Talk:Marie Curie/Archive 1

message: "...
she was not allowed admission into any Russian or Polish universities..."
There were no Polish universities at that time. It was just after January Uprising and all Polish universities were shut down by Russians.
"She and Linus Pauling are the only two people who have won Nobel Prizes in two different fields." Huh???? What about Einstein?
:Einstein won it once, and not even for the theory of relativity, but for the photoelectric effect. Einstein did 4 major publications: in 1905, special relativity, the photoelectric effect, and Brownian motion; later, general relativity. However, he did only get once the Nobel. David.Monniaux 09:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what it's saying. --Fastfission 02:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: I have reverted to MOSforever's version because 24.13.141.112 added copyvio content from Britannica. A couple of recent changes to the remaining content have been restored. GeorgeStepanek\talk  20:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of copyvio content

message: After all of my studies, I still remain unconvinced on the veracity of the Langevin Scandal. That such stories were circulated by a zealous press is true, but whether an affair between Marie and a married man ever happened is questionable. In fairness to historic accuracy, this article should reflect that whether such an affair really happened is unknown. Her five closest friends, repected academians, testified that the press' accounts were bitterly concocted and the letters forged.
--Chrisbaird.ma 01:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction on the Langevin Scandal 

message: I read in the article she's been Polish-born French-chemist. It's a lie. She was Polish-chemist. A woman that leaves her home country and marries a foreigner doesn't make herself French. Remember that both her parents were Poles (and of course Maria was born in Poland - though occupied by Russians).
:I was going to agree, but now I'm not sure.  I checked some other articles that I thought might support a change to "Polish chemist", and some agreed and some did not.  For example, Louis Agassiz is a "Swiss-born American zoologist", but Leonhard Euler is still a "Swiss mathematician" even though his work was in St. Petersburg and Berlin.  I can really see it both ways.  Perhaps you could explain why you think moving to France, acquiring a French family, and living, working one's whole life, and dying in France does not make one a French chemist? -- Dominus 13:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if she'd been a chemist in Poland, you might see her called a "Polish chemist" more often.  Identify her as a "Polish nanny" if you like.  Gene Nygaard 13:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you just shut up. Just because stupid France has no body to brag about doesn't mean they can steal other people from other countries. 
Sure, I will!Greg, 02 Sept, 2:50 PM (GMT)
The thing is, Marie Curie obtained French citizenship. She possibly also had Polish citizenship. However, she did all her higher education and scientific work in France. In Poland, she could not even study chemistry, let alone be a chemist!
Frédéric Chopin is known in France as a Polish musician. As far as I know, Chopin never requested French citizenship.
Benoît Mandelbrot is a French mathematician because he has French citizenship, despite working in the United States and being born in Poland. (Additionally, he did all his studies in France.) If he had acquired US citizenship, we would call him a Polish-born US mathematician. (In addition, I heard Mandelbrot in person mocking people who pronounce him a American mathematician, saying that he was French and never acquired US citizenship.) David.Monniaux 15:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that citizenship always gives the correct answer here either, because by that criterion, Skłodowska-Curie was not only not a Polish chemist, she was not a Polish anything; she never held Polish citizenship.  The answer must be more complicated and less clearly-defined.  -- Dominus 18:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it becomes even simpler. She did all her higher studies in France, as well as all her career, held French citizenship, was married to a Frenchman, and all her family stayed in France. She didn't renege on her birth country (she had an element named Polonium etc.) though but I don't think this outweighs the rest. David.Monniaux 05:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it becomes more complicated, not less so.   Nobody held Polish citizenship at that time, as Poland had been annexed by Russia.  I think it is unreasonable to say that there were no Polish chemists, no Polish bakers, no Polish children at that time.  Poles still existed as a culture and an ethnic group.  The nonexistence of an official Polish citizenship does not mean that there were no Poles; it means you cannot use citizenship as a criterion in deciding whether or not someone was Polish.   I am sorry to have been so oblique in my earlier message.  -- Dominus 13:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You talk of Nationality, Citizenship, Roots, Achievements ? All both I would say. She had deeps concerns and the feeling of her political dutys to help Poland case more that scientific ambitions until Pierre put before her the rational dynamic of Love and Science teamwork, said work you can't -isolate- from her husband, and local "brain environnment" and support how short it was. She was pure will (polish or family history ?) and courage, scientist, woman, wife and mother and teacher. Her loves was in french in France (there if you speak french and are of some worth you are French in France heart, may take some time ...), her husband was a (french) scientist, nobels were in France (how little the meaning it have when you work for Knowledge). Work was first for their French Family and children, Fame become for mankind including Poland. She was known around the world as Marie Curie and Madame Curie for the Nobel prizes, in Poland the Curie(s) institute became Marie Curie (Sklodowska) then Maria Curie-Sklodowska then Maria Sklodowska (Curie) when the country don't need nationalism anymore. Today some revisionnist Pole put the 1/4 nobel in Polish section, Becquerel and Pierre in nowhere, Irene and Curie are still too bigs to go stealth under the carpet. Don't you know anything about Slave evil's games..?
"Don't you know anything about Slave evil's games..?"
Is it a joke?...
=== French chemist?  Marie Curie was SO MORE  ===
 
