Talk:Marie Curie/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Moving material related to the relationship of Marie Curie with Polish culture to a specific section?

It was mentioned in earlier, but I argue that the part of the opening section that states:

"While a French citizen, Marie Skłodowska Curie (she used both surnames)[3][4] never lost her sense of Polish identity. She taught her daughters the Polish language and took them on visits to Poland.[5] She named the first chemical element that she discovered – polonium, which she first isolated in 1898 – after her native country.[a]"

is not in the right place. Opening section should be focused on the facts that makes the person notable. The fact that she would teach her daughters Polish cannot be considered notable. Giving an equal weight to this and to her nobel-prize worthy research seem very unbalanced to me. Not to mention that the account of Marie Curie daughter remove some weight to the importance of this fact: Eve Curie says that despite teaching them Polish, "she deliberately made true Frenchwomen of them". On the other hand I do agree these information are interesting. Would it be considered acceptable by other editors to move this material to a specific section about the relationship of Marie curie with Poland/Polish culture? As a section, it would be visible from the table of content, so it would still be in a very visible place. But it would be better from the point of view of the structure of the article IMO. Also it would be possible to add other details on this topic in this section that can be found in her biographies.Tokidokix (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk)
Disagree with the opinion that her maintaining Polish identity is a nonnotable trivia. However I agree that this intro phrase must be trimmed to 1-sentence summary and the rest expanded into a separate sub section of the personal part of the bio. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

I would like to read more about the contributions of Marie Skłodowska-Curie, and less about the influences of her father and paternal grandfather in the Early Years section of the page. I would also like to see irrelevant information that really has nothing to do with Curie as a successful scientist taken out of the page. For example, in the Early Years section, the quote "The deaths of her mother and sister caused Maria to give up Catholicism and become agnostic" is very unnecessary. The religious preferences of Curie are inappropriate in regards to her contributions as a scientist. Furthermore, the quote "After a collapse, possibly due to depression, she spent the following year in the countryside with relatives of her father..." offers additional insinuated material that the page could do without. When I type the name "Marie Curie", I want to read about her accomplishments as a female in a STEM field making incredible history. I don't want to waste any time skimming through sections that describe the accomplishments of other men she encountered along the way. In the New Elements section, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on the work of Marie. I do appreciate the information provided regarding Curie's awards and tributes, as well as her legacy. I appreciate the commentary on how Curie had to overcome many barriers within her career as a woman in the early 1900s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.158.205 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I just read the article for the first time. As the quote goes, "no man is an island". I think it is very clear from the article that Marie Curie was one of the top scientists of all time (two Nobel prizes will do that). But it's also plain that she, like nearly all (perhaps all?) highly successful people didn't do it on her own. Her sister plainly played a huge role, but so did her father and husband. Our job is to report things as history records them, not to emphasize one part over the other. I really like the article as it stands--perhaps the most enjoyable reading I've done this month. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Polish, French in first sentence

Closing per WP:ANRFC request. WP:OPENPARA says that that "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability," but clearly consensus was against the idea of limiting Curie's description as either French or Polish, and so we will ignore it. Consensus was for option 6 on the basis that it is the least ambiguous in meaning compared to the others given Curie's history. Editors argued that option 2 carried greater simplicity, but others argued that it may present some unintended assumptions about her parentage. Keep in mind that this close is not a blanket endorsement for use of this convention in the lead on all relevant biographies. I agree that "Polish and naturalized-French" is a better phrasing of the option, and will implement it myself, though others are welcome to modify the phrasing if there are objections. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Marie Curie's nationality and heritage, should the first sentence say she was:

  1. French-Polish;
  2. Polish-French;
  3. Polish-born French;
  4. Polish, working mainly in France;
  5. French; or
  6. Polish, French-naturalized

Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


(EDIT: added "French" option: This is not my preferred version (Polish-born French is more consistent with other articles), but I would argue this is the one that most respect WP:OPENPARA (ie no mention of country of birth or ethnicity, only mentioning the country in the context of which the notable work has been done).Tokidokix (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Binksternet, I would like to express some reserve at your choice of tying the Request For Comment to a survey in a separate section from the main discussion. A survey is not necessarily the best way to conduct a discussion, and I hope editors coming here through the RFC request will also take the time to participate in the discussion above. (But OK, let's keep the survey as a quick way for anyone to state their preference :-)Tokidokix (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


