Talk:Marie Curie

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 [1]; 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: [2]: "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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 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 [3] 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)

"was a Polish physicist and chemist"?

The intro of this article seems to me quite biased towards preserving the pride of Polish nationalism. There is a full paragraph about how she "never lost her sense of Polish identity". While this information is probably worth mentioning, I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned in the introduction. This is not what she is known for, and the fact she was teaching Polish to her children cannot be put on equal footing with her scientific achievement.

Also, the first sentence describing her as "Polish working mainly in France" is, I think, misleading. It is not only that she did her scientific work in France. She married a Frenchman with whom she had children, had French citizenship, spent most of her life in France, died in France and was buried in France. Her descendants are also French living in France. Trying to imply that she only had a professional link with France is misrepresenting her life. Furthermore this is inconsistent with most other wikipedia entries of people having several nationalities. For example, John Von Neumann is described as "Hungarian-born American mathematician", even though he was living in Hungary until at least 22. Similarly, Benoit Mandelbrodt is a "Polish-born French and American mathematician". So the convention seem to be "BirthNationality-born CountryLivedInAndNationalityObtainedWhenDoingWork Qualifier". That would translate as "Polish-born French physicist". Since some people above seem to have issues with this, an alternative could be "Polish and French physicist" or "Polish-born French-naturalized physicist". But in any case I do think "Polish working mainly in France" is very misleading and should be changed. 130.54.130.234 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely something wrong in the phrasing of the first sentence.

First it is inconsistent with other biographical entries. I saw the comparison above with Albert Einstein and Walter Kohn being dismissed on the basis of a difference of age at the time of moving (17 vs 24). Where exactly did you found the wikipedia rule saying that this makes any difference (and what would be the precise age limit that separates one case for the other?) Or did you just made that up?

But these entries are not the only one relevants anyway. John von Neumann moved to USA at age 27 and is "Hungarian-born American scientist". Nikola Tesla moved to USA at age 28 and is "Serbian-born American physicist". The list could grow quite long. In non-scientific biography, the rule is usually the same: you can find that Arnold Schwarzenegger is an "Australian-born American actor", while Josephine Baker is an " American-born French dancer". Generally speaking, all this examples tend to use the country of residence and nationality at the time of the notable work of the person.

Further, in WP:MOSBIO, section "Opening Paragraph", you can find the following recommendations: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)" should be "for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Furthermore, it is explictly written: "Ethnicity should not be emphasized in the opening" and "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence". Marie Curie became notable for and during her work done in France, while she had French nationality, and France was at the time (and remained for her whole life) her country of permanent residency. All of these recommendations point to qualifying Marie Curie as "French physicist" and not "Polish physicist".

Therefore I see strictly no case for using "Polish physicist". Consistency with other biography alone is a strong enough motivation for changing back to "Polish-born French physicist". (Having read many other biographies of persons with similar life, the sentence "Polish physicist that worked mainly in France" gave me the impression she was never even given French nationality).Tokidokix (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to add that this is not something about nationalistic pride (and it should not be). I would personally prefer it very much if Wikipedia policy was to forbid mentioning nationality/ethnicity of scientists in their introduction (as introduction should focus on their achievements and those have universal value). However, if nationality is going to be mentioned, it should be in a way that is neither misleading nor inconsistent with wikipedia entries/policies. Tokidokix (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Curie was Polish by birth and by strong association with the language and culture. She was French by marriage and by adult residence and research location. She never applied for French citizenship as it was not needed because of her marriage to a Frenchman. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not addressing any of my issues. And further I don't see how anything you said would go against calling her "Polish-born French". Her association to Poland by birth is covered by the "Polish-born". It is a fact that she was French (as "having French nationality" is one of the most common meaning for the adjective "French", and she had french nationality). The specific way in which she got French nationality has no relevance into that (further, have you even documented proof that French nationality laws of that time was granting automatic French citizenship? Nowadays you certainly have a lot of paperwork to do to get the French nationality, even if you married a French national). Further the association of Marie Curie with France is certainly at least as strong as her association with Poland. France was the country in which she chose to live most of her life, the country in which her family was, the country which she supported in times of war, and the country in which she did all her notable work. She certainly could have, at several point of her life, chosen to return to Poland and finish her days there, but she chose not to. There is further no evidence that I know that she opposed being mentioned as French.