Sure we need to know from the start of MARIE CURIE article what her birthname was (she put Skłodowski in her customs papers)  BUT :
 
The current article chronology IS somewhat twisted by Skłodowska/Dolega lobbysts :
From it, it seems Maria studied freely on Bronya's money, the other way is closer to truth,
by the way she also choosed the Marie firstname in France. 
Then we get the feeling that from the start she had always wanted to do research with a hint on her futur path to the Nobel prize, she was the chemist of the pair and was the more qualified to choose the reactions to isolate the unknown element, guided by Pierre's electrometer readings. 
No doubt she loved Poland and Poland's people since her first goal was to return to Poland to teach there (more than her sister's couple and their free ride activist hobby in Paris). But in fact it was Pierre's many marriage proposals, which she initially refused, who won her to do research together.
I understand that Barbara Goldsmith needs to sell her new book on some PC/feminist trend and that all polish who can cry Dolega (tens of unrelated families) on Battle ground want to call her now Skłodowska and put Curie somewhere else (thanks for her children and true family).
The pacifists and idealistics they were must appreciate the touch. If Poland had been a free country in their time Polonium atomic number would be > 86 now.
I would like to read the description of Poland situation at this time to explain the choice, better than the lengthy nonsense about Langevin affair and anti-Semitism in place of sexism, puritanism, nobel no-rule race and yes xenophobia in between the WW from right wing toilet paper. The same type who want to call her Maria Skłodowska Dolega now wanted to defame her then. 
What was her mum birth name by the way for the matriarchal type ? Be coherent.
please read :
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/curie/index.html
ps: please rest assured that Poland from Napoleon to WWII start to today's wars, was Never in France an "unknown land".
ps2: nobody to replace the hideous Polish bank note by the prettier Marie(& heavier;-) french one ?
Happy to know so much about rupies change rate, Dolega !
===Recent reversion===
A recent edit by Miskin, described as "She was Polish, get over it", also changed all the "ł" symbols to "Ŭ" symbols, which surely isn't right, and breaks many links.  I have no opinion on whether Curie was French or Polish.  I reverted Miskin's changes only to fix the orthography.  -- Dominus 14:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French or Polish? 

message: A recent edit by Miskin, described as "She was Polish, get over it", also changed all the "ł" symbols to "Ŭ" symbols, which surely isn't right, and breaks many links.  I have no opinion on whether Curie was French or Polish.  I reverted Miskin's changes only to fix the orthography.  -- Dominus 14:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reversion

message: I've reverted as someone changed her nationality in the infobox to Polish only (which wasn't changed in the main text) and made the first mention of her name in the lead into the Polish version, when it was already stated in brackets straight afterwards.  I thought it was a bit strange and probably POV pushing, so I changed it back.  Personally, I have no view on the nationality thing (I always thought she was French, but am aware popular perceptions can be soo wrong), so I don't think I'm POV pushing, I just thought it was our best consensus.  If someone else thinks I did the wrong thing you can change it back. Terri G 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another reversion