I am adding a 6th choice: "Polish, French-naturalized", per the current French Wikipedia formulation. As JonRichfield eloquently remarks, "It summarises the complex situation comprehensively, comprehensibly, compatibly with sensitivities and realities." Nihil novi (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • 2 or 4. She was not French alone because her Polish heritage and culture were important to her, so #3 does not work. She was not French first, so #1 does not work. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • 6 strikes the right balance. Changing my choice after the sixth entry was offered. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It may be worth noting that the French Wikipedia lead describes her as "une physicienne et chimiste polonaise, naturalisée française" — "a Polish, French-naturalized physicist and chemist". This formulation neatly distinguishes between national identity and citizenship, and could offer a valid alternative to other wordings to describe her. Nihil novi (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I would not consider the current formulation of the French page as expressing any consensus: it was modified on 13 june 2013, but before that the French version is "Francaise d'origine Polonaise" (roughly equivalent to "Polish-born French". The change was made by an anonymous IP with the comment that it was for consistency with the English version of the article, which was at the time, IIRC, the version you are supporting. This imply that you are making a very circular argumentation. Further this change was not supported by any discussion on the talk page (although there had been long discussion in the past about the "Francaise d'origine Polonaise" version. Anyway, I argue again that this should be a matter of consistency within English-language Wikipedia articles, and "X-naturalized" is hardly used in other articles compared to "X-born Y" or "X-Y".Tokidokix (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The "X-born" formulation is extremely imprecise and is therefore to be deprecated. It can refer equally to an infant taken from his land of birth soon after birth, and to an adult expatriate with a fully formed sense of personal and national identity. Nihil novi (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether "X-born" should be deprecated can be a subject of discussion on the guideline, but you cannot decide it unilaterally. I think it is in any case the form used in a majority of similar cases on Wikipedia, even when leaving the country of birth at a later age, especially when the person was not notable at the time she left the country (see John von Neumann, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Josephine Baker, Nikola Tesla, ...). In the case of an infant leaving the country of birth, this information would typically not be mentioned in the lead sentence except maybe if it has relevance to the notability. And if you argue "X-born" is imprecise, the same can be said of "X-naturalized", as you will similarly not know if naturalization happened at the end of life or at its beginning. It is probably a matter of interpretation, but in the case of Marie Curie, I would argue "Polish-born French physicist" is clearer as to the fact that all of her Physicist career happened in France. In any case, the lead is not here to describe precisely the whole life of the person (the body do that), but formulation should be consistent across articles, or it decreases the informativeness of the opening paragraph.Tokidokix (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are John von Neumann, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Josephine Baker "X-born Y" but Nikola Tesla is "X Y"? If consistency is to be a central criterion, why the inconsistency in these examples? Nihil novi (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And, actually, the Serb Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia and was thus a Croatian-born Serb. Which, by the standards that you apparently propose for Wikipedia, would make him a "Croatian-born Serbian-born American"? Nihil novi (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 3. "Polish-born French" as the most correct one. "French-Polish" or "Polish-French": acceptable too. Short explanations on each choice follow. "Polish-born French" is my preferred version (had French nationality and was living in France when notable work was done), as I have argued it is the most consistent with most of Wikipedia biographies, and is also the version blessed by Encyclopedia Britannica. "French" alone is I think the most respectful of WP:OPENPARA (do not mention the country of birth or ethnicity, only mention the country in the context of which the notable work has been done), but it is not consistent with many other biographies, not too mention that it would be too controversial with the "pro-Polish" editors to result in a stable version of the article. French-Polish (or Polish-French) is also acceptable (less consistent with guidelines and biography, but potentially more acceptable as a compromise by other editors). "Polish, working mainly in France" is, I think, very bad. It is the opposite of what is prescribed in WP:OPENPARA, is inconsistent with most biographies and is misrepresenting Marie Curie's life (see the long discussion above for details, as well as the biography by Marie Curie's daughter).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 06:31, September 28, 2013
actually, her Polish identity is consistent with most biographies including 'Marie Curie' by Eve Curie, biographies by Susan Quinn, Janice Borzendowski, Barbara Goldsmith, the BBC documentary (including Dr Patricia Fara, and Maria’s granddaughter) and the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography which describes her as a Polish scientist. See the long discussion above for details.
Well, being one of the main contributor of it, I am certainly aware of this discussion. And I disagree with your statement :-) (but yes, interested -and courageous- people should have a look at it :-) Tokidokix (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 4 per Nihil novi. --John (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • '6, followed by 4 and third choice, '2. Regarding 4, the wording should be "living and working", I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) PS. Vote updated after introduction of choice 6. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 4 makes most sense. Volunteer Marek  18:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 2 Mainly for the sake of brevity (the order being chronologically better) . The term has no clear meaning and so can be expanded upon in the body of the article. I do not think it is possible to give an accurate description of a ethnically Polish woman, born in Poland, who moved to France, married a Frenchman, and became naturalised French in a few words, so why try? 2 is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 2 per Martin Hogbin. She was both Polish and French, being a citizen of both countries. Saying she was "Polish working mainly in France" would give a misleading impression that she did not have French nationality. Neljack (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 2 looks like being the best description for the complicated life of her. --Stone (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The list of alternatives is inadequate. None of the options compares with Nihil novis's proposed translation of the French version: "a Polish, French-naturalized physicist and chemist". It summarises the complex situation comprehensively, comprehensibly, compatibly with sensitivities, and realities. It does not in any practical or realistic sense conflict with fancied regulations. I support it without any functional reservation. JonRichfield (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 3. Although her Polish origins were important, the French should be emphasized more per WP:OPENPARA. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Correction. Neither should be emphasised. The article should state relevant facts as constructively and helpfully as possible, whether it favours one view (nationalistic or not) or the other, or neither. It is not for us to allocate her nationality or her nationalistic leanings if any. So for example "a Polish, French-naturalized physicist and chemist" states the case comprehensively, clearly and without prejudice. Until someone can come up with anything that says it better, that is the best I have seen so far. What on earth happened to NPOV? JonRichfield (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:OPENPARA states that if the subject was notable "mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" should be the one in the lead. Marie Curie became notable for her work in France. That is where the emphasis should be. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I commend another Wikipedia rule for your consideration: "WP:IAR" ("Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules"). Especially when rules are applied imprecisely, capriciously, or as a substitute for informed thought. Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think WP:IAR is meant to be a convenient way to oppose any invocation of a rule in wikipedia. Rules should certainly be used with proper reasoning, and ignoring them in a non-controversial context can probably be good. But rules have usually been established for a reason and ignoring them should require consensus and strong justification.Tokidokix (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not understand why you mention NPOV... More precisely, in which way is "a Polish, French-naturalized physicist" more NPOV than "a Polish-born French Physicist"? "a Polish-born French Physicist" simply states factual things: she was born Polish, and was also French by nationality. There is no implication she stopped speaking Polish after becoming French there. Further, beyond the issue of nationality, she was also a "French physicist" in the sense of doing her career as a Physicist in France. Added to the fact that it follows the "X-born Y" pattern of the biographies of many persons with similar life, I still argue it is more informative.Tokidokix (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed before why “Polish-born” is bad. There’s an implication that Poland was for her only a place of birth, it’s similar to “of Polish descent”. "Polish-born French" is unacceptable as it narrows the meaning - she was not only born in Poland but also raised and received her secondary and early higher education, the country where she did her first scientific work, the country where she had family, the country which she supported in its fight for independence, and the country which she never forgot etc. “Polish, French-naturalized” is the most precise. "Polish-French" is less descriptive and could be misleading (might suggest mixed descent).
Again, if Poland was simply a place of birth, there would not even be a mention of it in the lead. "X-born" is used plenty of times throughout Wikipedia for people that grew-up in X. And "X-Y" is used plenty of time for people whose ancestors are not from X or Y. So why would Wikipedia reader misunderstand in this case? (this is what I mean when I say consistency make sentences more informative). And I can make a sentence perfectly identical to yours about France: France is the country where she went to the University, where she worked, where she married, where she created her family, where her descending family still is, for which she fought for in WWI and where she lived from a young adult until her death.Tokidokix (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
As a side note, the talk page of Frederic Chopin show some editors fighting to death against him being called French-Polish/Polish-French despite having a French father (and having lived half his life in France). So if here you oppose Polish-French on the ground that it suggest a French parent, one has to wonder what could be a case in which "Polish-French"/"French-Polish" would be acceptable for some editors. Tokidokix (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be mentioned even if it's the place of birth only as she would have obtained a nationality and citizenship of the country of birth and would be entitled to be called this country's national. Actually, my sentence was a response to an identical sentence of yours (don't you remember?) when you were opposing degradation of France to the country of residence. "French-naturalized" doesn't interfere with your sentence, "Polish-born" narrows the meaning. As to Fryderyk Chopin, his Father was French-born Polish or French-Polish (according to your terminology) as he moved to Poland during his infancy and considered himself to be Polish.
  • 6. It describes the situation correctly. Once could say the same about Einstein, e.g. German, US-naturalized. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've asked everyone who contributed before all six options were posted to come back and let us know how they feel about the new options. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • New response to new request for reactions: 6. In reading the foregoing exchanges I have seen no other option that combines simplicity, neutrality, precision, unambiguity and even concision and courtesy to the same degree. Even if other articles on other people are differently worded, then if those are inferior, let their editors do their own adjustment in emulation of this one; their judgment in the past would be no reason for us to adopt wording that remains less suitable for purposes of the subject matter of this article. JonRichfield (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it at the very least be "Polish, naturalized-French" rather than "Polish, French-naturalized"? The second sounds awkward as heck. Volunteer Marek  17:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek on that point. I think it would also read better if we replaced the comma with an "and". Neljack (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While I do not resile from my support for option 4, I think 6 is also a reasonable option and I have no objection to it. Neljack (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not believe that it is the job of WP to help countries lay claim to famous individuals, even if some sources do that. To do so demeans both WP and the person involved. Famous people are individuals, like everyone else, and cannot be claimed by countries, cultures, religions, or ethnic groups. In the body of the articles we should state the facts, as given by reliable sources. In the lead, I think the briefest of summaries is best. There are no fights we should be fighting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So... J. Robert Oppenheimer is no longer to be described in the lead as "an American theoretical physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley"? Nihil novi (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As Oppenheimer was born in the US I would support his being initially described as American, again with the body text giving the full personal details. I am not arguing against the use of national or ethnic descriptions in the lead; I am arguing against unseemly fighting over which country 'owns' a particular individual.
I think it would be useful to develop some policy on how national and ethnic identities are described in the lead, without reference to any specific case. My preference would be for a short, simple, descriptions in chronological order. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, there is such a policy in WP:OPENPARA. It states that the country to be mentioned in the lead sentence is the one in which the notable work was done, and that country of origin/ethnicity should be avoided. That would point towards using "French" only. I do not think this guideline has to be strictly followed, but on the other hand using only "Polish" is doing the exact opposite of what the guideline is asking.
In any case, I support your comment that WP should not help countries lay claim to famous individuals.
BTW, I did not understand the exchange on Oppenheimer. He was born, died, and did the Manhattan project in America, no?Tokidokix (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The other "father of the atomic bomb", Enrico Fermi, likewise worked in the United States on the Manhattan Project but appears in the lead only as "an Italian physicist", not as an "Italian-American". Nihil novi (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a result of supporters of Italy claiming Fermi for their own; exactly the kind of thing that I am objecting to. I have looked at WP:OPENPARA and think that this goes too far in the other direction. To completely ignore a person's birth nationality seems wrong to me also. I think we need a clear and neutral policy on this subject and I intend to take this up on the WP:OPENPARA page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
So will Enrico Fermi now be an "Italian-born American physicist", an "Italian-American physicist", an "American-Italian physicist", or an "American physicist"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The recommended style will depend on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with any guideline as long as it is consistently applied in all articles, I think. In any case, I agree a precise wording is necessary here.Tokidokix (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be but probably won't. That is WP for you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not directly involved in this article or discussion, but I think that she was born Polish and naturalized French, this is what the text should reflect. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did she isolate polonium or not?

