Talk:Pierre Curie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The unit curie[edit]

It seems as if there is some ambiguity as to whether the curie, the unit of radioactivity, was named after Pierre and/or Marie Curie. See [1] Should the article reflect that? Olin 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Marguerite Catherine Perey is listed as one of Pierre Curie's doctoral students. However, her article states she was born in 1909 (3 years after Curie's death) and that her advisor was Marie Curie, which seems more believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal research[edit]

It's not a well-known fact that Pierre Curie was primarily a paranormal researcher before he won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the properties of radioactivity with his wife Marie. [2] Landroo 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Richet, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology in 1913, carried out decades of research into psychical phenomena. He participated with the Curies in the investigations of Eusapia Palladino. Here is one of his accounts of a séance:

“It took place at the Psychological Institute at Paris. There were present only Mme. Curie, Mme. X., a Polish friend of hers, and P. Courtier, the secretary of the Institute. Mme. Curie was on Eusapia’s left, myself on her right, Mme. X, a little farther off, taking notes, and M. Courtier still farther, at the end of the table. Courtier had arranged a double curtain behind Eusapia; the light was weak but sufficient. One the table Mme. Curie’s hand holding Eusapia’s could be distinctly seen, likewise mine also holding the right hand. . . We saw the curtain swell out as if pushed by some large object. . . I asked to touch it . . . I felt the resistance and seized a real hand which I took in mine. Even through the curtain I could feel the fingers … I held it firmly and counted twenty-nine seconds, during all which time I had leisure to observe both of Eusapia’s hands on the table, to ask Mme. Curie if she was sure of her control . . . After the twenty-nine seconds I said, ‘I want something more, I want uno anello (a ring).’ At once the hand made me feel a ring . . . It seems hard to imagine a more convincing experiment . . . In this case there was not only the materialization of a hand, but also of a ring.”[citation needed]

Why is that even in this article, Pierre wasn't there (his wife was) ... the whole paranormal part is out of proportion but thats a whole other topic. None of the Paranormal parts are cited. (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Driveby commenting is so great. One; that text was already in the work section; I moved it out, adding tags so it can be further cleaned up. Two, have seen a few links that would possibly pass WP:V, will need to check out later when at home. If you want to research any such links, then fine - if we can pass WP:V, then it remains. If not, we can remove it. Minkythecat (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
eh, sod it, removed the crap. Even if the freaks who believe that crap can source it, belongs on other pages as it's hardly the first thing you associate with Pierre Curie. Wouldn't get this in Britannica... Minkythecat (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have removed it, however generally when doing such things from an IP, a bot comes along and reverts you for whatever... So I don't actually bother with that anymore. (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is information about Pierre's extensive research into paranormal phenomenon not mentioned? For example: He wrote to his fiancée Marie, "I must admit that those spiritual phenomena intensely interest me. I think that in them are questions that deal with physics" (Hurwic, Anna (1995) Pierre Curie, p. 65-Translated by Joseph Cudnik; Paris, Flammarion) Why are these things being hidden. Why is there such knowledge filtering in Wikipedia?Yottamaster (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Curie unit[edit]

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Curie unit was named after Marie and not Pierre, [3] Alastairward (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all the universal consensus; see [4]. Hqb (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> Never said it was, just trying to help, I thought providing a cite that was deemed somewhat authoritative was better than leaving the article tagged as confusing Alastairward (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't meant as a criticism; clearly the EB is a good source, but it doesn't cite any references, and the full story is apparently rather more complicated. Hqb (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

nuclear radiation transfomation

  1f 2n-->  2n+2n
             ---- =  radium+nuclear energy+nueron--->at/gh energy+heat+nueron division+20e-explosion

thus an unstopable radiation fatal to organic tissues, but a good efficiency energy transfomation for hyrolic pumps.

-- (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)PG Johnson-- (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Curie's Advisor[edit]

Everyone knows that Pierre Curie defended his thesis in 1895, but can anyone find a source naming his doctoral advisor? Freeboson {talk | contribs} 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Curie - Claimed atheism as stated fact?[edit]

Adding individuals to atheimscategory may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.

Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact. Otherwise we are deceiving.

WP:BLPCAT - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question
WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content
WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.
WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article
WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts
WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)
These may be furthermore of use
WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".
WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!
Pgarret (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)