message: Feel free to take issue with me over my pronunciation of non-English words. That way I might come closer to getting it right the next time.  :)  --Macropode 13:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation in the spoken version 

message: I think part of the confusion is from the different understanding of the words. In Polish, narodowosc is something totally different from obywatelstwo (nationality vs citizenship) that's why here people preferred to use "ethnicity". Simply, in XIX century Poland did not existed, but Poles were nto seeing themselves as Prussians, Russians and Austrians, and moreover were not seen as such by the respective states. Sklodowska-Curie was raised in culture, where nationality was case of one's choice and not of citizenship. Similarly, if I would move to France and had French citizenship, I would object to being called French. 
I won't touch the article since I don't won't to provoke revert wars, but is simple as that.
The other example posted here (Charpak etc) are wrong, since the quoted scientists were nto tied as strong to Polish culture as Curie-Sklodowska
Szopen 13:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [ Nationality/ethnicity ]=

message: Im curious by what is written below her portrait on the page - it says that her notes were recently decontaminated - How and when was this acomplished ?  Does anyone have a link to a news article about it ? Dowew 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radioactive notes ? 

message: I removed this temporarily. May be interesting if ref. and cited. As such, difficult to understand/verify.  "She had absorbed so much radiation her fingerprints can still be seen on her journal, now stored in a lead box(Marcus Chown, The Magic Furnace)." pschemp | talk 07:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: factoid

message: Please read the Rosalind Franklin article and contribute to the peer review. Alun 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosalind Franklin peer review

message: she moved to Paris and studied chemistry and physics at the Sorbonne,
isn't math and physics correct?
--84.63.34.9 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  failure? 

message: is there a source for the claim that she was an atheist? I've only found info suggesting that she was a lapsed Catholic. . Homagetocatalonia 19:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: Madam Curie was more of a physicist than a chemist. I don't understand how she is just a "chemist" given the fact that she studied physics, headed a physics department, and did research on it. That is the reason I added "physicist," to her professional description. --Ur
Shame the first sentence doesn't read well now, I'll try to sort it out but other people should take a look. Terri G 11:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I've sorted it out, please feel free to check it over though, I'm a scientist, not a writer. Terri G 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just chemist 

message: Note, although Marie Curie's 1903 Nobel Prize was shared between three people, Marie was awarded 1/4 of it,  Pierre Curie 1/4 and Antoine Becquerel 1/2.  See: The 1903 Physics page on the Nobel Prize website. I reverted the edit by 213.40.3.65
Personaly I'd prefer to see the article talk about two prizes in general and detail the quarter share when talking in detail about the 1903 prize - as the Nobel Prize website does. --SiobhanHansa 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not 1/3 of a Nobel prize 

message: The two templates at the bottom of the article ( and
) are closed (whereas on all other pages they are open. I can't seem to fix it -- could someone a bit more knowledgable give it a shot? 24.126.199.129 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with templates at bottom

message: I've done a bit of rephrasing in the biography section because at least some of it sounded slightly strange, perhaps someone whose first language is not English had added it.  There is still one sentence that sounds particularly strange, which I have left in for the moment, as I don't know the truth of the matter.
"After graduating from high school at the top of her class at the age of fifteen, she was depleted of energy and was sent to the countryside to recover."
Apparently this has replaced something that mentions her having a nervous breakdown, which could have been changed due to the negative connotations of having a breakdown, but the replacement text sounds strange and unscientific, and without inline references who knows which is closer to the truth either. Terri G 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing

message: Although I don't recall the source, I remember reading that the Nobel committee originally nominated Pierre Curie but not Marie.  He campaigned for his wife's inclusion in the award because her contribution had been more significant than his own - and her subsequent inclusion entailed a substantial bending of Nobel committee rules.  It would reveal more to discuss that in depth than to analyze the "share" of cumulative Nobel prizes she earned. Durova 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly wasn't an online source.  Ruth Sime's Lise Meitner: A Life in Physics might have a mention of it.  I would imagine any dead-tree biography of Curie should describe it also. Durova 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've located two sources.  Could someone with a little more time than I have insert this in the article? Durova 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1903 Nobel Prize

