Talk:Marie Curie/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"was a Polish physicist and chemist"

I am sorry to come back to the first sentence, but "Marie (...) was a Polish physicist and chemist (...)" is not correct, or, at least, not complete. It should be written "Polish-born French" or, at least, "Polish and French". Note that Albert Einstein is "German-born", Walter Kohn is "Austrian-born American"... according to the first sentence of their related articles. Concerning Frédéric Chopin, it is correct but not for Marie Curie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docteur Tomate (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska Curie's fellow Nobel laureates Albert Einstein and Walter Kohn were both Jewish and left their respective countries of birth in their early teens. Skłodowska was not Jewish but simply Polish and left Poland as a young adult aged 24.
Both men, after leaving their native countries, spent some years in third countries — Switzerland and Canada, respectively. Skłodowska did not spend any substantial time in a third country.
Additionally, Einstein in 1918 explicitly stipulated: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever." Skłodowska, by contrast, never ceased being a Polish patriot, who happened to obtain much of her university education and to work in France. Nihil novi (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


Good points Nihil novi. So why has it eventually been changed to French-Polish? I would suggest to be more explicit and state "was a Polish physicist and chemist working in France" (Polish as ethnicity) or something similar. That would be clear. French-Polish might be misleading, it suggests French ancestry (e.g. having one French parent, one Polish etc.), it's not precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done: "was a Polish physicist and chemist, working mainly in France, who is famous for her pioneering research on radioactivity."
Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why has it been changed to 'Polish-born'? The suffix '-born' is redundant as the following sentences specify her birth place, moreover it's not entirely true as the suffix narrows the meaning. She was not only born in Poland but also brought up, educated to some point and lived till the age of 24. Furthermore, one can find in the article that she has 'never lost her sense of Polish identity'. Should be simplified as it was: "was a Polish physicist and chemist, working mainly in France, who is famous for her pioneering research on radioactivity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Birth of Marie Curie

The french article states that Warsaw belonged to the russian empire when she was born, the english article states that it was the kingdom of Poland. Which one is correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.223.49.133 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Congress Poland (the Kingdom of Poland, 1815-1915) officially became part of Imperial Russia in 1867, the year of Maria Skłodowska-Curie's birth. Nihil novi (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Maria Sklodowska - Curie

To my knowledge she never changed her name from Maria to Marie. If John moves to Poland every one will call him Jan - although that will not change the fact that his given name is still John and he thinks of himself as John. If you would like correct history of any Swav you can't relay on western history. The Western countries actively suppressed Swav's history and downplayed their achievement. In USA for instance C. F. Kettering Vice-President of General Motors and Directing Head of the General Motors Research Laboratories in his "Short Stories of Science and Invention" (date of publication not specified) on page 46 writes in reference to Maria Sklodowska-Curie as Irene Curie (what if Poles would called C. F. Kettering - "Dick" or "Cesiek" Kettering, or for that matter lets rename all US/English inventors to "Dick", "Cesiek".) I could go on about historical lies/deception of the English about everything from human beginnings on this planet to the future. There is no publication in USA/England for primary and secondary schools that refers to Maria as Maria Sklodowska-Curie for general education, and never refers to her as Polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.53.37 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC) sghlcvnmfgjk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.4.254 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is much to what you say. This whole phenomenon seems to be compounded of roughly equal parts of laziness, ignorance and inimical propaganda. But the situation seems to be ever so slowly getting better, as efforts are made at educating Anglophones. Nihil novi (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Irene Curie was the name of her daughter, who was also a nobelized female scientist. So most likely Kettering was refering to her. Also I am pretty sure most of the famous female persons that got married are commonly refered to by their spouse name and not their maiden name. So the fact that she is known as Marie Curie has probably something to do with sexism but not necessarily anti-Polish feelings. 130.54.130.253 (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Did she actually hyphenate her name, or even use her maiden name? Skłodowska-Curie seems like a modernism that she might not have used. I wonder if she ever used Skłodowska formally or informally after she was married. A search of images I have only found her signature as Mme CurieGeo8rge (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Nihil novi (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I know it has been discussed before but I can see a recent tendency toward Marie Skłodowska-Curie in the West which makes a basis to change the article name form Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska-Curie. It's not a matter of her wish and national sentiments but from the official point of view John Smith-Scott is not the same person as John Scott. Nobel Prize diploma was awarded to Marie Skłodowska-Curie, original grave in Paris (before moving to Panteon) gives Marie Curie-Skłodowska. The Marie Curie Actions has been recently renamed the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in recognition of the scientist’s full name [official document realesed by this organisation 1]. Marie Curie is an incorrect widespread acronym, its widespread usage is not an argument for its further usage, just the opposite, it underlines the importance of the true and official name promotion. 1 - http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/documents/documentation/publications/eu-marie-curie-actions-fellowships-innovative-science-becomes-success-publication_en.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME which says we prefer "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." By far the most commonly used name in English is Marie Curie. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

