Talk:Émilie du Châtelet

POV / NPOV in lead paragraph
There are two incompatible attributions of the commentary added to du Chatelet's translation of Newton's 'Principia': first in order of time is by Delambre, a well-known and even the principal authority for the history of eighteenth-century astronomy, and closer to the events and with a particular account; he unequivocally attributes the commentary to Clairaut, also saying that Clairaut revised the translation. A biographer from about 100 years later attributes the commentary to du Chatelet, and also runs together Delambre's earlier accounts of Clairaut revising the translation and adding the commentary, which becomes in the later version Clairaut revising the commentary.

The lead text until recently stated neutrally 'a' commentary, with a footnote reference explaining the two attributions; at a later point, the text stated the attribution to du Chatelet, with another link to the explanation of alternative attributions.

A recent amendment changes the lead paragraph to read 'her' commentary. In the absence of any RS to discredit the account by Delambre, that appears to introduce bias (contrary to WP:NPOV), and accordingly it seems that it should not be reintroduced without appropriate discussion. Terry0051 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My edit introduced Hamel's assessment of Clairault's contribution, to provide a balance to Delambre's version, thus promoting WP:NPOV. I'm quite content with the current version, with allows both Hamel and Delambre equal weight in the footnotes. Why, though (in the spirit of genuine enquiry and not of point-scoring) is the Hamel biography not considered a reliable source?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Answering the last point -- in Wikipedia terms, no criticism was raised against the status of Hamel as a reliable source. Unless I'm mistaken about the guidelines, the current position seems to be there are two WP-reliable sources saying opposite things. (What I posted before, about Delambre and Hamel, aimed to show how Delambre deserves inclusion as 'RS', I did not try to exclude Hamel as WP-RS. Outside WP terms, perhaps one would go farther and say they can't both be right, and maybe go further into the evidence, but I guess that much of that discussion might be WP:OR and outside the WP-editing remit.)

I agree that, as far as the WP-type reliable sources currently stand (and possibly they may stand that way for quite some time), the two references deserve, as you say, equal weight in the footnotes. Subject to the reservation that follows, it seems to me they currently do have that equal weight. The reservation is, that I'd suggest 'equal weight' means they also deserve not-grossly-unequal reflections in the text. In that connection, the text further down currently says 'her own' commentary. That seems over-the-top in view of the state of the two references. Maybe a simple 'her' would be reasonable at that stage in the text, in view of the chances offered to a reader who has reached that point, to take a look at the footnotes and citations.

(BTW, it's curious that Clairaut's spelling, most often given that way in the 18th-century sources, is often given as 'Clairault' in WP. It even goes so far, that his picture in his WP article has been image-chopped to remove the contemporary caption 'Clairaut' (part of the original engraving, visible in linked sources), it's been replaced by a WP-caption 'Clairault'! Maybe 'Clairault', as in Hamel, is some kind of an antiquarian version, maybe matching fashions current at the c.1900 date of that source.) Terry0051 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In non-WP terms, Delambre may indeed be the stronger source; he was commenting from a position closer to events and within his area of knowledge. By all means adjust the wording in "Scientific research and publications" along the lines you suggest. Any residual suspicion on my part of that his account may be tinged by reluctance to accept the work of a self-taught amateur would be unjustified opinion and absolutely without foundation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to know whether any other scholarly source besides Delambre supports the notion that Clairaut wrote the Commentary. According to best modern scholarship, Clairaut's contributions to the Commentary were minor.  See, for example,   the description on p. 274 of La Dame D'Esprit by Prof. Zinsser, who examined the original manuscripts and distinguished Clairaut's handwriting from that of Du Chatelet.  I note that Delambre wasn't born when Du Chatelet died, so he presumably did not have privileged information beyond the manuscripts.  if there is no objection, I will remove the Delambre assertion as unsubstantiated. Willow (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The result of Zinsser's examination of the manuscript seems to trump both previous writers: no objection from me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Map
The map is wrong about where Lunéville is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianchi-Bihan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried a fix but the markup's a bit advanced for me, so another editor's oversight would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Error on the map
The map of France in this article on Émilie du Châtelet has an error. Four locations are depicted, one of them is Cirey. Émilie du Châtelet and Voltaire lived in Cirey-sur-Blaise which in Haute-Marne. The map shows another Cirey: Cirey in Haute-Saône in the Jura region. I don't know how to correct the map but as it is it depicts the wrong Cirey.