And anyway, I reiterate here: your edit is totally lacking of consistency with other Wikipedia article of people with similar biography, as well as not following WP:MOSBIO.

By the way, if anything WP:MOSBIO makes a much stronger case for mentioning her as French only without mentioning the Polish-part than the opposite: the context information in the opening should be the one relevant for the notable work of the person. She would not have done her work on radioactivity if she had not come to work with Bequerelle who had just discovered it. And she did her notable work in France, with French nationality, with French colleagues and husband. On the other hand, except for the fact of naming one element Polonium, I don't see any association between her notable work and Poland. So following strictly WP:MOSBIO would lead to "French Physicist" and not even "Polish-born French physicist" (but I am not even asking for that anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and finally: the online Encyclopaedia Britannica do mention her as "Polish-born French" in their introduction: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/146871/Marie-Curie . It would seem to me that it is a pretty objective source (as in "established" and "neither French not Polish") Tokidokix (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The question of nationality is not so cut-and-dried as you suggest. Kurt Gödel (1906-78) appears on Wikipedia as "an Austrian logician, mathematician, and philosopher," though he lived most of his life in the United States (from 1940), became a U.S. citizen in 1947, and did much of his important work there. Nihil novi (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is described in his Wikipedia lead simply as "a German-born theoretical physicist..." though he did his most memorable work as a Swiss citizen, lived his last 22 years in the United States, and died an American citizen. Nihil novi (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I will give you that wikipedia is not 100% self-consistent on these things. But the pattern I have described do seem to be applied most of the time. As for Godel, he did his most notable work (incompleteness theorem) while still in Austria, so this is not the same case anyway.

I see that, while not further discussing here, user Binksternet has changed the intro to "French Polish physicist". I would not have liked this to turn into an edit war, so I wanted to say that I appreciate that he tried to revert the page to a more consensual version. I am still slightly annoyed that this wording lacks consistency with other wikipedia entries/encyclopaedia, but at least I don't see it as a misrepresentation of the life of Marie Curie anymore. Since I'd rather not use too much of my (and other's) time for this, if "French Polish physicist" is considered acceptable by all, I will be content with this edit and stop the discussion here for my part. Tokidokix (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Susan Quinn writes in her Marie Curie: A Life (Da Capo Press, 1995, ISBN 0201887940) that Curie was Polish by birth and by culture. Nowhere in the book does she describe Curie as French. When Quinn encounters French claims that Curie was French (with her Polish heritage mentioned in passing if at all) Quinn points this out as hypocrisy (see page 192.)
• Eve Curie writes in her Madame Curie: A Biography (Da Capo Press, 2001, ISBN 0306810387 reprint) that, as a married woman Curie "retained the audacity and vehemence of a young Polish 'progressive'" (page 356.) Nowhere in the book does Eva say that Curie is French. Eva says Curie preferred to write and speak Polish, and that she was culturally Polish.
• Janice Borzendowski writes in Marie Curie: Mother of Modern Physics (Sterling, 2009, ISBN 1402765436) that Curie was remained very proud of her Polish heritage all her life. Nowhere in the book does she say Curie is French. Borzendowski emphasizes Curie's Polish cultural ties, and her naming of polonium for Poland.
• Barbara Goldsmith says in Obsessive Genius: The Inner World of Marie Curie (Norton, 2011, ISBN 0393079767) that Curie was filled with Polish patriotism. Never once does Goldsmith say that Curie is French.