In the "Death" section there is a little story about "She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket[citation needed] and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark.[41]" But truly it was happened with Henri Becquerel[[1]] in 1901. He wrote a letter to Marie Curie to warn her. So it happened to be the first experiment, that showed the effect of the radiation to the human cells. Ref.: http://www.rtstudents.com/radiology/antoine-henri-becquerel.htm Dortjeblogja (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Danger High voltage! 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So it would be good, if one can change the sentence "She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket[citation needed] and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark.[41]" into "Working with radium without any gauntlet (protecting clothes?/coveralls?) caused a lot of burn in her hands. [8: last page]" or something like this, with better English.

 Not done I think the text around the sentence you mentioned makes it clear that it was the lack of proper safety measures. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case, put in "Marie"

I find this, in the section about the death of Pierre Curie:

"On 13 May 1906, the Sorbonne physics department decided to retain the chair that had been created for Pierre Curie and they entrusted it to Curie together with full authority over the laboratory."

Because of the nearby reference to Pierre Curie, I suggest you insert "Marie" in front of the 2nd "Curie" in that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland etc.

Re [2].

The Russian partition of Poland was still referred to as "Kingdom of Poland" in 1867, despite some loss in autonomy during that year. "Nadwislanski Kraj" didn't come into use until 1880's and did not in fact replace "Kingdom of Poland" but was used alongside that term.

I would sincerely appreciate it if User:Illraute stopped his travels across Poland-related articles with what appears to be the sole intention of starting disputes and stirring unnecessary controversy. This kind of behavior looks eerily familiar.VolunteerMarek 22:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference very clearly says "Russian Empire"[3] --IIIraute (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And here are references which very clearly say "Kingdom of Poland" or "Congress Poland" [4], [5]. It's not like they're hard to find.VolunteerMarek 23:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The question of of the autonomy level of the Nadwislanski Kraj is quite complex, see some of my old notes at Vistula_Land#Notes. Nationality wise, I wonder what were the official documents of that time. Congress Poland had significant autonomy, which was only partially and semi-officially abolished later. Did they even had passports back in when she was born? The Polish passport and Russian passport articles have almost no history :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Small typos

It says "Marie Curie Radum Fund" in the text. According to the source and common sense, this should be the "Marie Curie Radium Fund" (note the extra 'i'). There is another reference to "radum" in the "Post-war years" section. Unfortunately, I cannot edit this page. Under "Legacy" there's "Havign" instead of "Having". Regards. Jan Middelkoop (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Marie Curie's medal

I can't help myself but wonder why Marie Curie doesn't have a medal ( Nobel Prize) next to her name at the top-right? Like the other nobel prize winners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.101.71 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These probably should be removed from the other articles - they're clearly marked as Nobel laureates in the text, and embedding icons everywhere is generally a bad thing. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, Isolation of Polonium, 18 August 2012

"She would never succeed in isolating polonum, which has a half-life of only 138 days – the key concept of radioactive decay, which impeded her work on that angle, would not be understood before her death.[17]" is flat wrong, and misspells polonium. A Radioactive Substance emitted from Thorium Compounds by E. RUTHERFORD (published 1900, link:http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Rutherford-half-life.html) gives a full mathematical treatment of half-life, and I doubt such a diligent scientist as Curie would fail to notice a seminal paper in her field for 34 years. (Perhaps change to "She would never succeed in isolating polonium, which has a half-life of only 138 days", and mention the difficulty of the isolation process, repeated fractional crystallizations.) (The page linked say "For reasons that would not be fully understood until the concept of radioactive decay was developed, Marie never succeeded in isolating polonium, which has a half-life of only 138 days") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:1894:5033:0:0:0:1894:5033 (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened it. I am no physics expert, and if my previous interpretation is incorrect, I prefer not to reformulate this again. I did not use your version about "the difficulty of the isolation process, repeated fractional crystallizations" as it is unsourced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not notable tribute (TV competition)