There is an inconsistency in the article. In the introduction it says that Curie "discovered – polonium, which she first isolated in 1898", but later on in the 'new elements' section it says that "She never succeeded in isolating polonium". I'm not an expert so I don't know which is right or if it's a disagreement about what `isolate' means, but I think it needs resolving.KoreanApple (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Small error

I found a small error in the Biography / Early years. There is written: her mother "died from tuberculosis when Maria was twelve.[8]". But in the reference is clearly reported the date of death - May 1878. So, Maria then was ten years old. Could that be corrected, please?--MC2013 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. And according to p. 27 of my edition of Eve Curie's biography of her mother, Madame Curie, the mother died on 9 May 1878. I've corrected it to "ten" years old. The mother was born Bronisława Boguska (p. 6). Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Curies' radiation exposure and health

Article states

"Curie and her husband had no idea what price they would pay for the effect of their research upon their health.[9]"

implying that radiation exposure during their work on radioactive elements seriously damaged the health of both Curies. Pierre died in a vehicular accident, and Marie died much later, of aplastic anemia likely caused by exposure to ionizing radiation in mobile X-ray units during in WWI, not in her laboratory in Paris. Accordingly I have removed that sentence from the article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Radium is an extremely dangerous material and it would have undoubtedly harmed the health of all those who came into significant contact with it. The fact that Pierre died in an accident is irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting

I was going to standardize the dates (some are written as "12 Mar 1943" while others are "March 12, 1943") plus Madame Curie is sometimes referred to by her first name while at other times only her last name is used and that needs to be consistent, too. Also, there are too many semi-colons sentences here that could be easily fixed with just a word or two. Not that semi-colon sentences are a bad idea, its just that often the sentence flows more easily without them. And way too many commas that make the entry confusing and difficult to read in places. I was really impressed with this article, however, its beautifully written and I learned a lot. It just needs a bit of tweaking. Anyway, I got the message saying that editing this article is restricted (why?) so I guess someone else will have to fix these things instead of me. Risssa (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

First Female Scientist to Defend Her Doctoral Thesis at the Sorbonne, June 1903

As a new user, I am unable to edit a locked (Featured?) article. But of Marie Curie's many "firsts" I think this fact deserves inclusion in the article, perhaps with her très honorable distinction. For footnote purposes I quote below a paragraph from a well-researched biography intended for young adult readers:

For a doctoral candidate, the defense of the dissertation is the last hurdle before receiving the degree. Marie's defense involved answering questions about her research posed by a jury of three professors, dressed in formal evening clothes. It was a momentous event. Bronya came from Poland and promptly marched Marie to a dress shop to purchase something new for the occasion. (Naturally it was black and serviceable for the lab.) The oral examination took place in a small hall at the Sorbonne. It was a history-making event: Marie was the first female scientist to defend her thesis at the Sorbonne. The hall was packed with friends and family; even Marie's students from Sèvres attended. In clear, dispassionate language, Marie unhesitatingly answered every question posed by her professors. Occasionally she used a blackboard and chalk to write an equation or diagram a piece of apparatus. It was obvious she knew her subject better than anyone else in the room. In the end, her esteemed professor Mr. Lippmann [who won a Nobel Prize in 1908 for his contributions to color photography] formally announced, "The University of Paris accords you the title of doctor of physical science, with the mention très honorable [very high honors]." After the applause, Mr. Lippmann added with the warmth of an old friend, "And in the name of the jury, madame, I wish to express all our congratulations."

— Marie Curie by Vicki Cobb, DK Publishing [London, New York, Munich, Melbourne, and Delhi), First American Edition, 2008, pp. 80-81 [ISBN 978-0-7566-3831-3 paperback, ISBN 978-0-7566-3832-0 hardcover]. TsockingTsuffer (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Marie Curie

About 7 articles were recently added to Category:Marie Curie, and I would like to know if any of them belong. See Category talk:Marie Curie#Characteristics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

SandyX (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Marie Curie is not the only person to win the Nobel Prize in multiple fields. It is Linus Pauling who should be added!

see Linus_Pauling. he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Peace Prize.

..yes should be in "multiple sciences" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

this is hardly relevant: Eusapia Palladino: Spiritualist medium whose Paris séances were attended by Pierre and Marie Curie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia-specific "circumscription of nationality"

Sigh, it is impossible to read the introduction to this article without becoming aware that the page has been pommeled into submission by Polish patriotism. This happens all over the place, I really do not see how it is patriotic to make all articles about people related to your country as awkward as possible.