I think the reason so many biographers dwell on the Polish culture of Curie is that she was so vehemently Polish in her life. If she had turned away from Poland and fully adopted French culture we would have a different story. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

These are excellent grounds for considering her Polish, and therefore a "Polish physicist and chemist". Her descendants, reared in France in French culture, may well consider themselves primarily French, but she herself was very much a Polish person living and working in France. Her sister Bronisława, for whom Maria built the Warsaw Radium Institute, berated Joseph Conrad, visiting Poland in 1914, for writing his novels in English rather than Polish. Nihil novi (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how is that even relevant to this discussion? We are not discussing the nationality of Marie Curie's sister here.Tokidokix (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think that you are getting the wrong idea about what should be the mention of nationalities in the introduction of a wikipedia article: it should be about objective facts like official nationality and residence, context of work etc. Feeling of nationalism are too subjective to evaluate anyway. But anyway, even if you want to consider feelings of nationalism, I still have to disagree with you. You seem to consider that her feeling Polish would be exclusive with her feeling French: still many people can have feeling of affection for both their country of origin and country of attachment. Also, a person feeling do not have to be the same through all of her life: Marie Curie was probably feeling mostly Polish during her first year in France, but she quite possibly was feeling more French than Polish 30 years later. So pointing at her being a Polish nationalist at some point of her life is not even a proof that she stayed in the same state of mind for all of her life. As for the biography quotes above, I am quite surprised with the statement by Binksternet that the biography Madame Curie by Marie Curie's own daughter do not refer to her as French. Either we do not have the same version of the book, or you did not really read it. Here are some quotes where she is called a Frenchwoman by her own daughter:

• About the choice of the name Polonium: "The choice of this name proves that in becoming a Frenchwoman and a physicist Marie had not disowned her former enthusiasms."
• "The Austrian government, which was the proprietor of the State factory there, decided to present a ton of residue to the two French "lunatics" who thought they needed it." (The 2 French lunatics are Marie and Pierre Curie)
• After the death of Pierre: "Gouy informed the dean of the faculty of their conviction: that Marie was the only French physicist capable of pursuing the work she and Pierre had undertaken"
• On her attitude during WWI: "Marie had only one thought: to serve her second fatherland."
• It is also said that while she wanted her daughters to know about Poland, she wanted them to be Frenchwomen: "And as she had not established the cult of the vanished scientist in her house, neither did she establish the cult of martyred Poland. She wished Irene and Eve to learn Polish, and for them to know and love her native land. But she deliberately made true Frenchwomen of them. Ah, let them never feel torn between two countries, or suffer in vain for a persecuted race! "
• It is also said she took great effort to master the French language as soon as possible and was trying not to sound Polish in French: "She had decided to learn the French language perfectly, as it was indispensable to her; and instead of cooing incorrect, sing-song sentences for years, as many Poles do, she learned her spelling and syntax with infallible sureness, and hounded down the very last traces of her accent. Only a very slight rolling of the "r" was to remain ever afterward as one of the graces of her rather muted voice, so sweet and charming. "

So you see that it is even explicitly said that Marie Curie was considering France to be her "fatherland" ("Patrie", in French).

Furthermore, the fact is that she chose to live in France until her death. That verifiable fact alone is enough to suppose she was feeling mostly French until proof of the contrary: a real Polish nationalist would have no doubt returned to Poland as soon as possible. So I believe this fact alone justify that the burden of proof on her not considering herself French is upon you. Please find a letter she would have wrote to a French newspaper saying "Please do not call me a French scientist, as I consider myself a Polish but not a French", for example. (But as the previous quotes show, she had no problem being called French)

So I stay by my initial position: I really see no case for not calling her a French physicist. (And again, I believe the correct version should be "Polish-born French physicist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

The examples above describing her as a Frenchwoman are not really valid:

• “becoming a Frenchwoman” doesn’t mean she became a Frenchwoman;
• referring to her collectively with Pierre as French is not surprising,
• “Marie was the only French physicist capable of pursuing the work she and Pierre had undertaken” – in the sense, “the only physicist in France...”
• “second fatherland” implies she was a foreigner, a Polish emigrant
• the fact that her daughters were French is not relevant here (although she taught them the Polish language and took them on visits to Poland)
• It’s not surprising she wanted to master the French language but, as you say, to the end she had a foreign Polish accent (the "r" sound)

All of the above made her a Polish emigrant working and living in France; she would normally be considered a member of the Polish minority in France, not French. Do you call all Poles (or other minorities) married to French citizens, "French"? Or only the successful ones? To me, it sounds very like French hypocrisy.

Furthermore, in an article, one finds: “Despite Curie's fame as a scientist working for France, the public's attitude tended toward xenophobia […] which also fueled false speculation that Curie was Jewish. During the French Academy of Sciences elections, she was vilified by the right-wing press, who criticised her for being a foreigner and an atheist. Her daughter later remarked on the public hypocrisy: the French press often portrayed Curie as an unworthy foreigner when she was nominated for a French honour, but would portray her as a French heroine when she received a foreign one, such as her Nobel Prizes.”

Another example of this attitude that can be found in the article: “Before the meeting [with the US President], recognising her growing fame abroad, and embarrassed by the fact that she had no French official distinctions to wear in public, the French government offered her the Legion of Honour, but she refused it.”

Finally, the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions fellowship program of the European Union for young scientists wishing to work in a foreign country is named after her (as she was a foreigner working in France).

I have found another objective source, a 2013 BBC documentary, "The Genius of Marie Curie" [4]

Throughout the film, there is not a single mention of her as a "Frenchwoman" or being "French", instead we find:

• “This foreign woman, who pushes a hesitant father of a family to destroy his home” - from Action française
• “Article in a newspaper accusing him [Paul Langevin] of hiding behind a Polish woman's skirts […] it was such an insult to his French dignity” – Dr Patricia Fara, University of Cambridge
• “a poor young woman from Poland”
• From a letter by Marie Sklodowska Curie: “It is a sorrow to me to have to stay forever in Paris”
• “It was not seen as a particularly fruitful research topic [Henri Becquerel’s research] which is probably why she as a Polish woman was enabled to pick it up because there wasn’t a lot of competition for it” - Dr Patricia Fara, University of Cambridge
• Her granddaughter: “It was a big problem [the affair with Paul Langevin] […] she was not only a Polish woman but a woman taking the husband in a family with four children”
• “For the [French] tabloids, the story of a famous female immigrant ruining the marriage of a prestigious Frenchman perfectly suited their nationalistic agenda.”
• The final sentence in the film: “At last, France had made it up to Marie Curie; this brave, brilliant Polish scientist, so truly shamed in life, had received her adopted country’s highest honour” when her body was moved to the Paris Panthéon – again, a Polish emigrant in France who was always seen as a foreigner.

As to the argument that she did not return to Poland:

She met Pierre thanks to a fellow Pole (Prof. Józef Wierusz-Kowalski), was homesick, missed her father and initially refused Pierre’s proposal of marriage. Pierre insisted and was ready to give up his scientific career and follow her to Poland, even if meant being reduced to teaching French. Your views on the matter show that you have no clue about the historic circumstances of many Poles living in exile during the 123-year-period of Poland's occupation by foreign powers: some of them were as Polish-nationalist as anyone could be (e.g., Mickiewicz, Chopin), and their émigré status only amplified their nationalism and their longing for a free country, in accord with the patriotic idea that "Poland is not yet lost so long as we still live". Poles living in exile in foreign countries during Poland's occupation preserved their Polish language and culture; becoming French would have meant betraying Poland, which Maria Skłodowska Curie never did. She remained a Polish nationalist to the end of her life; suggestions that she changed her attitude toward her native country are pure fantasy. That she stayed in France till her death does not prove she felt mostly French: at about age 40, she hired Polish governesses to teach her daughters her native language, and she sent or took them on visits to Poland – she did not feel less Polish. Poland regained independence when she was 51 (well settled in Paris), 16 years before her death, too late to return to Poland. Despite poor health, at age 58 she visited Poland to lay the foundations for another Radium Institute in Warsaw in free Poland. At age 62, she went on a second American tour in order to equip the Warsaw Radium Institute with radium. The Institute finally opened 2 years before her death, with her physician-sister Bronisława as its director. Furthermore, Maria was an active member of Polonia committees in France dedicated to the Polish cause, and she visited Poland just a few months before her death, so please don’t imply that, over the course of her life, she had lost her connections with Poland.