I've removed the following claim, a TV competition does not seem notable enough to be included in the article. Perhaps if/when we create an article dedicated to the tributes to her, this can be re-added there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[[Kendriya Vidyalaya|KVS]] is celebrating IYC 2011, and, under this programme, held a nationwide quiz in India, with the topic being "Life and Works of Madam Curie". <ref name="Cluster Level Competition — International Year of Chemistry Celebration">{{cite web|url=http://kvklibrary.in/pages/international-year-of-chemistry.php |title=Cluster Level Competition — International Year of Chemistry Celebration |publisher=Kvklibrary.in |date=30 September 2011 |accessdate=7 November 2011}}</ref>

Engvar

I was curious about US/UK spelling on this article. Looking back to 2002 it seems this article was first written in UK English. Unless there was a good reason to change it over, it should not have morphed into American, as it seems to have. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I have adjusted the Americanisms I could see into British English per WP:ENGVAR. I also copy-edited the article. --John (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. As a non-native English speaker who was taught British English and now lives in US, I am sure I tend to transgress on ENGVAR quite a lot :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You're very welcome. I would rather not have had to do this work three times though. --John (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Milhist assessment

There are a couple of places where citations are necessary for the article to meet the project's B-class criteria—I have highlighted them with {{cn}} tags. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find references for most of the claims, so I have removed them:
  • "Maria lost her position as governess. She found another with the Fuchs family in Sopot, on the Baltic Sea coast, where she spent the next year, all the while financially assisting her sister."
  • In October 1891, at her sister's insistence and after receiving a letter from Żorawski, in which he definitively broke his relationship with her, she decided to go to France after all.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Committee for a Free Poland

I have removed the following from the text" "During World War I she became a member of the Committee for a Free Poland (Komitet Wolnej Polski). (ref was for offline Henryk Zieliński, Historia Polski 1914–1939 (History of Poland: 1914–39), Ossolineum, 1983, p. 83). I cannot verify the source, but Google Book search gives no reliable hits for "Komitet Wolnej Polski" or "Committee for a Free Poland". I have to assume it is a misspelling and mistranslation of some kind. This should not be restored till we can verify what was the correct name of that organization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Biography New life in Paris section

There seems to be a typo in the date of Maria Skłodowska-Curie's moving to Paris in New life in Paris section of the biography. Currently stated 1831 is clearly wrong, as it antedates Maria Curie's birth. Wikipedia articles in other languages (Polish) state that moving to Paris happened in 1891. 2001:980:A7D2:1:54AD:9BEF:5976:3DB9 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Wojciech Przedzimirski

 Done. Fairly compelling argument, supported by the Nobel Prize Committee. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple comments

Really good work here. I'd suggest beefing up/merging some of those one-liner paragraphs though, scrolling through there looks to be quite a few. Hope to review this at FAC sometime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given up on FAs, my English is not good enough for them and copyeditors I find are not enough, either. Shrug. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's possible... I think you just haven't found a good enough copyeditor. Malleus, Brian, and a couple others might be able to help, especially with such a key topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2012

Please delete "Because of their levels of radioactivity, her papers from the 1890s are considered too dangerous to handle.[58] Even her cookbook is highly radioactive.[58] Her papers are kept in lead-lined boxes, and those who wish to consult them must wear protective clothing.[58]" It is false. Only few paper were radioactif and we can not consult them. They had been photograph and we consult photographs. Nothing is dangerous and no special wear is been needful. See the official page of national Archives in BnF http://ccfr.bnf.fr/portailccfr/jsp/index_view_direct_anonymous.jsp?record=eadbam:EADC:NE00407035291 Best regards