message: It appears there have been some fact changes is the last few days, and I'm not sure which are right, although I suspect they are spurious. The edits I am concerned about are by Kowalmistrz 20:24, 3 September 2006 (changed nationality back to Polish only) and 70.171.211.111 20:02, 3 September 2006 (some material facts changed slightly). 
I might leave a note on their pages if I can work out how.Terri G 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nationality thing is an ongoing issue on this article.  If you look further back on the talk page you can see some heavy POV pushing.  The (fragile) solution appeared to be to call her Polish - French.  But her nationality gets changed a once or twice a week anyway.  The other edits you noticed are definately someone playing a game.  A quick check easily confirms MC was the first women nobel prize winner, she died in 1934 not 1935, and the mobile radiography units were definitely "little curies" not big ones :-)  Well noticed!  I'll change it all back -- SiobhanHansa 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact changes

message: There is some disagreement over the infobox_scientist template.  The template has been nominated for deletion and an IP has replaced it on this page (an numerous others) with the basic bio infobox.  I reverted that change and cleaned up some of the problem fields.  But I think it's something editors of this page should weigh in on, rather than it be about an infobox war.  Personally I'm in favor of the template.  I think it provides good summary information in an easy to find format that's makes comparisons with her fellow scientists straight forward and highlights her notability.  There are discussions on the template page to slim the number of fields down somewhat and I think that will improve it.  If we don't go with this box, I'd prefer to see the article go back to the picture with general description (see here) than the plain bio infobox, which doesn't seem that informative to me.  Other thoughts?  --SiobhanHansa 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't disagree more. Those infoboxes not only destroy the layout of the article, but it is superfluous as well. A well written article has that information clearly organized in the text, which makes the box unnecessary.  The problem with wikipedia as I see it that there is a dearth of people who are willing to invest the time and effort to write a really good article. Instead what we get is a collection of boxes and templates, which do not add anything but only distract from the task which is really ahead of us: writing good articles. I have made an effort to write some good articles myself, and nothing is more de-motivating than to see how your best effort is being undone by people who are sticking in those infoboxes.  Yet another thing is that the info in those boxes turns out to be notoriously unreliable. What it shows is that the people who are obsessed by those infoboxes are unwilling to put in the time and effort to verify and double check the information that goes into it. I did correct some of it, but I have given up on it: If I am going to spend time on Wikipedia I should devote that to writing good articles, not to fixing the stupidities of others.  Lastly, and that has really turned me off, is that the infobox addicts often copy/paste whole sections from biographies they find on the internet; that clearly is a copyvio. Once again, what people really should be doing is put in the time and effort to read up to a certain subject, and write a good article from scratch; that is what Wikipedia is all about. Obviously, I am going to remove that silly infobox again; plese please don't stick it back in again. JdH 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a big fan of writing good articles too.  But I also see a lot of value in presenting information in ways that are accessible to many different readers with different needs.  Since this appears to be your first time on this article, you don't seem to have put much time and effort into developing it.  Without community support for the removal of infoboxes in general, your hit and run approach to this article is not particularly cooperative and smacks of the sort of behavior you accuse infobox proponents of.  I'm not a fan of edit warring, so I'll be waiting for responses from editors who are involved with the article before I make further edits on the box. --SiobhanHansa 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The image of the 500 French Franc note was ripped (and resized) from the one on my website (http://www.umich.edu/~jbourj/money1.htm) but no acknowledgment is given. (Check the serial number). I do in fact own the copyright of the scanned image and will allow it on this page only if it is given citation. ~Jacob Bourjaily
The "Tribute" section is very much trivia laden.  Might that material be incorporated into the broader article?Olin 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Marie Curie]] 

message: On the top right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.1.27 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hi. I made a few minor adjustments (gender does not mean quite the same as sex, curium does not need a capital, we don't use Spring xxxx for dates, etc), and was reverted by Logologist. I would never edit-war over such small issues, but I believe my edits unambiguously improved the article. If anyone disagrees, here would be a good place to discuss it. --Guinnog 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having heard to the contrary, I will reinstate my copyedit. --Guinnog 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have checked first. Thanks, Gwernol, for reinstating my edit. --Guinnog 10:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor copyedit reverted 

