemists' and he was probably more of an alchemist than an inventor and probably more of a theologian than either of those two. I'm not that worried about whether 'alchemist' should appear in the lead para, but it probably shouldn't be reduced to just physicist and mathematician, which would be a modern POV view of his life. -- Solipsist 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is better to have a 'modern POV' than a perverse one, which is what the intro leads to. We would not describe Shakespeare as a farmer or Hitler as an artist in their intros, though this would be true.--Jack Upland 05:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Following that reasoning through, we should also remove the part that says he was an inventor. For after all, that aspect of his life is not well known in modern times either. No, I think that a well rounded introductory paragraph should mention that he was an alchemist, an inventor, and an extremely effective Master of the Mint. To do otherwise simplifies the characterisation of this extremely complex man almost to the level of stereotyping him. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put.  I agree fully with Derek.--ragesoss 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree with Derek! Newton being an inventor and Master of the Mint should not be mentioned in the first sentence! But fortunately the Mint isn't mentioned in the intro anyway!!!! These things - like alchemy - are interesting and relevant, and should be mentioned in the article, as they are, but the intro is not a place to deal with 'extremely complex' and 'not well known' sides of the subject. Besides, you haven't really dealt with the argument that such an intro misrepresents the significance of Newton and the reason for his inclusion in Wikipedia. Many people have sides of their life that they aren't famous for, but we don't foreground that. Equally, there are many people who privately dabbled in the occult - who don't rate an article. Do you object to that???--Jack Upland 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alchemist 

message: Uh.. I don't know a lot about Newton, but I DO know that he wasn't assasinated by the McDonald's Grimmace, as mentioned here.  I'm not sure of the events of his death.. maybe someone can correct this?
Edit: I found that hilarious.  Also the earlier rewrite of the entire article to be 'blah blah blah gravity blah blah blah' cracked me up.
:It was all simply stupid childish vandalism. andy 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny, but very, very wrong. 

message: Why are there two footnotes numbered 8 ? - Bevo 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Was Newton an ethnic jew? Mother named Hannah, father called Isaac, he himself is Isaac. Not the average christian names. Very many scientists and mathematicians are jews, so it would be not suprising. -- Anon
:Nope, these are just average 17th century Protestant Christian names. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, tastes change. Beverley used to be a man's name. Clarityfiend 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: Is there any evidence for the first-mentioned occupational assertion that Newton was an astrologer?  If not, it should go.  I'd list mathematician first, at any rate.        Major Danby 01:13, 16 December (UTC)
Yes, read his biography. He was a first-rate astrologer.Teddy 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: During this interview, Newton confided to Conduitt that his interest in science had first been roused in the summer of 1663, when, as a young student at Cambridge, he purchased a book on astrology at the midsummer fair at Stourbridge. Baffled by the incomprehensible astrological diagrams and calculations in this work he then studied some books on geometry and calculus (such as by Euclid, Frans van Schooten and René Descartes) and was “soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology”.[by his nephew John Conduitt ] Lumos3 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrologer? 

message: Could someone fix up the references? The inconsistent citation style and static numbering of the footnotes drives me nuts. Fredrik | tc 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference style

message: "Now, Robert Hooke, secretary to the Royal Society, contends that Newton did not himself invent the notion that an inverse-square force law governs planetary motion. "Newton stole the idea from me," he insists.
Hooke says that he had written to Newton about planetary and projectile motion in 1679, after developing his own "system of the world" to explain natural phenomena. He admits, however, that he was unable to master the mathematics required to show how elliptical orbits arise from an inverse-square law.
Acknowledging that Newton had succeeded in solving the mathematical problem but incensed that his own name is not mentioned in a section of Newton's treatise recently read at a Royal Society meeting, Hooke has demanded that Newton give him proper credit in the Principia for the inverse-square law.
According to Halley, however, Newton insists that he himself had discovered the inverse-square law during his studies of planetary motion. Unlike Hooke, Newton had not come upon it by accident, Halley says.
In the latest development, Newton appears to have gone through the existing manuscript to delete Hooke's name from any pages in which it had been mentioned. He has also informed Halley by letter that he intends to suppress the third part of the Principia" (from http://www.google.com/search?q=Newton+stole&hl=en&lr=&rls=SNYI%2CSNYI%3A2005-09%2CSNYI%3Aen)
Also see: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm
Dr. Gabriel Gojon 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton the plagiarist? 