Poland is the country where she was born, raised and received her secondary and early higher education, the country where she did her first scientific work, the country where she had family, the country which she supported in its fight for independence, and the country which she never forgot. She was a Pole who married a Frenchman, a Pole who stayed in France till the end of her life, but still a Pole. Ethnicity is unchangeable, and she never said, "I don’t want to be Polish anymore"; on the contrary, she remained a Polish patriot to the end.

"Polish-born French" is unacceptable and narrows the meaning, as she was not only born in Poland. "French-Polish" is more appropriate, but I would say it is misleading as she was not of mixed descent – she was simply a Pole working and living in France. It’s true she was a Pole who married a Frenchman with whom she had children, a Pole who received French citizenship, a Pole who lived as an émigré in France, where she died and was buried – but she did all that as an ethnically Polish foreigner. “Polish scientist, working mainly in France” was more accurate and precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.185.215.70 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Persons with some understanding of Polish history, and of Maria Skłodowska Curie's history in particular, will appreciate the aptness of 79.185.215.70's comments above. Nihil novi (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nihil novi, I noticed that you had a tendency to add a "praising comment" after a comment saying the thing you have been arguing for all along. This feel like borderline pupeetering to me, as it creates an illusion of people discussing and convincing each others when it is actually 3 or so like-minded persons discussing together. I do not want to offend you by this remark. But I just wanted to say it would be easier for me to assume good faith from you if you would avoid doing this. Also, possibly a bit off-topic, I note that you support the view of 79.185.215.70 that French-Polish imply French ancestry. It just so happens that I recently looked a bit at the Frederic Chopin talk page, and it *seems* (I did not bother to re-check, so please forgive me if I am wrong) to me that you were arguing there that on the contrary he should not be called French-Polish in spite of his father being French. This would not be very consistent then. In any case, I now expect you will support restoring the Frederic Chopin introductory sentence to French-Polish ;-).

Nihil novi, I am now really annoyed. Looking at the history of the talk page shows that you have been editing the reply of 79.185.215.70 (for example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarie_Curie&diff=569024781&oldid=568997979). Since you have then yourself written a "oh you are so right" comment about 79.185.215.70, and used the 79.185.215.70 comment that you edited yourself as a base for making a non-consensual edit, this now seems like blatant sock puppetry to me. (if you dont know this term, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry). Please know that I am now considering reporting your account for this. If you think I was mistaken in looking at the edits, feel free to explain to me below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