Then the discussion was archived, and a html comment was left behind telling people not to touch it if they don't want to recycle the drama.

The woman is known as Marie Curie in western Europe. It is actually an honour to be famous enough to be known by a shorthand. Nobelprize.org gives Marie Curie, née Sklodowska. The diploma issued by the Nobel committee has "Marie Sklodowska Curie", without hyphen.

I do not think it is even correct to call her Sklodowska-Curie with hyphen, as this suggests she was born Curie and married a Mr. Sklodowska. The point is that upon marriage, she naturally assumed the surname Curie. That was part of what marriage used to mean, and trying to make a big deal out of something that nobody at the time would have bothered to question is just misguided and anachronistic.

If you have actual evidence that she preferred to be called Sklodowska or Sklodowska Curie or even Sklodowska-Curie, you are perfectly free to establish as much in a footnote, based on actual references (as opposed to leaving html comments invoking past talkpage drama). Looking into the archive just confirms my impression that there used to be an approach of patriotic IP editors pestering the page until everybody else lost interest. This sort of thing does not result in better articles.

Yeah, and "naturalized-French physicist". What a feat. Now this piece of wiki-prose seeps into the internet. First of all, there should not be a hyphen, she was a Phycisist, and she was a naturalized French citizen. Apparently the people writing it felt for themselves that "naturalized French phycisist" is a terrible way of putting it and placed a hyphen to gesture that she was not a "naturalized physicist". Well, then don't call her that. If you call her "naturalized French", then also call her "denaturalized Polish", not "Polish and naturalized-French". You didn't get to keep two nationalities in those days.

The phrase "a naturalized French phycisist" is not found in print (on google books), because it is terrible writing. It does show up in google books, because Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia . Why must Wikipedia prose always be terrible if it could also be just bland and unexciting? Marie Curie was a phycisist and chemist of Russian-Polish descent who was naturalized as a French citizen by marriage. How difficult can it be, and how can such an unexcited statement of fact be in any way detracting from the glory of the Polish nation (which must rather brittle if it takes an army of IP editors to constantly defend it at every turn of phrase). --dab (𒁳) 06:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you read her biography by Eve Curie? It could answer many of your nonsense questions. Have you thought that this article could have been influenced by Marie’s affection toward her homeland (and facts from her life) rather than by ‘Polish patriotism’ of some editors? Btw, inscription on her grave reads Curie-Sklodowska and the Marie Curie Actions have been renamed The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. There’s no consensus on how the name should be written (with a hyphen or not, it’s not crucial I guess) but Skłodowska-Curie seems to be one of the forms widely accepted. Even if spelling of double-barrelled surnames wasn’t strictly regulated by law in the past, it’s clear that she didn’t naturally assumed the ‘Curie’ surname upon her marriage as you’re arguing. The fact that both ‘Sklodowska’ and ‘Curie’ are present in the Nobel diploma, her grave and signatures she made, clearly shows that she used both names (which is not that surprising as feminism was already quite strong those times and such practices weren’t unusual). Both her daughters also kept double surnames.
Finally, in some countries ‘nationality’ and ‘ethnicity’ are not synonymous. For example you can be ethnically Polish (by ancestry, identity, culture and language) but living in another country and being citizen of another country. Becoming a French citizen has nothing to do with her Polish ethnicity. The last thing that shows your ignorance is mentioning her ‘Russian-Polish descent’. She was born in the Kingdom of Poland, which was back then a part of Russian Empire but does it make her Russian? Are people born in Nazi-occupied France of ‘German-French’ descent? You clearly don’t know much about the geopolitical and historical context of those times and Maria’s attitude toward occupation of her native land. I suggest watching the BBC documentary production about her life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz7Q-zZ4onc) or reading her biography by Eve Curie – these two provide unbiased facts, free from ‘Polish patriotism’.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Change "That same year Pierre Curie entered her life;" to "That same year Pierre Curie entered his life;"

Because:

There is a spelling error where the her should be changed to his. Pierre Curie is male, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Curie.

Position: paragraph under header "New life in Paris".

197.228.74.169 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The sentence refers to that year being the same year Pierre entered her (Marie Curie) life. Makes sense as it is. Cannolis (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Under the spouse section in the person's box, it lists her marriage to Pierre from 1859 to 1906. The correct year of their marriage was in 1895. She wasn't even alive in 1859. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmax999 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)  Done. Thanks for catching that. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

"Pierre Curie (1895–1906)" shall be "Pierre Curie (1859–1906)"

Leafyoung (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That date refers to the year they were married (1895), not Pierre's birth year. Stickee (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect info

In sidebar, Pierre Curie listed as born in 1895, not 1859. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.235.168 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Answered above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014 - Change the name of the article

Please change the page name to Marie Skłodowska-Curie, because those are the first words in the article and more so, see paragraph four Turbo installgentoo (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  •  Not done. First, the guideline WP:COMMONNAME says that the best article title is the one everybody is familiar with. Second, the question has been discussed before, with consensus against using anything but "Marie Curie". Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

|answered=no Please see the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as the title "Maria Curie" might match your naming conventions, but it is in no way neutral, unlike "Maria Skłodowska-Curie". Using only one part of the surname might help the article to be found, but so would redirecting from "Maria Curie" to "Maria Skłodowska-Curie", while staying neutral in the whole dispute between Polish and French people. <<"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies>>, said the article Turbo installgentoo (talk)Turbo

Agreed. The use of her husband's last name - which was NOT the name she used (see Nobel Prize award, for example) makes this article is not only non-neutral but also demeaning to Skłodowska-Curie herself, reinforcing the impression her achievements were secondary to her husband's (as many people think). It is also demeaning to women as whole, denying them right to maintain their at birth family identity if and when they choose to. I certainly hope some (Polish?) authorities will intervene here.

The title of the article accurately reflects the name by which she is overwhelmingly known in the English-speaking world, as it should, to be neutral, to make the article easy to find for readers, and to prevent any confusion over which member of that prominent family the article describes. The lead sentence accurately reflects the name she used, "Maria Skłodowska-Curie", again, as it should. The present setup is ideal for instructing readers that the person they learned about in school as "Marie Curie" was better known in her own day among scientists as "Maria Skłodowska-Curie". Plazak (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The ignorance of the English speaking world (that you imply) is not an excuse for changing somebody's name just because it feels too foreign or too different, or what ever the reason may be. That's NOT neutrality! A neutral position would the use of the name she used herself which was Skłodowska Curie (apparently without a hyphen). As I said this is offensive towards herself, as well as Polish people and women in general. Shame on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1004:1100:7C5A:EB00:9302:2F5 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your crusade to broaden the horizons of the English-speaking world is not going to get any traction here. "Marie Curie" is by far the most common name used for this woman in English. Wikipedia's guideline directs us to use the most common name. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

Her spouse, P Curie was born in 1859, not 1895. 82.170.122.135 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as explained in 2 sections above "That date refers to the year they were married (1895), not Pierre's birth year" - Arjayay (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Historical nonsense on atoms

"This hypothesis was an important step in disproving the ancient assumption that atoms were indivisible."

