Talk:Isaac Newton's apple tree

Animation of apples hitting Newton on the head
I really dislike the animation of apples hitting Newton on the head. However I am not going to remove it just because I do not like it. It seems childish and is distracting while trying to read. I doubt anyone needs this point illustrated. See MOS:PERTINENCE. If I can get consensus from others to remove it, I will. If this post gets ignored I will leave it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I like it. It summarises things FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove it. It’s childish and non-encyclopaedic.  Stephen 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I dislike it also. You have my support for removing it. oatco (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed it for now, but that might generate more discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding a thought: the fact that it's is the issue. I don't mind a silly little GIF of Newton being hit by an apple, it's cute. What I do mind is having my eyes be pulled off the text, onto this image I've already seen,, and being able to do nothing about it. It's just how my eyes work. My experience was this: I clicked on the "did you know" link (because it was interesting), started reading, scrolled down (I have a narrow window), and within a few loops of the GIF – 10-ish seconds – I thought "well, that's annoying", and came here to open up a discussion in order to remove it. I'm surely not the only person who clicked away out of annoyance, which is a real shame, since the article is well-written.
 * It's an accessibility issue, but sort of "in reverse": MOS:ANIMATION instructs us how to make a GIF seen, while there isn't anything to make it be seen. (FWIW, I also agree with the MOS:PERTINENCE issue: it's (IMO) cute, but it's not like those animations in e.g. straightedge and compass construction, which are  informative.) — oatco (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that seals it then FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear that the story, as told by multiple acquaintances of Newton (who said they got the story directly from Newton) NEVER involved the apple hitting him on the head. He SAW an apple fall, and this led him to further hypotheses (according to the story).  The bit about it hitting him on the head was a later (jocular) embellishment that has zero historical foundation.  I am going to change the introduction that mentions this false aspect.Ajrocke (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't make heads or tails out of this statement...
So the article states "The apple tree in question [. . . } still exists today at the manor; it is a direct descendant of the tree that stood in his family's garden in 1666."

What does this actually mean? The apple tree still exists but it is a direct descendant of the apple tree the apple of which set Sir Isaac a-thinking? 68.174.127.222 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it makes no sense. And citing thefactsource.com for this is absurd. It clearly doesn't meet Reliable sources criteria. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In 1820, part of the blown tree was also cultivated by Lord Brownlow at Belton Park into a tree that came to be known as the Belton tree" FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * continue reading that section if you looking for more details. The lead is a summary but feel free to amend if you can rephrase things in a better way FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)