message: This is just an invitation to read the article on Leibniz . This will be a humbling experience for many Newton admirer's.
Dr. Gabriel Gojon 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that article needs cleanup. Borisblue 04:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to read [[Leibniz]] article 

message: What form/Order of Knighthood was Sir Issac Newton awarded ?  Michael Drew 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthood ? 

message: It says "from earlier entry". I suspect that can be removed. Eiler7 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newton's applee

message: Newton discovered by experiment that the plane at which a pendulum moves changes over the course of 24 hours. Because of this, he confirmed that the Earth was spinning. He also saw that the pendulum moved faster at the Equator than closer to the North and South poles, since the Earth isn't perfectly spherical. 70.111.251.203 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discoveries 

message: Gauss and Poicare be univeralist, Why not Newton??
Einstein was a much more influential scientist than Newton ever dreamed of being.  Einstein accomplished so much more in his lifetime, and his discoveries were much more important.
: OK why cann't both be considered as universelist and be included that word into the article.
Do you realize that universalism has a definite religious meaning? According to Merriam Webster online, one definition is "a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved". From your comments, I gather you mean something else. Clarityfiend 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton - a true Universalist ? 

message: I corrected some inconsistencies, e.g. no units given for force (newtons for godsake!), units for mass, units and abbrev. (m/s2) for acceleration; "First" capitalized, but "law" not, different tense for 3rd law. Not sure that restating 2nd law (In other words...) adds anything, but left it in. Clarityfiend 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's (almost) correct: I read somewhere that more precisely it was formulated as F*delta(t)=delta(p). It's also formulated like that in good textbooks. Anyway, it's easily verified that he certainly didn't state F=m*a, which is less general. I'll have a look at the article and correct it if needed. Harald88 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of 3 laws 

message: The German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came, independantly to the same calculus discovery as Newton in 1675, yet Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia doesn't even refer to Leibniz. I think this guy ought to get some credit.
-The Inside Line
:Leibniz is mentioned in the article so I don't know where you're coming from on this.--Jack Upland 01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leibniz? 

message: Thanks to the Da Vinci Code, we have all become cospirators. The novel introduced the idea that Newton was one the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion. It also gave reference to the Apple of Knowledge, that same apple that was the first step towards his theory on Gravitation. Let's assume that he was a Grand-Master; that would clearly make the choice of the apple make more sense: for it was an apple that made Adam and Eve see the truth, and made them descend from the sky, or Heaven, to Earth. I mean why an apple, why not an orange? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heshamzohair (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 April 2006.
:Perhaps because oranges don't grow that well in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, whilst Newton's family home had an apple orchard. See the article for more. -- Solipsist 08:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fiction chasing myth!--Jack Upland 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Da Vinci Code is full of nonsense - the Priory of Sion is a well-known hoax. Bwithh 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Apple 

message: It is interesting to note that there is no metion of his work in alchemy throughout this article, even though he dedicated 20 years of his life to this forbidden pseudoscience.  Also, there is no mention of how manuscripts now show that Newton thought the end of the world to be the year 2060.  More research on the statements above, and other recent revalations about Newton can be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3217_newton.html  -- Alexander
:Alchemy is mentioned in the first line and there is a separate article devoted to "Isaac Newton's Occult Studies".--Jack Upland 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Revalations About Newton 

message: This is shininhg excample of how the excelent article should look likeDzoni 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a great article