This is ridiculous: the Greek atomists said there are indivisible particles "at the bottom of things." They never said the things WE call atoms are indivisible! They had never discovered those things! What happened was that modern atomic theory misapplied the Greek word, because the first modern "atomists" thought they had found these indivisible substances. No discovery whatsoever was made about any "ancient assumption": what we found was that an ancient term had been misapplied. GeneCallahan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

On the right pane Pierre Curie's year of birth should be 1859 instead of 1895 24.171.24.231 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, as this seems to be a repeated point of confusion (per previous requests). A listing such as: spouse = Pierre Curie (1895–1906) can easily be interpreted as (birth - death) dates. As such it is a source of confusion. If it is meant to be marriage dates, that needs to be clearly stated (either explicitly or with a hidden editor comment note). Will clarify that now. Vsmith (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits have been made that include two instances of the phrase "timey-wimey", replacing references to electric charge. The article is currently protected, but it's an obvious nonsense phrase that should be removed. Daytonduck (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

well-known teachers Bronisława, née Boguska

Bronisława, née Bronca! this is correct!

Boguska is for Bogusława. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.60.200.115 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The above rubbish was clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the Polish language.
"Bronka" (not "Bronca") is a nickname for "Bronisława".
"Boguśka" (not "Boguska") is a nickname for "Bogusława".
Nihil novi (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the type of suggestions that are probably based on "hearsay from my grandmother who hasn't been to Poland since World War I". Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit: New film on life of Marie Curie to be released in 2016

"Nobel Prize Winner Marie Curie to Get Film Treatment". The Hollywood Reporter. Mscalizoey (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

request edit

She trained radiology assistants, according to the source, not "served as a radiologist." This is the only mention in the article that I see suggesting she acted as a physician; likely a mistake. it seems she created a mobile unit to obtain battlefield images For radiologists, not acting as one herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.235 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Marie Curie's siblings and the point of user contributions

Hi, I saw that you had deleted my addition of sibling nicknames on the Marie Curie[1] page, and wanted to explain why I put them back in. You had said their inclusion was "pointless and inaccurate," but in doing research for a book project, my daughter kept finding reference to the sister "Bronya." When looking at the Wikipedia page she noted that there was no Bronya, only Bronislawa, and this became fuel for her to rant about, "See, you can't trust Wikipedia!" My contention was that if something was missing or unclear in Wikipedia, we could help fix it. So we did further research, and came up with what I feel is a fairly credible source for the family nicknames. In addition, the mother and sister having the same name leads to potential confusion, so it seems there are several points to be made with their inclusion. I'm not sure how you determined that they were inaccurate, but I'm open to hearing more about that.

I'm a fairly new editor, though, and I appreciate your diligence and willingness to help me understand if I've done something inappropriate, and don't hesitate to let me know if there is a better way to go about some aspect of this. Footleg (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The daughter's nickname was "Bronia", not "Bronya". The son's nickname was "Józio", not "Jozio".
The authors who include these nicknames are patronizing the Polish-language-ignorant. Would you refer to "Georgie Washington" or to "Tommy Jefferson"?
Nihil novi (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I take your point about Georgie and Tommy, and I would certainly include myself among the "Polish-language-ignorant," but are you saying that the various sources that use "Bronya" or "Bronia" are not authoritative because they are patronizing? I guess I don't see the problem of including the nicknames if that's what they were called and if there is confusion out in the world. To your point, would you refer to William Clinton or James Carter?Footleg (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What have your and your daughter's researches shown to have been Maria's family nickname? Nihil novi (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The best source that we found (that I cited on the Marie Curie page, but am having trouble including here), lists her given name as, "Marja," and that she, "went by Manya, Manyusya, and Anciupeccio." Later it goes on to say that when she registered at the university in Paris, she put "Marie...(but)...everyone who knew her forever called her Manya." [2] All of this makes me wonder if it is appropriate for the article to refer to her as "Maria" as much as it does in the "Early Years."Footleg (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I've corrected the spelling from the unaccountably russified "Bronya" to the authentic Polish Bronia.
Maria Skłodowska's given name is spelled Maria, not "Marja".
A diminutive for Maria is Mania, spelled with an "i", not a "y".
Maniusia is simply a diminutive of Mania. (Polish abounds in diminutives.)
Anciupecio [5] is a nonspecific pet name, something like "Snooky Ookums" [6].
The nickname for Maria's mother Bronisława would also likely have been Bronia.
The nickname for Maria's father Władysław would likely have been Władek.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
  2. ^ The Age of Radiance: The Epic Rise and Dramatic Fall of the Atomic Era p. 18-20

The use of Marie Curie's first name in the article

My suggestion is to change all occurrence's of Ms. Curie's first name. For example to refer to her it should be with, Ms. Curie or just Curie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 13:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

But not before she became a Curie by marrying a Curie. Nihil novi (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about, when to use her maiden name or her married last name. Why do we addresses her in the article just with her first name? Is she a little child? She should be addressed by last name/family name.

I suspect that one reason why some want to call Maria Skłodowska Curie by a given or nick name (Maria; Mania, Maniusia, Anciupecio) rather than by a surname is to differentiate her from Pierre (Curie).
Another factor in the naming mess here may be a preference for French surnames (Curie) over Polish ones (Skłodowska). She herself used a double-barreled surname: Skłodowska Curie.
But more people have been exposed to the French language than to the Polish language.
So it is a matter of sheer laziness and ignorance.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Marie Curie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Marie pronunciation

Maria [Marja] was apparently changed to Marie (due to marriage ?). Dear Wikipedians, what is the correct pronunciation of 'Marie' ? Is the French pronunciation in use ? ([ma.ʁi] as on the right panel of Marie) --90.180.192.165 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In English her name is usually pronounced with the emphasis on the first syllable (as Marry or Maaree). -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"She is the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences."

false, Linus Pauling did so as well: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.53.34 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The emphasis is on "sciences". Pauling's second Nobel prize was the Peace Prize. --WiseWoman (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

this article states that Marie Curie is the Sole Discoverer of Radium. look at wikipedia 'Radium' and Nobel Website, Marie was CO-discoverer of Radium. and read wikipedia 'Pierre Curie' Marie provided very little help in discovering radium. I was involved with uranium in the U.S. Navy. even the slightest exposure to uranium is enough to cause death in 48 hours. Radium is incredibly more dangerous then uranium. seems this article was edited by Pro feminists. WishBringer (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that, the article discusses both. And your comment re: exposure to uranium causing "death in 48 hours" is quite simply bullshit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marie Curie. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Curie. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In 1909 Marie Curie was elected a member of the Academy of Learing in Kraków [[7]] and in 1919 she become a member of the Polish Academy of Learing [[8]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praktyka (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation

Some of the external links I am not able to get into, because I do not have an account to access where the information came from, or the link where the information was found, I was not able to read the information because it does not go directly to the link for me to read.


