Isaac Newton is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2005 Peer review Reviewed October 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted March 14, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia / Core B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. History of Science B‑class Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics: Biographies B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Science B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Metaphysics Philosophy of science Christianity: Theology / Anglicanism B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). Religion B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mathematics B‑class Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale. England B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Lincolnshire B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. London B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Shouldn't there be a section on his alleged virginity? Something like:

Although it is impossible to verify, it is commonly believed that Newton died a virgin. Even the French writer and philosopher Voltaire, who was in London at the time of Newton's funeral, believed it, writing that "I have had that confirmed by the doctor and the surgeon who were with him when he died."<ref>''Letters on England'', 14, pp. 68-70 (at least that's what the footnote for the quote in p. 6 of James Gleick's biography ''Isaac Newton'' says)</ref> What is certain is that no evidence has been uncovered that he had any romantic relationship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a curious suggestion! First "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That no one has been found whose works have survived and has written about Newton's romances means nothing at all. What possible impact on his notability does his lack -or not- of a romance have? As to his "virginity", that is of even less substance. What can a doctor and a surgeon know about it? If Newton were a woman, their words might have some standing. Otherwise, the matter is anecdotal and not widespread at that. Bielle (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but testimony to absence by people who knew him is. Regardless, it's up to reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, to decide what the evidence does or does not prove. If biographies of Newton say that he is not known to have had any romantic or sexual relationship and document remarks upon his singleness by writers of the time, it should be included. Readers are sure to be interested in whether or not he had a lover or family. However, I don't think the wording "died a virgin" is as encyclopedic as it could be. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think I'm trying to say that he was a virgin. I'm only saying that speculation about it has reached mythic proportions for many people, including Voltaire. Like it or not, it's a significant aspect of his life. Reference 11 has a long quote about the subject. It's discussed in some detail in The Newton Handbook, in Gleick's biography, Isaac Newton by Mitch Stokes. Carl Sagan's Cosmos goes so far as to state he was "a virgin to the day he died". I doubt you could find any reasonable biography that didn't touch upon the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like George Washington and the cherry tree, whether it has any basis in truth is secondary; it has become part of the mythology surrounding the man. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, would you be able to provide citations to Gleick's biography for what he himself has to say about Newton's love life, and not just famous historical figures he discusses? It would be especially helpful if he explicitly states that a certain view is held by the majority of biographers and historians. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Gleick saying much more about it. In fact, I found his entire book rather insubstantial. I guess I could get it from the library again and check it again. I'm also going to see what other bios are available there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newton did refuse holy orders. Footnote 10 makes that very clear. What he feared was that his real reason for refusing them would become public. By rejecting Trinitarianism, he was at serious odds with Church of England doctrine and public knowledge of this rejection would also cost him his professional standing and his social position. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the lede is misleading.

It currently says: "Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, and feared being accused of refusing holy orders.[10]"

I suggest it should say something like: "Newton successfully petitioned the King to relieve him from any obligation to take holy orders. However, for the rest of his life he feared that his real reason for refusing them, which was his rejection of the doctrine of Trinitarianism, would be discovered and that he would consequently lose his professional position and his social standing."

Comments? Bielle (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over who invented calculus - Newton or Liebnitz misses a critical mathematical technique.

Newton used Euclidian Geometry for his mathematical engine. Liebnitz used the mathematics of Al Zebarra (algebra).

Newton's method used axioms that were independent of numbers. Liebnitz used methodology that was numerically dependent. In computer speak, Newton was an Analog and Liebnitz was a digital computer. 108.208.251.209 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) No way! he is not right at all ... we all knew it after felix jumped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.233.203 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton had Asperger syndrome.[15] Please remove "The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton had Asperger syndrome.[15]" because it is not likely to diagnose Issac Newton with Asperger Syndrome with a high level of certainty over 250 years after his death.