195.220.100.11 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now:; those statements are referenced and I cannot verify the source you provided as it is not in English and Google Translate does not seem to work on that page. If someone better versed in French than I am can verify the source provided above I will have no objection to removing per request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The page says "Le service de Radioprotection de l'Institut de Physique nucléaire d'Orsay a mesuré la radioactivité des papiers Curie après leur entrée à la Bibliothèque nationale. Les documents contaminés (qui ne sont pas communicables aux lecteurs) ont été encapsulés sous plastique de protection et remplacés par des photographies."
meaning the radioprotection service of Orsay Institute has measured the "Curie papers" after they were given to the french National Library.
It states that "contaminated papers" are not available for readers and were put under protective plastic and replaced by photos.
Nothing about her cookbook. The page doesn't directly contradict the statement contaminated papers are also kept in lead-lined boxes, it only says contaminated papers were put under protective plastic. Consulting the papers not available for the public library isn't mentionned in that page.--Kridenow (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know where Bryson got the information from? Such a books shouldn't be accepted as a citable source. It must at least be changed to something like "... Bryson tells, that ...". The true story seems to be more complex, and I found a book from Barbara Goldsmith called "Obsessive Genius: The Inner World of Marie Curie (Great Discoveries)", which states, that some of the journals were still radioactive, and some were decontaminated. The safety procedures described by Bryson seem to have changed in 1999(available on books.google; see acknowledgements). In contrast to Brysons book this is a source from an author who actually went to the national library to get acces to the journals, so it would preferable to use such a ref (but someone else should check that book first). But there are probably even better sources somewhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.91.47 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fix a typographic error

I believe that the sentence which begins 

   "She subsided on her meagre resources..."

should instead read 

   "She subsisted on her meagre resources..."

Isocopria (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Volunteer Marek  03:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


Ethnicity/nationality

Please reinstate the category 'Ethnicity/nationality: Polish". It's scandalous that it disappeared again. Everything was explained in previous topics. I'm not Polish but I'm a foreigner in the county where I work. I've moved to UK at the age of 24 (similarly as her) to start a PhD at the University of Cambridge and it doesn't make me British, no one can change their ethnicity. She was not only of Polish descent, she was born and brought up in Poland. At the age of 24 everyone has already mature and shaped national identity. She remained proud Polish patriot and wanted herself to be considered Polish. No one denies the fact that she was living and working in France but some people try to deny the fact that she was Polish. That kind of manipulation is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is correct to associate ethnicity and nationality. Those are different concept and certainly nationality can be acquired/changed in most country. Further, the comparison of your situation with that of Marie Curie seems dubious to me. She is not qualified by the adjective French just because she received a PhD in France. She also married a Frenchman, was naturalized French, spent about all of her adult life in France, made a French family there, and even served on the French side during WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I've restored "nationality" to the infobox. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
In normal usage "nationality" and citizenship are synonyms. Having both in the infobox is redundant. I guess the real question is, do we have sources to confirm that she ever became a french citizen?TR 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't agree. Obviously not true. Please restore nationality.
Nationality/ethnicity is determined from the moment we are born and is unassignable. Citizenship is a legal regulation, can be obtained after fulfilling political conditions, can be relinquished and may be different from nationality
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality and sources.
Nationality versus citizenship:
In a number of countries, nationality is legally a distinct concept from citizenship, or nationality is a necessary but not sufficient condition to exercise full political rights within a state or other polity.[1] Conceptually, citizenship is focused on the internal political life of the state, and nationality is a matter of international dealings.[3]
Having more information/facts is not a disadvantage, I strongly insist on restoring nationality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If you link to articles, please read them. For one the article you link completely contradicts your assertion that nationality is unassignable. As far as countries make the distinction it is usually easier to become a national than a citizen. Also from the article you quote, "It differs technically and legally from citizenship, although in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state and all citizens are nationals of the state." So, unless Poland or France are exceptions and this exception was relevant the case of Curie, I see no point in making the distinction in the infobox.TR 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please read the article again. I'm talking about nationality synonymously with ethnicity (not citizenship, which may be changed). Quoted sentence (without a source and not completely true - cause exceptions disprove each sentance containing word 'all' ): "It differs technically and legally from citizenship, although in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state and all citizens are nationals of the state" doesn't contradict my assertion. To see this: 1) If a Jewish family lives in Poland and a child is born, he/she will obtain Polish citizenship but remain Jewish nationality, the fact that most citizens of Poland have Polish nationality and other way around doesn't interfere with my assertion. All citizens from ethnic minorities are exceptions to quoted sentence (as e.g. Polish minority in the USA may not have Polish citizenship) 2) Secondly as I said, it states that nationality differs from citizenship both technically and legally (which is explained later). And yes, it may be easier to become a national (which may be simply determined by nationality of parents or place of birth) than citizen (if some conditions have to be fulfilled e.g. given period of residence). In Poland nationality and citizenship are not synonymous, nationality is still "seen originally as a permanent, inherent, unchangeable condition". In case of Maria - she was born in Poland, in Polish family with Polish nationality/ethnicity -> was given Polish citizenship, then married Frenchman -> obtained French citizenship. I asked for category nationality/ethnicity and still insist.
If I am not mistaken, Curie als obtained the French nationality when she married Pierre. (Which does contradict your assertion) For as far as countries make the distinction between nationality and citizenship, it usually means that citizens are are a subset of nationals. (Also there is no Jewish nationality).TR 09:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
She could obtain French nationality (in terms of citizenship) through marriage (see wiki: attribution of French nationality) but not ethnicity, which doesn't contradict my assertion. And of course there's a Jewish nationality, you are totally mistaken (see wiki: Jews, "Jewish people, are a nation", "The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation"), what you said is just disgraceful. Jews are a nation, the same is true for Romani people (an ethnic group) and other ethnic groups/nationalities, including Polish. You seem to ignore my arguments and not be able to make a distinction between ethnicity/nationality and citizenship/nationality. To make it clear, I'm asking for 'nationality or ethnicity', nationality is synonymous to ethnicity and may be synonymous to citizenship in some countries; to avoid ambiguity, please add 'Ethnicity: Polish' as ethnicity is not synonymous to citizenship.