Missteeee (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)T.W

Last name omitted from the article title?

Sorry to interrupt - not a regular Wiki user - but exactly why is the article titled "Marie Curie" rather than "Marie Skłodowska Curie"? The shorter version should be a redirect, but the full name should be included in the article's title.

It is the name that she used even later in life, as evidenced by the very signature that is provided in the info box to the right. That same info box is titled correctly, using the full name, but the very article omits her Polish surname that she never stopped using.

Thank you.

93.181.131.59 (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. Some editors feel that a biographical entry should be under the name by which the biographee was commonly known: e.g., "Jimmy Carter", rather than "James Earl Carter, Jr." The distinction appears to be that Carter called himself "Jimmy", whereas Skłodowska Curie apparently identified herself by both her maiden name and her married name.
In some areas of the world, she was called by her married name only, apparently out of laziness and ignorance of how to pronounce her Polish name.
Maybe in time her wishes will come to be honored at Wikipedia.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017

2606:A000:8B89:9600:85B1:2E44:7AEC:6DF3 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

her name is Marie Skłodowska Curie. Please change the title. It is wrong. Stop being racist to everyone who's not French or English. Maria was a Polish women married to a French gentleman Curie.

Not done: The first three words of the article are literally "Marie Skłodowska Curie". It even goes on to give her birth name as Maria Salomea Skłodowska. How racism comes into this lack of reading is unclear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
So now we're a different race? When did that happen? The article is fine as is. Plazak (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

remove 'woman' from comment

Marie Curie is one of the most famous scientists, ever. Whereas the inclusion of her gender is important to highlight challenges she faced, it is irrelevant to state her gender in connection with her fame status. Myriadatemos (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth record name Marya

Shouldn't we write her birth name as Marya because it in the record? Dominikmatus (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If her birth certificate gives Marya—I was unable to find her name at all in the hand-scrawled document—it might have been an archaic spelling that she herself and her contemporaries did not use. Nihil novi (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but since the writer is using also normal "i" I think it should be considered. It's on the last 3 lines. Dominikmatus (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't get your point. People use all kinds of spellings. The surname Zamojski has sometimes been written Zamoyski. The word generał has sometimes been written jenerał. She wrote her given name Maria. Don't complicate things. Or have her legally change her given name to Maria. Nihil novi (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

can anyone translate the French 'Petites Curies' article?

Interesting that there is no article on the English Wikipedia about the antique x-ray machine the Petites Curies that was used in the first world war. I don't speak French and can't even read the French citations, though I'm sure I could start a stub based on English sources. I bet there are a lot of wonderful photos out there that are out of copyright by now too. KnowDeWay (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage of given name or surname in Biographies

I already stressed this out in an edit to the article on 21 January, 2016 and furthermore with comments in the article's talk section from 3-5 February, 2016:

I don't know, why 544 people watching this lemma didn't notice this. I hereby quote:

After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only,...

Generally speaking, subjects should not be referred to by their given name. ...

In addition because of her marriage.

If their most commonly used name does include their prior surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, refer to them by their prior surname. ...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Subsequent_use
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Please change "She named the first chemical element that she discovered‍—‌polonium, which she isolated in 1898‍—‌after her native country." in the end of the 4th graph to "She named the first chemical element that she discovered‍ in 1898 polonium after her native country" Because Marie never succeeded in isolating polonium, she just discovered it according to The Discovery of Polonium and Radium.This page is also the 29th reference of the Marie Curie wiki page.The statement lies in the last 4th paragraph of the "life-new elements" section as "She never succeeded in isolating polonium, which has a half-life of only 138 days." Zd2rou (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for spotting the error in the lead.
Nihil novi (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Nomination

The article is correct that initially Marie Curie was not nominated for the Nobel Prize. The article states that a committee member acted to include her in the prize, which is technically correct. What is absent, is that Pierre Curie originally warned the nomination committee that he would refuse the prize if his wife was not included. Before prize winners are announced, the Nobel committee ALWAYS confirms in secret that the awardee will accept the prize. Pierre, Marie's greatest advocate, was primarily responsible for ensuring her name in the prize. In some respects, this stains the legitimacy of her inclusion and stains the fetal nature of the Nobel Prize itself since it began in 1901, and the Curies and Becquerel won the prize in 1903, at a time when the Nobel's prize reputation had not yet been firmly established. There is also the apportioning of the prize money, where with 2 of 3 winners, the Curies fared better than than 1 of 2 winners. The Curies were very smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie Skłodowska Curie

Marie Skłodowska Curie was from Poland so she is polish not french and her first surname was "Skłodowska" not "Curie". Please remember about it and change the text.

---

The title of this article should be Marie Skłodowska Curie. This is how she signed herself, and this is how she was called officially by the Nobel committee. There is literally no reason not to include the Skłodowska. Stop West-washing science. 185.68.217.51 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Diminutives, not nicknames

The fragment in question reads The elder siblings of Maria (nicknamed Mania) were Zofia (born 1862, nicknamed Zosia), Józef (born 1863, nicknamed Józio), Bronisława (born 1865, nicknamed Bronia) and Helena (born 1866, nicknamed Hela). These are not nicknames but fairly common diminutives. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia "nickname" article, "A nickname is a substitute for the proper name of a familiar person, place, or thing - commonly used for affection." So "Mania", etc., are evidently both: diminutives and nicknames. Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

The source cited [24] does not state Marie was starving.


Change "She subsisted on her meager resources, suffering from cold winters and occasionally fainting from hunger."

to

"She subsisted on her meager resources, keeping herself warm during cold winters by wearing all the clothes she had."


Marie fainted from hunger due to being "too absorbed in study to eat". Not from a lack of food which the current line suggests. Luwachamo (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have corrected the text. Nihil novi (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

84.10.179.243 (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Marie Curie is not the only person to win a Nobel in two different sciences. Linus Pauling also did it. It even says as much on your own Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling DougDimmadomejr (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"In two different sciences". The Nobel Peace Prize isn't for sciences. The wording could maybe be made more clear. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: Pauling won one Chemistry prize and one Peace Prize. They are not both sciences. Curie is the only person to have won a Nobel Prize in two different branches of science (physics and chemistry). NiciVampireHeart 22:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Marie Skłodowska-Curie

Marie Sklodowska Curie: A french physicist and chemist who conducted pioneering research on radioactivity. Being the first woman to win not one but two Nobel prizes , Marie Curie"s name was held up high and her story was passed on generation by generation, now lets begin the story of the woman of genius. Maria Curie was born on November 7th 1867, She was great in school, had outstanding grades, and an amazing skill chemistry Chemistry: the branch of science concerned with the substances of which matter is composed. Curie gets married at the age of 24 in the year of 1895 to Scientist Pierre Curie who unfortunately dies 8 years later after a large accident with the breakage of his skull. Marie continues off where her and her husband left off, where they won a Nobel prize for discovering an element called Radium Radium: "Ra" atomic number 88. That's when she discovered Polonium Polonium: "Po" atomic number number 84 Marie Curie dies on July 4, 1934 (age: 67) From aplastic anemia, From excess exposure to radiation I HOPE YOU ENJOYED THIS LITTLE SUMMARY OF MARIE Curie's AMAZING JOURNEY!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.253.19.99 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What you write suggests that Maria Skłodowska Curie discovered radium before polonium. It was the other way around: she intentionally named her first-discovered element, polonium, after her native country, Poland.
Also, she was, if anything, a Polish physicist and chemist, secondarily French by citizenship.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Title of the article

The title of this article is incorrect. The correct official name is Maria Sklodowska-Curie. Even this article mentions that this is her official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.72.134 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, that is her name, but wikipedia goes by common names. Not many people search for that name, so the article will not be found as easy.Ghinga7 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

she did not die from radiation!