79.185.215.70, I could take the time to refute your "arguments" one after the other ('“becoming a Frenchwoman” doesn’t mean she became a Frenchwoman': what does that mean?; 'too late to return to Poland': why too late?, she was not that old; her supposed nationalism supposedly proved by her hiring a Polish governess? the quotes from her daughter I gave above show she would not even want her daughters to feel Polish; Poles of French nationality not being called French? by who?, etc...). BUT it does not even matter because you are again totally missing the point and not addressing the issue I raised. You are basically doing personal research (and personal research is bad) about the possible nationalistic feelings of Marie Curie. But this is about verifiable facts and wikipedia conventions. You insist a lot on her "Polish ethnicity", but in WP:OPENPARA, it is EXPLICITLY said that mention of ethnicity and country of birth SHOULD BE AVOIDED (except if it is relevant to her notability) in the introductory sentence. And it is also EXPLICITLY said that the country to be mentioned is "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Marie Curie is notable for being a scientist, not for being polish. And she did all of her notable work in France, while having French nationality. So I argue again that strictly following WP:OPENPARA lead to emphasizing her French nationality over her Polish origins. Not to mention that mentioning her as "Polish working in France" is inconsistent with about every other Wikipedia biography of people with similar life/career. Tokidokix (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Good Article version of this article can be seen here, representing the work which culminated in September 2012. It has a hidden note reading "Please do not change the nationality from Polish to French without consulting the discussion page. This formulation has been found to be the best way to reflect Curie's strong connections to both of these countries." The formulation referred to is "French-Polish", and was generally arrived at by User:Piotrus, User:Nihil novi and User:John leading up to the GA process. During the GA process overseen by User:TimothyRias, the formulation was not questioned or changed.
Previous discussions about this issue include French or Polish? from 2005, Nationality claims from 2005, Nationality from 2006, Is she Polish or French? from 2007, Polish-born French? from November 2010, Edit request from , 7 November 2011, Was a Polish-born , not Polish–French from November 2011, "was a Polish physicist and chemist" from February 2012, and Ethnicity/nationality from November 2012. Personally, I'm in favor of any formulation that emphasizes Curie's Polish birth, as she was proud of her Polish heritage all her life. The one formulation I cannot agree with is simply "[["French", delivered without clarification. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your link to the GA discussion only lead to a history diff of the main article, so I could not check it. In any case, I already said that, while I think "Polish-born French" is the way that follows Wikipedia and other encyclopaediae conventions best, I am not passionate enough to start a war over this. So I am fine if there is a GA version stating "French-Polish". But then why has someone reverted this to "Polish working mainly in France"? I will revert again to the GA version then.