Marie automatically became a French citizen upon marrying Pierre Curie, a French citizen. That's the way things worked back then. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess the discussion is finished and the arguments have been presented. Why ethnicity hasn't been restored then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo in "Post-war years" section

There is a typo in the sentence: "In 1921 US President Warren G. Harding received her at the White House to present her with the 1 gram of gram or radium collected in the United States." 71.210.77.64 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, in the future, feel free to do it yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Section needs better focus

I couldn't tell from the Nobel section what she got her prize in chemistry for. There is a lot of biographical info, some totally unrelated to her Nobel prizes. But the section doesn't address half of what it is supposed to. I think someone should also include why she got a Nobel prize for isolating 2 elements. Why was it so hard? what about it changed the world? etc.

I think that Marie Curie was great, and like Emmy Noether was a fantastic physicist. But most people dont know Emmy Noether because she never got 1, much less 2 nobel prizes. This section of the article REALLY has to shine, since this is the part of the article that describes what most people want to know about her.

Drxenocide (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid critique. Feel free to rewrite it, I am done with my pass on the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong fact

The sentence that says "On 26 December 1898, the Curies announced the existence of a second element, which they named "radium" for its intense radioactivity" is wrong because they named it after the latin word radius, which means ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necklace22 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems confirmed by [6]; I'll adjust the article accordingly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie and Kazimierz Dłuski?

It says in the article that Marie Curie married Kazimierz Dłuski,this is not true she fell in love with him and they were going to marry but her parents objected to the union. She had only one husband,Peirre Curie. Just thought everyone ought to know that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.103.90 (talk • contribs) 04:25, March 8, 2013

You're confusing Kazimierz Dłuski, who married Maria's sister Bronisława, with another Kazimierz — Żorawski — whom Maria fell in love with but could not marry. Nihil novi (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Source for radioactivity levels of her papers and cookbook

A Short History of Nearly Everything is the source for both of these claims. I haven't read it for a while,is Bryson the primary source on this, or is he quoting information, and if it is the latter shouldn't the quoted reference be considered the source. Whilst an excellent book there are a number of factual inaccuracies littered in its pages. Ajmayhew (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim is referenced, but if you think the source is not reliable, you need to make a better case (perhaps at WP:RSN). I am open to removing the claim, but first we need a more serious proof of the claim being wrong than - with all due respect - an unreferenced claim that some of the book claims are inaccurate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Polonium and bismuth