Given Marie Curie lived a longer than normal lifespan, and given aplastic anemia, while it can be caused by radiation, is also caused by toxic exposures to chemicals (and she worked with a LOT of chemicals), and also by unknown sources, it is irresponsible and more likely than not false to assert Marie Curie died of a disease caused by her exposure to radiation. Indeed, it may well be Marie Curie lived as long as she did because she was protected from getting cancer by the hormetic effect (if you want to give credence to that... such remains "controversial") of her radiation exposure. There's at least as good, if not a better, case for that notion than for the claim radiation killed her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxist-historian (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Marie Curie's Religious Beliefs?

This article only mentions that her and her husband chose not to have a religious wedding. What exactly were Marie Curie's religious beliefs? It's important. 73.85.201.54 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To quote from the "Early years" section (end of 3rd paragraph): "Maria's father was an atheist; her mother a devout Catholic.[19] The deaths of Maria's mother and sister caused her to give up Catholicism and become agnostic.[20]". That should cover the basics; see the sources cited for more details. Hqb (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Marie Curie was born in Vistula Land, please add Category:People from Vistula Land to her profile 12345yup (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 12345yup (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I can't find in the article where it says that she was born in Vistula Land. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Vistula land was mostly used by the Russian occupier and it is not normally used in the European history apart from certain highlights. Gabriela Nowak (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

please can i add my name to the list of people who have edited it? i have done it before it was semi-protected. --Eleanor B S (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Eleanor B S (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Hi Eleanor B S, I'm not sure what you mean by the "list of people who have edited it"? There is no such list, except you mean the revision history, and if you have edited the article, you're already in there : ). aboideautalk 17:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction to the name need

Can the author kindly correct the name from "Curie" to "Skłodowska-Curie", as this was her full name. She used both names (Skłodowska-Curie) and it is proven by her signature and signed works and documents. Thank you. Gabriela Nowak (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. This has been discussed previously. The reason always given for titling the article "Marie Curie" instead of "Maria Skłodowska Curie" is that she is commonly known in English by the first version. (I would add that she probably came to be known by that version due to laziness and ignorance of how to pronounce her Polish maiden name.)
Her 1911 Nobel Prize diploma gives her name as "Marie Sklodowska Curie".
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
No. look at standardDormsrubi (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree again, but fail to notice the correction being made to the title but only to the body of the text (one uses just 'Curie' the other 'Sklodowska Curie'). I would request it to be changed so that the matter is settled once and for good and less confusing but more straight forward. As despite of the information being correct in the article, misinformation is spread through mentions and hyperlinks on other pages.Thank you for the fabulous article however. It was a pleasure to read.
Anon Chekov (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To jest tak jakby mieć na imię Charles Smith Kowalski Na polskiej Wiki zapisanoby całe imię i nazwisko a nie tylko nazwisko które dobrze się wymawia dla danego narodu Jest to konieczne English people change title this article please. Polska7140 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Zgadza się. Polacy zawsze pokładają zbyt wiele nadziei w anglofonach. Nihil novi (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, no matter how much of difficulty the English speaking readers might have with this, it should not give wrong information. And the title is wrong. Marie Sklodowska Curie, this her name and the title should reflect that. Stop being lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brzewek (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Should her nationality be classified as Polish or Russian? Firestar464 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Student Evaluation of Content

I found that the content in the article was very thorough and accurate. Nothing seemed amiss in terms of staying on topic and ensuring that the order remained on track. The flow of the page along with the images that go with it is great and easy to read. I think it is a great telling of the life and work of Marie Curie. LeahToomey (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Commendatory evaluations are as valuable as critical ones; sometimes more so, for being less common!
Nihil novi (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Add two sections: Monuments, Coins and banknotes

Monuments

• Marie Skłodowska-Curie was symbolically commemorated with an inscription on a family tombstone at the Powązki Cemetery in Warsaw[1].

• Her bust can be found in Jordan Park in Cracow (IV.8).

• In June 2014, a bronze sculpture was unveiled of in Warsaw dedicated to Marie Skłodowska-Curie[2].

Coins and banknotes

Marie Skłodowska-Curie can be found both on a silver 100-franc coin from 1984 and on a 500-franc banknote from 1995 together with her husband also a Nobel Prize winner. Marie Skłodowska-Curie was commemorated on Polish, French and Spanish coins and banknotes several times [3].


• Her image was placed for the first time on coins and banknotes in 1967 on the 100th anniversary of her birth. She also appeared on three Polish coins, but 2 of them were not put into circulation. The third coin, which had a face value of 10 PLN, belonged to a series called “Great Poles" („Wielcy Polacy”).

• 1974 saw the creation of a different silver coin with a face value of 100 PLN. The obverse contained a composition of Marie Curie's profile and 3 rays of radium (alpha, beta and gamma).

• 1979 saw the introduction of a gold coin with face value of 2000 PLN, modelled on the previous one.

• Between 1989 and 1996 a banknote of 20 000 PLN with the image of Marie Curie was in circulation, which was designed by Andrzej Heidrich.

• 1998 saw the introduction of occasional coins with face values of 2 and 20 PLN, which presented Marie Curie-Skłodowska with her husband Pierre and with the symbols of the elements they discovered. On the reverse there is a model of an atom.

• 25th of November 2011 saw the introduction of a collector’s banknote by the National Bank of Poland with face value of 20 PLN, in order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of awarding the Nobel Prize to Marie Curie in chemistry[4]. However, no occasional coin was released.

In three first cases, the double-barreled surname of the Nobel Prize winner was given, yet without the hyphen: Marie Skłodowska Curie.

• In 1984 in France Marie Curie was commemorated on silver and gold 100-franc coins.

• 1995 saw the release of the banknote with face value of 500 francs with the image of Marie and Pierre Curie.

In both cases, only the French surname was given: Marie Curie (after her husband).