Jean R R Gauthier (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Jean Gauthier


 * Done. Mind  matrix  21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
The first paragraph of this section is barely comprehensible. I would rewrite it, but I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.155.213 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does need work. The problem probably started because one of her biographers, David Bodanis, had also included her in another of his books, dealing with the forerunners to Einstein's famous proposition E=mc². That modern historians, biographers and science writers were drawing this comparison, and that she was a woman with a vivid and eventually tragic lifestyle, were among the reasons (however unfair) for her continuing fame and reputation. This was  stated simply in the article, was sourced and factual, but subsequent contributors have felt the need to delete all this, explaining how she didn't really contribute anything because she was describing real-world mechanics, rather than the (then) theoretical concept of the energy equivalent of matter. Judging by past experience, any attempts to tidy this will be met with resistance. What we have now, however incomprehensible, may be the best that will survive on the page.—Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Caption error
I believe the caption to the frontispiece image is incorrect, both here and on Voltaire's page. I believe this image was in Voltaire's book, from 1738 (in which Emilie du Chalet played a significant role, nearly as co-author, according to Passionate Minds). Unless there are other opinions on this, I will change the caption in both places so it reads:

In the frontispiece to Voltaire's book on Newton's philosophy, Émilie du Châtelet appears as Voltaire's muse, reflecting Newton's heavenly insights down to Voltaire.

Sfmammamia (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiction as Fact ?
Passionate Minds: The Great Enlightenment Love Affair is a novel by author David Bodanis, (10 October 2006) New York: Crown. ISBN 0-307-23720-6.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Written with a Bias
It is interesting to me as a Women and Gender Studies student how much attention this wikipedia page gives to du Châtelet's personal life and personal affairs. There are lengthy sections dedicated to elaborating on her family and marriage, that aren't put into any context as far as what else she was doing (eg: her scientific work). Only at the very end are her contributions to science listed. Compare this to the wikipedia page of Leonard Euler, a male scientist from the same era and working in the same field, where there is very little information on his personal relationships. Without being too criticial on the contributing authors, I think there is a distinct bias present against du Châtelet because she is a woman. She is being highlighted in the traditional gender roles of daughter, mother, wife, and mistress, instead of as a scientist. In the very first paragraph there is a quote from du Châtelet's lover that states her only fault was that she wasn't a man. Why choose this quote to set the tone for the rest of the wiki page? Not only does it not say anything useful about du Châtelet as a great mind, but it is completely sexist. Being a woman is not a fault. Understandably it was said in another time and we've all come a long way in thinking about the sexes however I think it's a mistake to keep this quote in the introduction. We should think about how young women reading this page may interpret that information. 129.65.206.156 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Laura Wilkinson


 * There's probably something to what you say -- but on the other hand, Leonard Euler is basically one of the top 5 mathematicians of all time (while Émilie du Châtelet isn't), and her extra-marital relationship with the extremely famous Voltaire was a significant part of her life, and was of interest to many at the time, and still of interest today. There's a fair amount on the Johannes Kepler article about his two marriages and his mother's witchcraft trial.  If Euler had a boring family life, or not much is known about it in detail, then there's not much Wikipedia can do about it... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with L.Wilkinson. The article leads with her affairs, and a quote emphasizing sexism. I think we can do better. Math, education, translations first. Gossip second. Isn't that how it's done on most bio pages? -RLR50.141.35.151 (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

2021
Agreed, however, the article had so much personal detail cut out that it started to make no sense: why was she living separately with Voltaire? Had her husband died? I had to go look that up. Fortunately, there was an entry in her son's page that explained the two had agreed to live separately. However, the link to that was 1) outdated 2) wrong (I looked the original page up on archive). So I hunted down another archival link that actually substantiated the claim. Problem solved, I hope. - ACat AquatiCat (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not Enough Detail
This Wikipedia article provides an adequate summary of who Émilie du Châtelet’s is and her contributions to science. However, I do not think her contributions to science can be fully understood let alone be appreciated due to some oversight in this article. One of the main issues that I would like to address is the overall absence of detail. The article provides a succinct narrative of her background and a list of achievements th ande acquired, but does no more than that. What du Châtelet has done for the budding scientific community was astounding, yet not very well published.

At a first glance of her page she is just known for the advocacy of kinetic energy. I would recommend adding infrared radiation as wekk as her translation on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica.

Du Châtelet is responsible for theorizing infrared radiation according to her published paper, Dissertation sur la nature et la propagation du feu. I am wondering why such an important theory, even in its infancy, is so briefly described. I would like to see if there are any details such as notes, and documentation of du Châtelet’s research and the specific methodology that she used for her ideas and possibly add a section to the article with these details. Shedding light on her methodology would not only help us better understand how she theorized her conjectures, but would reveal that du Châtelet has made tremendous strides towards exposure of women in science and technology. I would also recommend that her other publications such as Institutions de Physique and her work on kinetic energy to be more detailed in the same manner as her publication on infrared radiation.

