Talk:Isaac Newton

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?
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.&#32;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 .&#32;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. 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, 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, 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 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)

Alt text
@Richard-of-Earth: What exactly is the problem? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What? I reverted your edit here. All you said for an edit summary was "tsk tsk tsk". I took it to be a joke and removed it. See Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. See particularly the example of what not to do. It is just like your edit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I apologize for the unclear edit summary. It was supposed to mean that I was annoyed that a GA doesn't have alt text in the infobox image, but in hindsight no one could ever be expected to figure that out. I am beginning to realize I have a pattern of doing this.
 * As for the example you point toI think that's referring to cases where the image of Elizabeth II is used because Elizabeth II is relevant to the article to cases where the image is used to her. If we were to make the alt text on this image, say, "Painting of Isaac Newton", that would be entirely useless, because the purpose of the image is to demonstrate to readers what Newton looks like. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. I am not sure they need to know more then that. The first example at the page I linked above is of Napoleon and all the alt text says is "Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte", but the same picture at The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries and at Napoleon has a very long description. I will not object to you putting it back, and it can say a little more like "A painting of Newton, a white man, wearing a classical white wig and a brown robe." Also, perhaps a bit about his position. Body turned slightly right, face toward the left and looking left, hands folded. Are we sure it is a wig? Is that WP:OR or is that given for the time. I would not know. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point on the wig. Highly likely but not 100%. Probably better to omit that. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 11:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The scope of newton's mathematics
in the section "Mid-life" I believe the comma after "subject" in the passage "His work on the subject, usually referred to as fluxions or calculus" ought to be removed. The preceding sentence refers to mathematics (as a whole) and the comma would be correct  only if Newton did  mathematical work only in calculus; but he also did work on the binomial theorem etc. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not done. The sentence is in the subsection "Calculus", so the "subject" referred to is calculus, not mathematics in general. Although the paragraph is a bit disjointed and could use a rewrite. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of his work on subsequent editions of Geographia Generalis


The Geographia Generalis is considered to be one of the major pieces of literature in the establishment of modern geography. This book was edited extensively by Newton, who released updated editions in 1672 and 1681, containing several new figures and tables. While the original book is by Bernhardus Varenius, it is likely as well known as it is because of Newtons involvement. Where/how would be the best way to include this content within the page?

Source 1 Source 2 GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)