Also, I think it is you that moved this discussion down the talk page. Why? Especially, this discussion is much more active than the one that has now been put at the top and that discuss similar issuesTokidokix (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The bottom of the talk page is where new discussions go. I support any version of Polish or Polish-French or French-Polish that editors can agree on. I cannot support "French" alone, or even Polish-born French which is what you are suggesting. Marie Curie never embraced France as her own country. She pointedly kept her Polish cultural heritage intact. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that new topic would go at bottom of pages is certainly not true of most talk pages I have seen on wikipedia. As for French-Polish, I already said I was personally fine with that, but that Wikipedia conventions favor "Polish-born French" (again, Polish-born French is not implying she was not feeling Polish). In any case, as I also said previously, if you are fine with French-Polish and it is the previously GA version, I think I would rather settle with that than use countless hours to get through a GA process :-) Tokidokix (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, why do you write you support the "French-Polish" version and then change the article to "Polish"? Tokidokix (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I do not want to start an edit war, but then at least discuss here why you now will accept only the version "Polish working mainly in France". You said in your revert that even if you agree with "French-Polish", you are taking into account another editor viewpoint. In that case, why not take into account mine as well. I thought it was at least consensual that until an agreement can be reached, using the Good Article version was the better compromise. And I am still waiting for anyone to address my issues here. All that I have seen here is some hardly-backed opinions about how somebody think she supposedly had strong nationalistic feelings all of her life. But these are just opinions. It is my opinion that she wasn't feeling much Polish nationalism after having settled to France (and I have backed these opinions with what I believe to be strong points). But in the end this should not be a battle of opinion. People that support "Polish working mainly in France" HAVE to explain why they think it is necessary to disregard Wikipedia guidelines in this case. And also why they consider it necessary to not follow an established encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britanica (which uses "Polish-born French physicist"). As a sign of good faith, I have not and will not try to edit into "Polish-born French physicist" until a consensus can be reached. But until someone can make STRONG and valid points about at least the two issues I just mentioned, I do not accept that the article is left in a state different than the Good Article version.Tokidokix (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are not getting much respect here because you fail to see that reliable sources tell us that Marie Curie was very strongly nationalistic for Poland all her life, no matter that she married a Frenchman and lived in France. All the standard biographies describe her as emphatically Polish in her cultural practices. She taught her daughter the Polish language and Polish customs, and she followed Polish customs herself. Biographer Susan Quinn writes about how Curie was thrilled to be back in Poland in 1921 for the purpose of starting a radium institute in Warsaw, and Curie took the opportunity to involve herself in the "new struggle" to preserve the old Polish heritage. (See Quinn's Marie Curie: A Life, page 421.) The way you dismiss this kind of description as "opinion" is revealing. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, all standard biographies do not describe her as emphatically Polish. You have already tried to lied about this some comments up. You said she was never mentioned as French in the biography by her daughter, "Madame Curie", and I provided you with several quotes showing this was not true. I cannot check the other biography you mentioned, but given your bad faith about "Madame Curie", I have no reason to trust you on this one. I any case, I believe "Madame Curie" is the most relevant biography to know the state of mind of Marie Curie, as it was written by her own daughter. And again, your biased view show in that you keep on mentioning the fact that she taught Polish to her daughters, without mentioning the fact that her daughter explicitly said they were raised as French girls, and that Marie Curie did not try to instill any kind of Polish nationalism in them. And Generally speaking, no, "Madame Curie" do not describe Marie Curie as "emphatically Polish". Further you keep on arguing about the nationalists feelings of Marie Curie without discussing the point I make about Wikipedia guidelines, which is perhaps the most important point. I would have liked to solve this issue in a simpler way, but I see now it will be difficult to avoid going through the full process of a Wikipedia dispute resolution. Tokidokix (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Binksternet, please show me the Wikipedia Policy that justify your edit for moving the whole content of this discussion at the bottom of this talk page, as well as changing the title of the section. Otherwise I am going to revert this change as well.Tokidokix (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Tokidokix, welcome to Wikipedia! As a neophyte editor, you show an impressive grasp of Wikipedia's principles and mechanics.

However, categorical principles are sometimes trumped by common sense. Thus the "Vladimir Nabokov" lead describes the Russian-born and -reared author, who spent only a quarter of his life in Russia (through age 20) and nearly half in the United States, merely as "a Russian-born novelist". Not as a British, German or American novelist, though all together he spent three-quarters of his life in those three countries, most of that in the United States.

Your interpretation of my relation to 79.185.215.70's arguments is topsy-turvy. I first expressed approval of them, then corrected some obvious English-usage errors in them in order to facilitate the discussion. 79.185.215.70's grasp of the controversy is better than his command of English—which is exactly the opposite of the situation in your case. Nihil novi (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nihil novi, no need to welcome me to Wikipedia. I have been an occasional contributor since at least 2006. I usually only make rather non-controversial edit to science articles, which is why I usually do not bother to log into an account.

On the other hand, for someone that seem to be quite active, you seem to be very happy to disregard the most basic WP policies. Apart from your will to disregard WP style guides for biographies, you should know that editing another users's comment without his explicit consent (and you cannot get a consent for a comment posted by an IP) is not acceptable (of course, if you are 79.185.215.70, you have his consent, but then it is sock puppetry -> in both cases you are violating WP policies).