I query the statement that polonium is like bismuth. What does this mean? These two elements are from different groups of the periodic table, so their chemistries are significantly different. To a chemist the statement looks nonsensical. It's like saying that lead and bismuth are similar - the three elements , 82Pb, 83Bi and 84Po have consecutive atomic numbers. Petergans (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This claim is based on the following reference: [7]: "the bismuth fraction contained a new element. Chemically it acted almost exactly like bismuth, but since it was radioactive, it had to be something new. They named it "polonium"". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013

I will change "Marie Curie" to "Maria Skłodowska Curie" because she was a polish woman, not french. It's not OK because many people think that she was french because of her name "Curie". Her really name allways was Skłodowska Curie, not only Curie. Patryk Dyjak (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Her birth name and Polish ethnicity/birth are already prominently mentioned in the lead section of the article. If you want the title of the article changed, there is a process for doing that (here), but I will caution you that there is very little chance of the article title being changed, as Wikipedia guidelines on article titles require that an article on a person be titled according to the name by which that person is most commonly known. The full guidance on this can be found here, with specific guidelines on multiple and/or changed surnames here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Such a move was discussed and rejected in 2008: Talk:Marie_Curie/Archive_2#Requested_move. You can of course try again, 5 years have passed since, perhaps new data or rationales can be presented. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for instructions on how to request an article be moved to a new title. Personally, I will register my preference for the current title because it is brief and widely used. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

latest changes

This edit [8] makes changes to the lede, of the sort that have been discussed extensively previously. Any such major changes should seek consensus. It also does not help to call other editors names.Volunteer Marek 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Such language may classify for WP:DIGWUREN restriction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition to New Elements Section

Through some research, I found that during the years of 1898 to 1902, the Curies published, jointly or separately, 32 scientific papers and among them was one that announced that diseased, tumor-forming cells were destroyed faster than health cells when exposed to radium. I find this to be very important so I was wondering if it would be alright if I were to add this to the page. Calvin102594 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for this information? Nihil novi (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source: Marie Sklodowska Curie." Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 339-341. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 June 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin102594 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to become a Wikipedia autoconfirmed user (an easy process) and add the information to the article. Please be sure to provide precise bibliographic information, including the page(s) actually cited. Nihil novi (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is relevant; there's a lot about old research that is obsolete - should we list all errors Curie made? Scientists are not remembered for their errors (they make a lot of those, particularly as their research becomes obsolete), but for being the first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that is an excellent point. I had assumed that this finding by the Curies, from over a century ago, is still valid; it may not be (e.g., healthy and pathological cells may be equally destroyed by radiation), and probably this information should be removed pending confirmation by a present-day expert source in pathology. Nihil novi (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Mind you, I may be wrong here - I just assumed that this claim is a trivia like fact making fun of Curie's misunderstanding of radiation and cancer. If I am wrong, I'd strongly suggesting rewording this, with (referenced) qualification of importance - why we should care about this particular finding? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
For now, I've moved the text from its previous awkward, disruptive placement. Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Who coined the term radioactivity?

Was the term "radioactivity" coined by Marie (as per the lead) or by Marie and Pierre (as per the "New elements" section? Nihil novi (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the lead claim is unreferenced, I'll bring it in line with the new elements section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Affair: BLP

   I am treating the following problem with the urgency that WP:BLP explicitly calls for.
   I found:

In 1911, it was revealed that in 1910–11 Curie had conducted an affair of about a year's duration with physicist Paul Langevin, a former student of Pierre's. He was a married man who was estranged from his wife.... Later, Curie's granddaughter, Hélène Joliot, married Langevin's grandson, Michel Langevin.
Despite that,... in 1911 ...

   That is not just open to misinterpretation -- which results from the way the sentence "Later, Curie's granddaughter, Hélène Joliot, married Langevin's grandson, Michel Langevin"

interrupts the logical and temporal continuity between the two 'graphs, and
more specifically, changes the grammatical referent of "[Despite] that" from the affair and scandal in one generation to the marriage two generations later,

thereby suggesting that the granddaughter is in some sense part of the "scandal". In that context, it predisposes readers to drawing false conclusions that can be viewed as negative information about a living person: as if the granddaughter

  • were descended from an adulterous conception by her grandfather,
    • which was also non-marital sex by her grandmother
      • while that grandmother's husband was living, and
  • had married a first cousin.