At the end of du Châtelet’s article is a small section about her legacy and it briefly states that her research of kinetic energy was a more or less accurate to Einstein’s famous equation of E=mc2. I would like to see a link between all of her publications and how it has affected or lead up to the scientific principles that we understand today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkchan99 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed unscientific anticipation of relativity
I noted that the seemingly vague idea that du Châtelet's expression of kinetic energy in terms of velocity somehow anticipated Einstein's famous formula (which rarely appears in that form in modern physics textbooks) was supported by sources authored by an historian and a philosopher. I think this is too weak, so I removed it. Any such relationship would have to have a scientific basis, supported by a scientific source, and I am aware of none. Equations may be profoundly beautiful, but their beauty lies in their scientific and/or mathematical power and elegance, which may relate to that of philosophy or the arts only in a very personal or idiosyncratic way, if at all. Layzeeboi (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Organization of the Article
It seems weird to me that her philosophical contributions would go before the biography of her life. All of her contributions should be mentioned after life history, for the sake of consistency and continuity. If there are no objections to this sort of change to the article, I would be happy to make the changes. Crazymantis91 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Émilie du Châtelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160320025602/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140710/river-north/urania-historical-play-by-local-artist-debuts-with-free-gallery-shows to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140710/river-north/urania-historical-play-by-local-artist-debuts-with-free-gallery-shows
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226035831/http://www.opera-lyon.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/opera_0910/Emilie/Texte_Emilie.pdf to http://www.opera-lyon.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/opera_0910/Emilie/Texte_Emilie.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Émilie du Châtelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813145153/http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,1774981,00.html to http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,1774981,00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Émilie du Châtelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122130615/http://www.visitvoltaire.com/love_story_voltaire.htm to http://www.visitvoltaire.com/love_story_voltaire.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315080213/http://www.arte.tv/de/Die-Welt-verstehen/einstein/841586.html to http://www.arte.tv/de/Die-Welt-verstehen/einstein/841586.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rational Linguistics
The article mentions work in "rational linguistics." Please give sources. Where can one find EdC's writings on language? Merci ! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C6:C089:C9FB:2D76:FE2B:4AE6 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what she wrote on the subject, but the most famous work of rational linguistics was the Port-Royal Grammar... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The first person to do what?
The article currently writes: "The Du Châtelet contribution was the hypothesis of the conservation of total energy, as distinct from momentum. In doing so, she became the first person in history to elucidate the concept of energy as such, and to quantify its relationship to mass and velocity based on her own empirical studies." It is not very clear what exactly she was the first person to do. The hypothesis that energy scales with the square of velocity was stated before by Leibniz (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva), as well as its conservation, so I wouldn't say the hypothesis was her most interesting contribution. Rather, I think Du Châtelet's most important contribution was to connect Leibniz's hypothesis and Gravesande's experiment to demonstrate that Leibniz's hypothesis was the right one. And then it's written: "Earlier workers, such as Newton and Voltaire, had all believed that "energy" (so far as they understood the concept at all) was indistinct from momentum and therefore proportional to velocity." Well, not *all* of them, since Leibniz thought it was quadratic. Maybe say "With the exception on Leibniz, earlier workers such as Newton and Voltaire believed...". Antovigo (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A key point in the above comment is the proposition "I think Du Châtelet's most important contribution was to connect Leibniz's hypothesis and Gravesande's experiment to demonstrate that Leibniz's hypothesis was the right one." Looking at this matter, I would be helped by precise sourcing for this proposition, and by elucidation and clarification of what is meant by the words "Leibniz's hypothesis" and "the right one". Did 's Gravesande know he was investigating Leibniz's concept of vis viva?Chjoaygame (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Pregnant Scientist Who Raced Against Death to Transform Physics
A useful source

https://narratively.com/the-pregnant-scientist-who-raced-against-death-to-transform-physics/

John Cummings (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV added
Most of the article makes bombastic claims about du Châtelet's contributions to science but no reference is made to substantiate them, except for a reference to a project which does not actually deal with scientific thinking but with the biography of du Châtelet as a scientist. This is substandard for an article, even if just on Wikipedia. Less enthusiasm, more references please: the article has potential --86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, the NPOV extends to the entire section on the scientific contribution of du Châtelet: to claim that someone made "substantial" and "original" contributions to the physics of Newton I need to see a long series of footnotes. None of these is displayed in that section.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * History demands time and effort. I have spent some time and effort on reading a fair number of sources for the article. I haven't felt that I have fully plumbed the material, and so I have refrained from editing. But I loosely concur with the IP user's comments and with his edit summary for his NPOV tag.