message: *Given that the Priory of Sion is a well-known and by now quite tiresome hoax, I think the "Alleged Grand Master of Sion" succession chart/canker at the bottom of the article should be flushed - or is should we draw up succession charts for every imagined conspiracy theory? At most, the Priory of Sion could be mentioned briefly in the cultural references section. Bwithh 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to submit the Grand Masters of Sion template for deletion Bwithh 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently its not a template but coded into each page. I will be adding helpful "Hoax" tags in case (as is always possible on wikipedia), the hoax information is not deleted according to consensus. Bwithh 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's a template now.  It probably should be nominated for deletion.--ragesoss 14:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Priory of Sion nonsense

message: These men who contributed to humanity's progress
WERE ROSICRUCIANS: 
Newton, Scientist and discoverer of the Law of the Gravity
(Source:  www.rosicrucian-order.com/principal.htm)
Was Isaac Newton really a rose-cross brother? Who can help?
how could he let a girl slip out of his fingers just for his studies???????
that's not right:0
It is genuinely hard to ascertain:
:(a)whether a person belonged to a secret society,
:(b)what this actually entailed.--Jack Upland 04:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton a Rosecrucian ? 

message: The discussion of Newton's Opticks makes the following claim:
::The book is also known for the first exposure of the idea of the interchangeability of mass and energy: "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...".
This claim seems to miss Newton's point, since he considered light to be a very subtle form of matter.  He was saying nothing more than gross bodies can be converted into subtle bodies and vice versa, which fits very well with what we see in his alchemical work. --SteveMcCluskey 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass - Energy equivalence in Newton's Opticks? 

message: I think it would be appropriate to create a sub-section like ... Newton in Fiction.  While the Priory of Sion and The Da Vinci Code are crap, Newton has seen an increased amount of attention due to these works. It should probably be noted somewhere (even if it's in big bold letters), "NEWTON IN COMPETELY UNTRUE CRAP." Batman2005 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already 2 depositories of what is technically called "crap":
* The Uncyclopedia
* The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.
--Jack Upland 10:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're right, and humorous, adding it to the article isn't lending credence to its truth, it's stating that his image and legacy is being affected by these new allegations and stories.  We can mention that he's been brought into mainstream conversation again, without saying its true. Batman2005 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A subsection would be OK so long as it's more than Dan Brown.--Jack Upland 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i just added a small bit at the end of his "Legacy" thing, I don't want to make it too obvious and make it seem like its a big part of his life or anything...just a note that shows taht he's still being talked about in popular culture today. Batman2005 03:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priory of Sion, Da Vinci Code, and Other Works of Fiction 

message: Newton eventually proved to a court of competent jurisdiction
This is somewhat of a leap of faith.  What we know more certainly is that the jury sided with Newton's prosecution.  Were the standards of conviction the same as those we now assume (in England at least)?  Were the juries immune to political interference from, perhaps, the royals themselves?  Was this particular jury the paragon of reason?  Do we know that?  It rings false to say Newton proved about anything other than mathematics.  I would prefer something like this: 
 Newton ultimately swayed a court of competent jurisdiction
enventually is also a badly coloured word: it makes it sound as if Newton kept arguing and arguing until he got what he wanted; it could easily have been true, but I don't sense that is what this sentence is attempting to impute.  MaxEnt
Also, were conviction and sentencing distinct at that point under the law?  If so, Newton convicted the counterfeiters, who were then sentenced to death by another authority.  The sentence that read:  
 by the end, Newton had ten convicted dudes lined up to die 
is also a little off to my ear.  It should say that Newton convicted ten people, all ten were subsequently sentenced to death by the 'death-sentence-justice', and the death penalty was later carried out on X of those ten inviduals.  You can bet the people counterfeiting against his tenure at the mint carried that syllogism to its final conclusion in their own minds.  Why the soft pedal?  MaxEnt 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the passage to alter the first sentence which is (as you say) a bit POV and also a bit pompous.--Jack Upland 00:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death mints