Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture

Found an excellent source
One could write a pretty good article about the subject drawing from this one source alone: .--Father Goose (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources from AfD
Some books and publications dealing specifically with Newton in popular culture: provided by Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics}
 * Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology, Maureen McNeil, p.27–43
 * Science in Popular Culture, A.B. van Ripper
 * The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture, M. Feingold
 * Here a wiki mirror contains an old version of an article about Newton, which can be browsed and salvaged.

|16,000 Google Scholar search provided by Bearian (talk)

I would say that Alexander Pope's poem '.."Let Newton be", and all was light!' is also part of popular culture, and more famous than any of the items that are here now. (Pope's work was left behind in the parent article when this one was split off). Then there is Wordsworth's poem with the 'prism, and silent face', also part of popular culture, not included here yet. posted by EdJohnston
 * ok, done, but now there is the objection of wikisource, can we have a consensus about poetry citations, these are all published poets with articles.pohick (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WillOakland, i agree the kid's poem should go, (it was charming though), but the poetry talent on the subject is impressive, no? even a poem of the week pohick (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok i cut back the pugh poem to four lines out of thirty (instead of six) WP:FAIR:"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." pohick (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * dunno why you don't want some poetry in your life, Man in Black. wikisource dosn't have the material in an article. pohick (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Isaac Newton, most recent version before someone overwrote it with a redirect. A history merge would probably be in order.--Father Goose (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Isaac Newton in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511155628/http://www.monstersatplay.com/review/dvd/m/meand.php to http://www.monstersatplay.com/review/dvd/m/meand.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Online  04:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Link goes to the wrong page
The link on "Maureen McNeil (2007). 'Newton as a national hero'. Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology. Routledge. pp. 27–43. ISBN 978-0-415-44537-5."

goes to a page about a book about Booker T. Washington. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Too much info on Isaac Newton
The intro currently consists of two paragraphs about Newton - his achievements, his writings, and so on. I think that's too much information. All that's needed here is a sentence or two to explain who he was; additional info about him can of course be found at the Isaac Newton article. This article is about references to him made by other people. Should every article about something referencing him, like the Isaac Newton Institute, include a bio? It wouldn't make sense. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One four-sentence paragraph to sum up who Newton is and what his achievements are is hardly excessive (in fact we should probably expand it to include mention of his role in the Royal Mint). The Isaac Newton Institute article isn't about Newton, so the summary doesn't need to be there. This article however, is about Newton so the summary belongs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This article's not about Isaac Newton, it's about things that refer to Isaac Newton - much in the same way that the Isaac Newton Institute article is. Is that not obvious? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To understand why Newton is an icon and has been the subject of extensive reference in popular culture, it's essential to understand who Newton was and what he did. Context is important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * At that point, I think you're engaging in synthesis, or original research. We have no real way of knowing why Newton has been referred to extensively. Culture is a fickle thing; some have said that the only reason the Mona Lisa became famous is because it was stolen. Perhaps Newton would have had even more references to him if he hadn't written the Principia Mathematica? There's no way to know. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You have got zero consensus for the removal of context from the lead, nor for the removal of them mention of the 1999 poll. Stop your tendencious editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Care to respond to my actual argument? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on - I've responded to all your points, and you've barely responded to any of mine. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your points don't make any sense to start with! There is nothing in saying Newton wrote Principia Mathematica, or that he co-invented calculus that's anywhere near original research or synthesis. Point remains that you don't have consensus for either the removal of context about who Newton is, or of the 1999 poll results. Feel free to ask people at WP:PHYS for a their input, ask for a third opinion, or start an RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's synthesis/OR to say, or imply, that any specific book or discovery of his is tied to his place in popular culture - unless you can find a source for that. Personally, I think it's also unnecessary - anyone interested in his achievements can click over to his article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And we don't say that. We say that he's famous because of the resounding impact of his work. That is neither OR, not synthesis. This is supported by (I can't believe I even have to write this), plenty of sources such as or . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no question that his contributions are important and impactful, but that's not the issue here: the question is whether, say, his invention of calculus is part of the reason why there are references to him in popular culture. If it's not, then I think you'd agree that there's no point mentioning it here. I don't think this is a facetious argument, by the way. Aristotle had an arguably greater impact on the world than Newton, but he's never been a character on Star Trek, as far as I know. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant whether any of contributions have lead to him being referenced in popular literature. Many of the references to Newton do this using his contributions. A brief explanation of what Newton is known for is therefore important context for the references themselves. From this point of view this article should at the very least make reference to the "apple incident".TR 14:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that referencing the "apple incident" would be valid, since it's very much tied in with the popular conception of Newton (like the TV series Newton's Apple). However, the article doesn't mention it. The intro does mention the Principia Mathematica, though, which has basically gone unmentioned in popular culture, as far as I can tell. That is the real issue here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Pope and Squire poems are pretty much directly about Principia and Newton's laws, as is the reference by The Baroque Cycle. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's... a charitable reading. You're talking about two two-line poems, one of which doesn't even mention Newton. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Art does not exist in vacuum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely true, but neither do Wikipedia articles - people can click on Isaac Newton's own article if they want to find out more about the man and his achievements. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC - Listing Newton's achievements
Should the introduction of this article list Newton's scientific achievements, such as writing the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Obviously yes, per the above discussion. You can't understand the cultural impact of Newton's achievements without first knowing what his achievements actually are. A three-sentence summary in the lead is not disproportionate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that it is not synth or OR to have the lead as it is.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I see no convincing argument not to include. Meatsgains (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Per User:Meatsgains there is no convincing argument to the contrary. Outlining his major achievements gives context to the elements in this article.  Keira  1996  04:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No - it is WP:OFFTOPIC for the article Issac Newton in Popular Culture, and is not relevant to the actual content, and is detail beyond that needed for background or context to the article Issac Newton in Popular Culture. The WP:LEAD here should summarize what this article is about, not summarize what the Issac Newton article is about.   That goal would be better served  if the first paragraph was dropped in its entirety and beginning with the second one Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't make sense of much of the content if you have no idea what Newton did. Taking the first two poems listed, the first one is about Newtonian physics, outlined in the Principia, the second one about them being superceded by Einsteinian physics. If you don't know anything about Principia, the whole thing makes no sense. There are plenty of other examples where understanding what Newton did to make sense of the pop culture reference. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, regardless of the need for that context, you need to satisfy WP:LEAD, which means you need to include that context in some other portion of the article to include even a small portion of that context in the lead. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD is a non issue for an article at this stage of development. Moreover, WP:LEAD never is a good argument for removing content, but rather works towards either a) moving content to the main body or b) reproducing the content in the main body.TR 07:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did someone suggest that the content should be removed? Did I? Certainly not the question in the RFC (nor did that question imply that it doesn't belong in the article). I reject an argument suggesting that WP:LEAD is a nonissue--whatever stage of development, the ideal (nonideal-)article would have a lead summarizing the article contents. This lead does not. So that leads to (heh): Fix the article so that the lead does summarize the article content, and : Remove this information from this article. In this sense, the RFC question is somewhat leading, since it doesn't lay out the obvious possibilities: 1. "Yes, deserves to be in lead"; 2. "Yes, deserves to be in article (and thus, mentioned in the lead)"; and 3. "No, does not deserve to be in article". I reject option 1 per WP:LEAD. Options 2 and 3 are still valid, though the "yes" team here might plausibly consider option 3 as a non-starter also.... (I haven't decided whether option 3 is desirable--it might not be per WP:Summary style. Mind you, sitting where I am, popular culture sections and articles probably shouldn't exist, or should exist in a different form, broadly, and I'd be inclined, were I more invested, to clean the current article up. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Certainly not the question in the RFC (nor did that question imply that it doesn't belong in the article)", that's exactly what the RFC is about., specifically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true that I, who set up this RfC, don't want this content included in the article at all, but the RfC asks only whether the content should be included in the intro. Probably I should have made it a three-option question, as Izno described. For the record, I prefer option 2 to 1. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb - no, Principia is not apparently related to the poem and as presented a whole section above provides no context -- and should not because optics is not Principia.  I doubt there is any RS linking the actual  science to the poem, it seems more likely just his fame that is the driver here, as said in the second para -- the first provides no linkage to the art and cultural works, so WP:OFFTOPIC getting in the way, much less is it lead-worthy summary of this article.  If you have a RS that says where the poem got its inspiration, then put that down at the poem -- but this vague handwaving about his science just does not look to me like it serves this topic.  Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first poem is not about optics, but about how Newton shed light on the laws of nature in general, principal amongst them, but not limited to, Newton's laws of motion and gravity detailed in Principia. The second poem further illustrates this, by contrasting Newton with Einstein. And there are plenty of RS on this famous poem, e.g. . To quote