 * Speaking loosely, I think that du Châtelet was a notable scholar and expositor, particularly on the work of Newton, of Leibniz, and of 's Gravesande, and that she may have been influential as a result of that. I think statements that she made original contributions towards the principle of conservation of energy would need thorough and precise sourcing for justification; so far, I have not found such sourcing. Chjoaygame (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC).


 * Yeah, no. This is pure nonsense.  I've reverted the tag. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Du Châtelet contribution was the hypothesis of the conservation of total energy, as distinct from momentum. In doing so, she became the first person in history to elucidate the concept of energy as such, and to quantify its relationship to mass and velocity based on her own empirical studies.Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * According to Zinnser (2009) on her page 84, du Châtelet distinguished force vive and force morte, as in the following footnote:


 * 60. Du Châtelet, following the ideas of Leibniz, and the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli, distinguished between force vive, equivalent to the modern concept of kinetic energy ($$mv^2$$, now expressed as ½$$mv^2$$, and force morte ($$mv$$), the concept of momentum. In this, she disagreed with Newton and with most of the prominent mathematicians and physicists in France. From Bernoulli and Leibniz she took the idea of opposing bodies using their force to hold each other at rest after a collision, rather than the force being completely dissipated by the collision.


 * On the other hand, Zinnser, on her page 187, in a footnote, rendered du Châtelet's force morte in another way:


 * 108. In her description of force Du Châtelet is measuring it in the way in which Johann Bernoulli advocated in his two memoirs for the French Royal Academy of Sciences (1724 and 1726). In modern terms force morte is equivalent to potential energy and force vive to kinetic energy.


 * Zinsser, Judith P. (2009). Emilie Du Châtelet: Selected Philosophical and Scientific Writings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ISBN 9780226168067.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Infrared
The claim that she anticipated infrared radiation is something of a stretch. It seems to be based on this passage from pages 128–129 of her paper: "Il est très-possible que dans d'autres systêmes, il y ait des Soleils qui projectant plus de rayons rouges, verds, & c. que les couleurs primitives des Soleils que nous ne voyons point soient différentes des nôtres, & qu'il y ait enfin dans la Nature d'autres couleurs que celles que nous connoissons dans notre monde."

She suggests that other colours may exist, but this is pure speculation, not based on any theory or experiment. That is a long way from a prediction, let alone a prediction of infrared radiation.

I have amended the article appropriately to match what she actually said. Unfortunately, a lot of sources (some who ought to know better) seem to have copied the claim from us. Because of that, before that could go back in a properly peer reviewed source from an expert in the history of science is needed. Coffee table books, even from good publishers, are not going to cut it. SpinningSpark 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton
— Assignment last updated by Twi72103 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments invited on this discussion
Editors of this article may be able to advise on this discussion? A question arises on whether we should credit Alexis Clairaut for this statement in Volume 2 of her book on the ''Principia"
 * Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Il ne faut pas croire que cere idée jettée au hazard dans le Livre de Hook diminue la gloire de M. Newton, qui a même eu l'attention d'en faire mention dans son Livre De Sistemate mundi. L'exemple de Hook & celui de Kepler servent à faire voir quelle distance il y a entre une vérité entrevue & une vérité démontrée, & combien les plus grandes lumières de l'esprit servent peu dans les sciences quand elles cessent d'être guidées par la Géométrie.

[We must not believe that this idea thrown at random into Hook's Book diminishes the glory of Mr. Newton, who even had the attention to mention it in his Book De Sistemate mundi. The example of Hook and that of Kepler serve to show what distance there is between a glimpsed truth and a demonstrated truth, and how little the greatest lights of the mind are of use in the sciences when they cease to be guided by Geometry.]

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://archive.org/details/NewtonDuChastelletPrincipesMathmatiquesDeLaPhilosophieNaturelle/page/n197/mode/2up?view=theater


 * The broad question has been resolved: the consensus is that we should (a) find another (preferably modern) source that corrects it or (b) don't use it or (c) let it stand but create a talk page item for a future editor who may be able to find a correction..
 * My reason to post this concluding comment here is because I have realised that Ball in effect has attributed the entire Exposition to Clairaut, with no recognition of Châtelet's contribution. Although she gives attribution of all the other sections of her book to their respective authors, she does not state explicitly that this chapter is her own (though, in her Avertissement (Volume1) she does give Clairaut credit for its foundations –  noblesse oblige, I assume). So perhaps a future academic historian of women in science may be inspired to investigate further and correct Ball in a peer reviewed journal. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I may have been too hard on Ball: I suspect he had his own doubts because he cites Du Chastelet and Stephen Peter Rigaud to attribute the aphorism to Clairaut. As I've already said, Émilie does not attribute the remark to anyone else; the perpetrator was Rigaud (in ) at p. 66. The plot thickens! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)