• 2011 saw the release of a commemorative coin by the Bank of Spain, which took place on the 100th anniversary of awarding Marie Curie the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Szelagkarolina (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

Piere Curie was born in "1859 and not 1895". Kindly correct the typo. Auronthas (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The "m." here is short for "married", it's saying they were married from 1895 to his death in 1906 – Thjarkur (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Pierre Curie ​(m. 1895; died 1906) - This is wrong. He was born in 1859 (which is a bit more likely) 

       Pierre Curie ​(m. 1859; died 1906) Darrenstreet (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The "m." here is short for "married", it's saying they were married from 1895 to his death in 1906 – Thjarkur (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

restoration of edits / avoidance of amputations

In these edits i believe I improved the article. Then they were all reverted by User:Nihil novi. Okay, fine, let's discuss.

  • previous caption: "At First Solvay Conference (1911), ..." is grammatically wrong. Note there is/was no such proper noun thing as "First Solvay Conference".
  • change: "At the first Solvay Conference (1911), ...". Fixes the problem. I don't understand why that would be reverted.
  • previous sentence: "She saw a need for field radiological centres near the front lines to assist battlefield surgeons."[5] This is explicitly, oddly, stating that the purpose is to help the surgeons, perhaps like serving them cappucinos at their coffee breaks would help them, and does not address the huge and obvious reason why/how x-rays help the wounded soldiers
  • change: "She saw a need for field radiological centres near the front lines to assist battlefield surgeons,[5] including to obviate amputations of limbs.[6] This addresses those problems. The big huge point presented easily in the movie by Marie Curie's daughter, by introducing her to three amputees, is that there were huge numbers of amputations going on because surgeons could not distinguish between lesser and more severe problems. At a later point in the movie, Marie Curie exclaims to an official who was not releasing funding, that men having sprained ankles were getting amputations. It is a movie, yes, but I believe the film-maker about this major way that having x-ray technology available at the field hospitals of the French army would/did make a difference. The previous language, omitting this, was lame-o (technical term).

References

  1. ^ [1], Warszawskie Zabytkowe Pomniki Nagrobne [online] [dostęp 2017-10-06].
  2. ^ [2], Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego, 2014-06-04. [dostęp 2014-10-10].
  3. ^ [3], Wojciech Kalwat. Noblistka i pieniądze. „Mówią Wieki. Magazyn Historyczny”. 3, s. 38, 2012. Warszawa: Bellona. ISSN 18978088
  4. ^ [4],Banknoty i monety 100 rocznica przyznania Nagrody Nobla Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie.
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Marie Curie War was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Radioactive, the movie

If there are not other good alternatives put forward which accomplish what the edits did, I expect to return them all to the article. --Doncram (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reduced "First Solvay Conference" to lower-case "first Solvay Conference".
Photo captions generally do not use as many article adjectives as ordinary texts. In this case, there is no requirement for a "the" before "first Solvay Conference".
X-rays have enabled surgeons to pinpoint internal damages to all bodily organs, not merely to the upper and lower limbs. If Marie Curie specifically emphasized arms and legs, please provide a more reliable source than a movie.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, about the last, done. About the first, well "At the first Solvay Conference" is grammatically correct, and "At first Solvay Conference" is not, so I fixed that again too. I suggest that before accurate info is again removed, or grammatical errors are again restored, that some others consider this. Call an RFC perhaps, or get a third opinion using the dispute resolution service for that. This interaction started off badly, with me responding not so well to what I perceived, and still perceive, as rudeness and arrogance. Maybe I was wrong though. I would welcome some others' help. --Doncram (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact is that the Scientific American piece which i added as source to the article is an opinion piece. It does state flatly "Madame Curie also aided the French war effort, fighting for funding and even offering to melt down the gold in her Nobel medals for mobile x-ray units that could be taken to the battlefield to help reduce the number of unnecessary amputations." I.e. it states that as fact, but it does not absolutely prove that author Cristine Russell is authoritative about the specific facts of Irene Curie and Marie Curie's interest/reasoning for the importance of X-rays at WWI field hospitals. The opinion piece can be viewed as mainly a review of the movie. But I believe that Russell is certainly informed from the "Many books, plays and films [that] have drawn portraits of the First Lady—and First Couple—of science." And the "about the author" blurb about her asserts serious scientific credentials:

Cristine Russell is an award-winning freelance journalist who has written about science, health and the environment for more than four decades. She is a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School in the Belfer Center's Environment and Natural Resources Program and a former president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and the National Association of Science Writers. Follow her on Twitter @russellcris.

so I trust that she would not state that as fact if she were not sure of it.

About amputations in war, I just happened to also see another film, this American Battlefield Trust piece available on Youtube, which comments that amputations during the American Civil War were rife as means of avoiding infection/gangrene. I surmised that by WWI those dangers were less due to other advancements so the reasoning could be different by WWI. But per Wikipedia, another source, claims that penicillin did not "become widely available outside the Allied military before 1945", later than I thought. So I am perhaps assuming that other advancements in sanitation and logistics, associated with efforts of Clara Barton and many others, did change the essentials of battlefield medical care. --Doncram (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

edit requests

  • The introduction notes that Curie was "the only person to win the Nobel Prize in two different scientific fields", while the Marie Curie#Nobel Prizes section correctly notes that Linus Pauling#Nobels also shares this distinction. The introduction should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.172.24 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Please add this hatnote:
"Madame Curie" redirects here. For other uses, see Madame Curie (disambiguation).
  • Also consider adding this hatnote:
For the singer-songwriter, see Marie Currie.
In November 2019, a play about Curie’s friendship with engineer-mathematician-physicist-inventor-suffragist Hertha Ayrton, The Half-Life of Marie Curie (https://web.archive.org/web/20191221081527/https://thehalflifeofmariecurie.com/), opened at the Minetta Lane Theatre, in New York City. It was written by Lauren Gunderson, directed by Gaye Taylor Upchurch, and starred Kate Mulgrew and Francesca Faridany.
to
In November 2019, a play about Curie’s friendship with engineer-mathematician-physicist-inventor-suffragist Hertha Ayrton, The Half-Life of Marie Curie, opened at the Minetta Lane Theatre, in New York City. It was written by Lauren Gunderson, directed by Gaye Taylor Upchurch, and starred Kate Mulgrew and Francesca Faridany.[1]
  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20191221081527/https://thehalflifeofmariecurie.com/
...or is that a primary source and third party references are necessary to verify/notability? in which case the paragraph should perhaps be completely removed.

Thanks.

96.244.220.178 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the first request really necessary? I notice that it is already on Marie Curie (disambiguation)#See also and the singer is also on there, too. As for your last request, it has been  Implemented, I removed it for, at the very least, its lack of formatting. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For my Chemistry class i happened to be looking at some information on both Marie and Pierre Curie. I noticed that the article on Pierre Curie had him living from (1859-1906), but in the Marie Curie article, he is said to have lived from (1895-1906). Please make a change on this, would not want any unlucky students to make mistake of not using multiple sources and proclaiming Pierre Curie only lived to be eleven years old, all while being married to Marie Curie and discovering radium and polonium. Thank you. 2600:6C4A:7C7F:F97A:385D:EE73:B1:9A06 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reid Stilson

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marie_Curie/Archive_5&oldid=1142769516"