 * "Like many of his contemporaries, Pope believed in the existence of a God who had created, and who presided over, a physical Universe which functioned like a vast clockwork mechanism. Important scientific discoveries by men like Sir Isaac Newton, who explained, in his Principia, the nature of the laws of gravitation which helped to govern that universe, were seen as corroborating that view. "Nature, and Nature's Laws lay hid in Night," Pope wrote, in a famous couplet intended as Newton's epitaph, but "God said, Let Newton be ! and All was Light." This view of the universe as an ordered, structured place was an aspect of the Neoclassical emphasis on order and structure which also manifested itself in the arts, including poetry. [...] "
 * Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb - So put that at the poem. Absolutely none of this is presented by the existing lead para, nor should it appear there.  It would be suitable to end the poem with a parenthesized paraphrase of this context, such as "(referring to the enlightenment of his science)" and cite to this source that presents that whole paragraph.  At the poem.  A vague off-topic blurb about him or his science at the lead is not helpful to this articles topic nor to the understanding of the poem. Markbassett (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No - for much the same reasons as Markbassett. The lead, particularly the start of the lead, should be about the article, which in this case is "Isaac Newton in popular culture" not "Isaac Newton". The first paragraph doesn't even mention Isaac Newton's influence on popular culture. Further, much of the second paragraph of the lead isn't about Isaac Newton's effect on popular culture either, being polls of scientists and physics about who had more influence on the history of science or who was the greater physicist. The arguments about OR and SYNTH are a red herring, the true issue here is a WP:LEAD that's WP:OFFTOPIC. Cjhard (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No per Cjhard and Markbassett. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No - there are various good reasons not to include this information, but I do think that avoiding original research is one of them. Putting in that information implies that he has gotten a lot of play in the culture because of, and only because of, his scientific achievements, but in reality there's no way to know that for sure. Newton and Einstein are both somewhat cultural icons (Einstein even more so), but James Clerk Maxwell, who's basically up there with them in terms of his scientific contributions, remains more or less unknown. Why is that? Maybe he's just not as quotable? Cultural popularity is a fickle thing, and there are a lot of factors that go into it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Newton's scientific achievements provide an essential context to references in popular culture (in which his achievements often feature explicitly or implicitly).TR 21:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. His contributions to the development of the scientific method are are responsible for the very existence of popular culture and of Wikipedia itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Is it your opinion that popular culture did not exist before Newton? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am talking about today's popular culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Yes but after introducing the topic in the first sentence. The first sentence of the article should say what the topic is, and the topic should be in boldface. Then the importance of the topic should be briefly discussed, and then additional context should be given, i.e. his scientific and mathematical prominence and if necessary a short note about his place in the society of the time. --Slashme (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But the current lead is too long.  Also, why does it describe him as a scientist twice in the same sentence and in what way was he a theologian? Klaun (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He worked extensively in theology and considered it to be his most important work. See the biographies. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC).


 * NO! Please focus folks. This article is not on Isaac Newtons's scientific and theological and currency achievements nor on Isaac Newton; it is on (ahem!) Isaac Newton in popular culture. We have maybe a dozen articles with his name in the title; we neither need nor want to start each of them with a precis of the main article; a link is all that is needed and a link has the advantage that it does not create a burden of maintenance every time there is a change in one of the articles. Anyway, I can just see someone wanting to know about Isaac Newton in popular culture and his first question being "Duuhhh... Who dis New ton guy? I need context and perspective I do, dat's why I came to dis article instead of going to Isaac Newton first." Even the lede paragraphs at the moment are mostly irrelevant window-dressing; the first of the two should be omitted altogether and the first clause of the second edited to link to Isaac Newton. If it is felt that a list of his works is desirable, it should be in the main article, or if preferred, in a separate article: Isaac Newton's achievements. NOT in Isaac Newton in popular culture, which is a different subject. JonRichfield (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No Principally it ignores the fact that click-linking is as natural as breathing now, so why stuff unnecessary content into a lede, when it doesn't provide any new content, which can be found in the primary article. It is not a piece of paper in an encyclopedia, where all salient information needs to be enclosed within it, although it does provide some initial context, but that can be minimized. If the reader doesn't know, they click, anyway. Also the article lede is far too long; it is a popular culture article, why so serious? Reader don't need to know, in this article, that he was a co-founder of the field of infinitesimal calculus and why is Leibniz mentioned. Nothing to do with it. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally, articles should be self contained, with the information required to understand a topic present in the topic. Wikipedia is not only used online, after all, and saving bandwidth is good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. To understand his relevance in popular culture, it helps to start by knowing of his achievements. (The lead could also mention that he was Master of the Royal Mint). Maproom (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - without knowing who Isaac Newton is, it's impossible to even have an article on "Isaac Newton in popular culture". By all means summarize Isaac Newton's appearances in popular culture in the lede too, but include something about why he is notable in the first place as well. Banedon (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "impossible", but I think you'll find that most of the "in popular culture" and other list articles on Wikipedia have no more than one sentence describing the original subject. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of these articles are in a sorry state too. Let this one be at the tip of the spear of improvement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm rather skeptical one sentence is enough, given what Newton did and accomplished. The current lede as of time of writing looks pretty good to me, and one can hardly call it too long either. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The appropriate amount of text isn't really tied to the importance of the subject - rather, it's tied to how much needs to be said in the current context. Or should that same two paragraphs be added to every article in this list? (Not to mention the list page itself?) Or maybe I shouldn't be giving out ideas... Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - via bot - this is what I would expect an "In popular culture" article to look like: a short precis of why the person/object is important (in this case, his works), followed by the instances of uptake in various media. The current lede is not disproportionate for a character of this level of impact, or an article of this length. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what is that expectation based on? I'm not aware of any other "in popular culture" article that follows that format. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes but try and move that to the second paragraph. Many summaries of WP articles (web and other search results, etc.) only pick up the first paragraph or first few sentences of a lead. For this reason it is best to come to the point as soon as possible. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes As others have already said, I think context is important to fully understand the pop culture references. – &#x1D558; wendy  &#124; &#9742;  12:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Principa, gravity, and calculus are all explicitly mentioned in the body of this article ! And Newtonian Mechanics is implied in the article's mention of Newtonian determinism. So "Newtons achievements" in the current lede are in fact a summary of article-body content. And even if that weren't strictly true, quickly hitting the high points provides good summary context for the examples listed and the article as a whole. Without taking a position on any exact detail to include/exclude, I would say that the current seven sentence lede is quite appropriate. It's brief with links to items critical for understanding the examples give here. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I doubt that anyone is likely to arrive at this article other than from the Isaac Newton article. Deb (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's obviously wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing obvious about it. The fact that links exist doesn't mean they get used.Deb (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No Summoned by a bot. I agree with what was noted above, "why stuff unnecessary content into a lede, when it doesn't provide any new content, which can be found in the primary article." Comatmebro (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes  (summoned by a bot)  said it best. I can not add a thing to such a conclusive answer and rebuttal is not possible respecting such utterly correct reason.--John Cline (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes (summoned by a bot) What Newton did in reality is directly relevant to how and why he is portrayed in popular culture. The present brief summary of that seems entirely appropriate to the article. Anaxial (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but briefly. Only the works and field of study relevant to this article. Anything in depth should be kept in the more specialized articles.Dbsseven (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. IMO the current lede is reasonable, providing the context and non-trivia importance. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The statement is neither lengthy nor difficult to read, and obviously there are links for the curious to follow. I think however that it is not just Newton's scientific accomplishments that should be mentioned. His Royal Mint activities are a part of modern culture (milled edges, but notably the Latin inscription that appears on the edge of pound coins that are in circulation now) - this is mentioned in a note describing the book The Baroque Cycle, and I think I have read of a play employing some of the rather dramatic activities (entering dangerous pubs incognito to seek evidence, that hangs an expert forger) so there is scope for popular culture if that can be identified. But there is no sign of Newton's interest in Alchemy though there is brief mention in the main article on Newton himself. In short, there should be mention not just of the two aspects of Physics and Mathematics, as there is, but also of the Royal Mint, and of alchemy. Many years of his life were occupied thereby. So, "yes", and "expand" a bit... NickyMcLean (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed-y. It is important to list some or all of Newton's scientific achievements so the reader can understand why Isaac Newton is iconic in our culture. His scientific thought significantly contributed to a change in the Western world view (contributed to a paradigm shift). And, it seems to me he is most widely known for his contributions to science. His theological and/or alchemist endeavors seem to be less widely known and come to light only when there is some focus on Newton as the subject (such as reading or viewing his biography). All this is imho ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Seems to be No - as not talking about popular culture and Yes -- as related context. I'll suggest as I said above that any linkage would be really really good and help lots to point it out at the place(s) in this article that it relates to, because that is otherwise not knowable or explained to the reader.     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Newton in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727032541/http://www.mania.com/anime-expo-friday-report_article_86123.html to http://www.mania.com/anime-expo-friday-report_article_86123.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)