 Not done: The cited source backs up the statement. RudolfRed (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in the info box, for the date that Isaac Newton was born, December is misspelled. Dn225106 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter Leila pointed out that Newton's Date of Birth is mispelled: Decemebr

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.78.131 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my great surprise I just found a typing error in the article on Isaac Newton! The following text appears under the section "Later life":

"Newton died in his sleep in London on 31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1726],[1] and was buried in Westminster Abbey."

Isaac Newton died in 1727 and this text should therefore read:

"Newton died in his sleep in London on 31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1727],[1] and was buried in Westminster Abbey." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.120.50 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report - looks like this has now been fixed. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't actually a typo, it was an attempt (not by me) at accuracy; but clearly there's still some confusion. The difference between Julian ("Old Style") and Gregorian ("New Style") dating is explained both in the first footnote of this article and at Old Style and New Style dates, but let me have another go here. There are two quite distinct elements to it. One relates to the gradual "drift" between the two calendars, which in the 17th century amounted to 10 days, and in the 18th century to 11 days. The other, which is the point at issue, is that the year began on different days: 25 March under Old Style dating, 1 January under New Style dating. Newton was born on 25 December 1642 OS (i.e. according to the calendar in use at the time), which converts to 4 January 1643 – a simple 10 day adjustment. However, his date of death is problematic, because he died on 20 March, in the "window" after the start of the NS new year but before the start of the OS new year. According to OS dating, therefore, he died in the "old" year, 1726. Under NS dating, his day and month of death convert to 31 March (an 11-day adjustment); but his year of death, 1726, advances a whole year to 1727.

The question is what we should do about it in this article. WP:OSNS simply advises following "reliable secondary sources" – which is nice and flexible, but not terribly helpful here. The most usual convention among historians is to stick with OS for the day and month, but to adjust the year, where it varies, to NS: that convention seems to be broadly adhered to on Wikipedia. Under that convention, we would say that Newton was born on 25 December 1642 and died on 20 March 1727, which is indeed what the lead currently says. The problem is that by following this up (in the lead and in the infobox) with a "conversion" to NS dates (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727), we're implying that the first set of dates are OS; and we then explicitly say in the body of the article that he was born on "what is retroactively considered 4 January 1643 [OS: 25 December 1642]" and that he died on "31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1727]". But if we are going to give his death date according to OS conventions, then the year should actually appear as 1726 (as indeed it did, in the text, until a couple of weeks ago).

I can quite see that many readers won't give a toss about all this, and will just want the "correct" dates to put in their school projects or whatever. One solution would simply be to delete the NS conversion entirely: it doesn't serve any real purpose (except, perhaps, for astrologers), and I can't immediately see any other biographical articles for this period which include it. However, I suspect there's a bit of a fuss made about it in some Newton biographies, and that dropping it wouldn't be popular with those who want to celebrate "Newtonmas". Another solution would be to adopt the fairly widespread academic convention (following 16th and 17th-century practice) of double-dating: i.e. to say that he died on 20 March 1726/7. That makes things crystal clear for those who understand the convention, and for those who don't at least flags up the fact that there's something funny going. But it would only confuse casual readers who just want something quick, simple and accurate. My preferred solution would be to cut the NS conversion from the lead, so that it simply says "25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727" (so that's what the schoolkids can copy); adjust the dates in the infobox to read "Born 25 December 1642 [NS: 4 January 1643]" and "Died 20 March 1727 (aged 84) [OS: 20 March 1726; NS: 31 March 1727]"; adjust the dates in the text to read "25 December 1642 [NS: 4 January 1643]" and "20 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1726; NS: 31 March 1727]"; and rework footnote 1 to clarify things further, particularly regarding the issue over his year of death. If there's consensus along those lines, I'll have a bash at doing it, but I thought I should air the issues here first. GrindtXX (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I located scholarly articles suggesting Sir Isaac Newton believed Darius I to be the son of Emperor Gustasp or Gustasp himself, does anyone have additional information regarding this research?

Twillisjr (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]