message: Why don't you get rid of the revert war by removing her nationality from her contributions to society?  Just call her a physicist and chemist.  That's basically what the French version of this article does and it works pretty well.  Later sentences already say where she was born and how she moved to France. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonemerson (talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be better than awkwardly calling her "Polish-French" in the lead.  Nihil novi 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just call her a chemist and physicist

message: Most of the text seems to have come from here. This is a shocking state for one of our core articles. User:Veesicle 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Why does the infobox state "polish" for nationality? This is plainly false for a person who held French citizenship and whose remains were put inside the Pantheon (which is btw not mentioned in the article). In my opinion the "nationality" field should say 'French', and the lead should say 'Polish'. This sounds like a good compromise. Miskin 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should state both in the info box; I believe that is the consensus. I have restored the two flags. --Guinnog 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did she even have a Polish nationality? Miskin 16:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article makes clear, this is complicated by the fact that Poland was effectively part of Russia at this time. Calling her Polish/French seems like a fair summation of her nationality. I am less convinced that we need to show the two flags as well; that seems like overkill and begs this question of the complexity of her nationality. --Guinnog 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's why I asked. The fact remains that she had only French nationality. I'm also of the opinion that she should be credited as Polish, after all she never forgot her Polish origin, but that doesn't justify such anachronistic implications on the infobox. Miskin 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree with this. Anybody mind if we take down the flags? The Polish flag is anachronistic for Curie anyway. No information would be lost, as we would still call her Polish-French in text. --Guinnog 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means dump the flags.  But let's not lose sight of the distinction between nationality and citizenship.  She was ethnically Polish, but a French citizen (by the way, after November 11, 1918, did she claim Polish citizenship?). I would suggest listing her in the infobox as being of Polish ethnicity, but of French (and Polish?) citizenship.  Nihil novi 05:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Some Poles in the 20th century went through half a dozen citizenships in the course of their lives — most of those citizenships, involuntarily — while remaining Poles.  Nihil novi 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Should it be included in the article that Marie Curie is an anagram of "Came Radium"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.203.33 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, but it probably makes sense to add anagrams to featured articles, like George Washington or The Iraq War, before you start adding anagrams everywhere. </sarcasm> Jonemerson 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marie Curie is not an anagram of Came Radium. Sorry. 24.144.151.11 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anagram 

message: I don't recall where I read that it was unfortunate that Marie Curie named this particular element "polonium," in view of its short half-life and the metaphorical implications for her native land, if it regained independence.  The remark might have been in Eve Curie's biography.  But... if this gets deleted, it's no crucial matter.  Nihil novi 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She named it Polonium after Poland, where she grew up. 24.144.151.11 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Polonium

message: I would guess there may be dozens of elementary and secondary schools in the world that have been named in honor of Marie Curie or Maria Skłodowska-Curie.  If that is so, is there need to mention any of them in the article's "Tribute" section?  Nihil novi 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All the [[Marie Curie]] schools

message: The sentence "Eventually they studied radioactive materials, particularly pitchblende — the ore from which uranium was extracted — which had the curious property of being more radioactive than the uranium extracted from it." is repetitive. I suggest removing the inset text as the following is a superset of that information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.188.80 (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Great suggestion.  Please make any adjustments you deem appropriate.  Nihil novi 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit

message: Why is there so little discussion of Marie Curie's actual science on this page?  Compare with Pierre Curie's.  Compare with ANY Nobel prize winner's.  Though probably unintentional, this looks to me like typical scientific chauvinism.  Come on, let's aim higher than a People magazine style biography.
Before you launch personal attacks, this is coming from a man, by the way.
71.240.88.128 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring omission: Marie Curie's science! 

message: Ci is the unit of radioactivity. Cm is the element. In the quote it is the unit of radioactivity.
--Anon126 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: --Ahem--