Careful readers of related articles will see that not even one of those four bullet-pointed elements is the case.
   I remove that sentence without prejudice to the possibility that something -- for example, along the lines of putting the offending sentence in parentheses -- would sufficiently establish that what i've removed is not part of the flow from the preceding sentence to the next 'graph. But BLP's requirement for immediate removal would be a sham, unless replacement awaits an explicit consensus that a specific replacement solves the problem (and does not create a new, similar BLP violation).
--Jerzy•t 08:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully follow your explanation, but I have no objection to the removal of this sentence. Is there anything else you'd like to do? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not instead move the sentence into a note? It is interesting information; if it in some way impedes the main text, putting it into a note would resolve the problem. Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
   A note sounds promising, especially as it could be clearer than a replacement sentence: removing the side topic from the main flow of the article provides "elbow room" that could used to clarify its point more explicitly than the number of words i removed could manage; any additional clause or sentence inline would pretty surely be worse than what i removed, but even several sentences could be accommodated in a note, pointing out how old the relevant daughter was when the (presumptive) father died (and perhaps even how cold his corpse was when the affair took place). There's enuf info in the article (or at least in what it links) that a motivated reader would find it, but the rem'd sentence was tenuously enuf related to its context to invite sensationalist guesses about why the contributor thot it was worth including. (And i'm not arguing it has too little relevance for inclusion, but rather that as it stood it was too confusing to tolerate.)
--Jerzy•t 08:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Her real name was Maria Skłodowska-Curie - why people does not respect her wishes?

"Maria Skłodowska-Curie is often simply called Madame Curie these days and if her name is mentioned, it is given in its French form as Marie. That bugs me a little, and I dare say it would bug the great lady herself. She was Polish, lived in Poland for almost a quarter of a century, and double-barreled her last name so as not to have to give up her Polish identity and made sure her two daughters learned her native language (btw: fun fact for the day Skłodowska-Curie’s daughter and son-in-law also won Nobel prizes, making them just about the most Nobel Prize-rich family). What’s more, she named the first radioactive element she discovered >>Polonium<<, so as to honor her native country. Being Polish was obviously a pretty big deal to her and an important part of her identity, so why do we keep ignoring it for the sake of ease of pronunciation? I don’t think that’s very fair – we owe her the discovery of radioactivity and the mastering of the medical x-ray. We could at least be bothered to thank her by calling her by the name she preferred. What’s more, by calling her simply Curie we ignore her conscious rebuttal of patriarchal rules, by which she should have simply taken her husband’s name. It’s still an uncommon thing today and was nearly unheard of back in Skłodowska’s days and do we really want to simply ignore her strong convictions and ideals for the sake of phonetic simplicity?"

Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.174.12 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


I know it has been discussed before but I can see a recent tendency toward Marie Skłodowska-Curie in the West which makes a basis to change the article name form Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska-Curie. It's not a matter of her wish and national sentiments but from the official point of view John Smith-Scott is not the same person as John Scott. Nobel Prize diploma was awarded to Marie Skłodowska-Curie, original grave in Paris (before moving to Pantheon) as well as Pantheon one gives Marie Curie-Skłodowska. The Marie Curie Actions has been recently renamed the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in recognition of the scientist’s full name [official document realesed by this organisation]. Marie Curie is an incorrect widespread acronym, its widespread usage is not an argument for its further usage, just the opposite, it underlines the importance of the true and official name promotion.
Even if she was signing her publications with the name "Skłodowska-Curie", I am not aware that she was opposing being called simply "Curie" in other contexts (Indeed, her daughter titled the biography of her mother "Madame Curie"). As for incorrect widespread acronym, the "widespread" is important here. Bill Clinton may not be have Bill as an official first name, this is what appear on the title of his main page, because that is the name by which everybody knows him.Tokidokix (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship: Poland - by birth?

It's highly unlikely that she could attain a Polish citizenship at birth as by the time she was born Kingdom of Poland has been already fully integrated into the Russian Empire85.177.169.216 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore Ethnicity or Nationality instead, as it was asked before. Don't know why it has been changed to 'citizenship'..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marie_Curie/Archive_3&oldid=1136990527"