This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article talks extensively about Curie's research, and that is good. But what it skips is his education; where he went to University, and under whom he studied. It says famous doctoral studies on magnetism, but does mention when/where/with whom. Also no mention about academic career, when/where appointed. Also it needs structuring into paragraphs 67.72.98.82 08:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A recently added infobox has been removed with the statement "adds nothing except for links to France." Please discuss pros and cons for its removal to reach consensus. Here is what it looked like:

Francophiles speak now of forever hold your peace :-) bunix 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All general arguments at the TfD apply. The infobox adds nothing, only provides redundancy and form over content thinking. -- Pjacobi 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear P, The TfD has reached a consensus that the infobox should be trimmed. I have now added a trimmed version according to the consensus that was obtained at: [1] Your point about redundancy is somewhat redundant, as by definition the box is a summary. The idea of any summary is it is a compressed form of redundancy. We all know that, so you are not saying anything new! Best regards, bunix 12:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The following may be a mistranslation: "By the age of 18 he had completed the equivalent of a higher degree, but did not proceed immediately to a doctorate due to lack of money." The term "higher degree" does not have a specific meaning in English. It may be that the writer means a postgraduate degree, and in this case it would have to be a masters degree, as the point being made is that he did not have a doctorate. Could someone please clarify what he did have at 18, and either make the "equivalent of" comparison meaningful to English-speaking readers or simply remove it. 82.18.125.110 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Pierre Curie committed suicide.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.206.96 ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. In this edit, someone inserted the Nobel biography from [2] into the article, and later removed all the old stuff. That's a copyright violation, and has to be reverted.

I've rolled back the article to the pre-edit, March 15 version of the article. -- Alvestrand 05:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "His head having been crushed under the carriage wheel, he avoided probable death by the radiation exposure that later killed his wife." from the Work section. Aside from the head crushing - which isn't really that relevant, the latter text is clear OR / speculation without any sourcing - nor can it be sourced. Minkythecat ( talk) 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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
              2n

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

-- 196.21.60.55 ( talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)PG Johnson-- 196.21.60.55 ( talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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 [5] 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 155.198.202.15 ( talk) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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. [6] 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. 195.216.82.210 ( 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. 195.216.82.210 ( 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)