As for 79.185.215.70's comment, they are just repeating the same baseless or irrelevants arguments you and another user have already used without addressing the issues I raised. And if Nabokov is described as "Russian-born", note that he is not described as Russian. "Russian-born American" would not have been shocking I think, but the fact that he did his significant work in different countries may have created trouble for the WP contributors to reach a good consensual formulation. In any case, this is not the case of Marie Curie, who did about all of her work, and spent most of her life, in France. Tokidokix (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nihil novi, Binksternet: It seems that we are in a deadlock. You refuse to address my arguments about Wikipedia guidelines, and in any case I find your arguments about Marie Curie lifelong "emphatic Polishness" unconvincing. Likewise it seems that I cannot convince you that Marie Curie possible nationalistic feelings do not belong to the introductory sentence, and that anyway facts show she was feeling at least as much French as Polish for most of her life. As a first step towards solving this deadlock, I propose that we ask for general advice on the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nihil novi, Binksternet: I thinbk you have been noticed automatically, but I went on to post our dispute on the noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Marie_Curie

Incidentally, I have come across a possible explanation as to why some of your arguments seem so odd to me (and maybe some of mine seems odd to you). There would be in Polish 2 different concepts known as narodowosc (which Polish translate as Nationality in English) and obywatelstwo (translated by Polish as citizenship in English). In France, the concept of nationality is strictly equivalent to the concept of citizenship. This difference can probably be attributed to the different history of the 2 countries. I think however, that in the English world, the meaning of Nationality is more similar to the meaning in France. Something closer (but still not equivalent, I would say) to what you seem to mean by Nationality would be, I think, National Indentity, or possibly Ethnicity. I don't know if this is true, as I just read this. And I don't even know if you are Polish (although I think I can infer it is likely to be the case of at least Nihil novi). And I don't think this will close the discussion either (I would still disagree on the national identity of Marie Curie anyway). I just thought that discussion will be easier if we can clarify that we sometime have different meaning for the same word. Feel free to comment on this :-) Tokidokix (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, can I ask your help for something? You said in a comment above that there would have been a discussion around september 2012, leading to the GA status for the article, that was involving users TymothyRias, Nihil Novi, John and Piotr, and that had settled for "French-Polish". I would very much like to read it. However, although I could see some previous discussions on this topic (most of them seeming to end without a consensus, by people simply leaving the discussion), I cannot find a discussion involving these users at the given date. I would very much appreciate if you could point it to me. Tokidokix (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GA status was conferred after this discussion: Talk:Marie Curie/GA1.

John and Nihil novi are not in that discussion but you can see their contributions in the archives such as the most recent one: Talk:Marie_Curie/Archive_3.

Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I had seen the GA1 discussion, but I was hoping there had been some discussion officially moderated by user ThimotyRias. In the Archive you point to, only Nihil Novi seem to discuss the issue we are talking about (no John there). Also, why are you insisting on changing the title of this section to something less informative and more provocative? Tokidokix (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Nihil novi, could you point me to the first commit you did after the Good Article qualification that changed the lead to "Polish physicist", as well as the discussion that justified this change? Thanks. Tokidokix (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tokidokix, by your reasoning about Wikipedia nationality standards, how would you account for Czesław Miłosz (1911–2004; "nationality: Polish; citizenship: Polish, American"), who moved to the U.S. in 1960 and did most of his writing there, being described in the lead as a "Polish poet"? Nihil novi (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is at least three things here. 1- "Polish poet" might be understood as "Poet writing in Polish" anyway. 2-I already acknowledged that not all Wikipedia article were consistent with each others or with the guidelines. But I would say most of the one I read do follow the patterns I mentioned. So I would prefer you to reason on the wording of the guidelines instead of trying to find some random articles that do not respect it. 3-The history shows that you have been yourself involved in the editing of this article, and especially in another discussion/edit battle with User:Dr. Dan about the lead of this very article. So you are basically trying to convince me that you are right in your interpretation of the guidelines by using examples you made yourself. And, as a passing remark, if I understand correctly (but I did not take much time to look in the discussion of that article), it seems that you were opposing Czesław Miłosz to be mentioned as "lithuanian-born", which is strange for someone that is arguing in other articles that for people born in Poland, the country of birth is the most important thing...Tokidokix (talk) 03:17, 27 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)