Talk:Marie Curie

edit requests

• The introduction notes that Curie was "the only person to win the Nobel Prize in two different scientific fields", while the Marie Curie#Nobel Prizes section correctly notes that Linus Pauling#Nobels also shares this distinction. The introduction should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.172.24 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Please add this hatnote:

"Madame Curie" redirects here. For other uses, see Madame Curie (disambiguation).

• OR add Madame Curie (disambiguation) to the Marie Curie#See also section.

• Also consider adding this hatnote:

For the singer-songwriter, see Marie Currie.

• In the Marie Curie#Honours, tributes section, please change

In November 2019, a play about Curie’s friendship with engineer-mathematician-physicist-inventor-suffragist Hertha Ayrton, The Half-Life of Marie Curie (https://web.archive.org/web/20191221081527/https://thehalflifeofmariecurie.com/), opened at the Minetta Lane Theatre, in New York City. It was written by Lauren Gunderson, directed by Gaye Taylor Upchurch, and starred Kate Mulgrew and Francesca Faridany.

to

In November 2019, a play about Curie’s friendship with engineer-mathematician-physicist-inventor-suffragist Hertha Ayrton, The Half-Life of Marie Curie, opened at the Minetta Lane Theatre, in New York City. It was written by Lauren Gunderson, directed by Gaye Taylor Upchurch, and starred Kate Mulgrew and Francesca Faridany.

...or is that a primary source and third party references are necessary to verify/notability? in which case the paragraph should perhaps be completely removed.

Thanks.

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

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

       Pierre Curie ​(m. 1859; died 1906) Darrenstreet (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

restoration of edits / avoidance of amputations

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

• previous caption: "At First Solvay Conference (1911), ..." is grammatically wrong. Note there is/was no such proper noun thing as "First Solvay Conference".
• change: "At the first Solvay Conference (1911), ...". Fixes the problem. I don't understand why that would be reverted.

• previous sentence: "She saw a need for field radiological centres near the front lines to assist battlefield surgeons." This is explicitly, oddly, stating that the purpose is to help the surgeons, perhaps like serving them cappucinos at their coffee breaks would help them, and does not address the huge and obvious reason why/how x-rays help the wounded soldiers
• change: "She saw a need for field radiological centres near the front lines to assist battlefield surgeons, including to obviate amputations of limbs. This addresses those problems. The big huge point presented easily in the movie by Marie Curie's daughter, by introducing her to three amputees, is that there were huge numbers of amputations going on because surgeons could not distinguish between lesser and more severe problems. At a later point in the movie, Marie Curie exclaims to an official who was not releasing funding, that men having sprained ankles were getting amputations. It is a movie, yes, but I believe the film-maker about this major way that having x-ray technology available at the field hospitals of the French army would/did make a difference. The previous language, omitting this, was lame-o (technical term).

References

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

I have reduced "First Solvay Conference" to lower-case "first Solvay Conference".

Photo captions generally do not use as many article adjectives as ordinary texts. In this case, there is no requirement for a "the" before "first Solvay Conference".

X-rays have enabled surgeons to pinpoint internal damages to all bodily organs, not merely to the upper and lower limbs. If Marie Curie specifically emphasized arms and legs, please provide a more reliable source than a movie.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, about the last, done. About the first, well "At the first Solvay Conference" is grammatically correct, and "At first Solvay Conference" is not, so I fixed that again too. I suggest that before accurate info is again removed, or grammatical errors are again restored, that some others consider this. Call an RFC perhaps, or get a third opinion using the dispute resolution service for that. This interaction started off badly, with me responding not so well to what I perceived, and still perceive, as rudeness and arrogance. Maybe I was wrong though. I would welcome some others' help. --Doncram (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Years of birth/death for Pierre

Might want to fix that.. the numbers are swapped. He was born in 59. Not 95. As it stands - it seems as if he died at 11. Whyforartthou (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the entry in the infobox, it states "m. 1895", meaning "married in 1895". Mindmatrix 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

Change Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska-Curie or Marie Sklodowska-Curie .

Skłodowska (or just Sklodowska) is her maiden name! She adopted Curie when she got married, and she kept both names. You rob her of her heritage by not using her full name!

Source Polish encyclopaedia: https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/Sklodowska-Curie-Maria;3975962.html LukKur (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME – Thjarkur (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a "-" between names. Its not Sklodowska Curie, but Sklodowska-Curie. Look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Louis-Dreyfus. This is the same situation so common name does not apply. You are just artificially cutting her name in half. This is incorrect, simply not her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukKur (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Obligatory [ngram https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Marie+Curie%2C+Marie+Sk%C5%82odowska-Curie%2C++Marie+Sklodowska-Curie&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CMarie%20Curie%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CMarie%20Sk%C5%82odowska%20-%20Curie%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CMarie%20Sklodowska%20-%20Curie%3B%2Cc0].TR 13:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)