Talk:Wilhelm Röntgen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early life

The "Early life and education" section is crap. It reads like a combination of an ad for his alma mater, plus formatting errors and sentence fragments.

i need help about mr wilhelm conrad rontgen. and i need story about him right now.

Could you be a little more specific? --DrTorstenHenning 09:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first clause from the sentence "His investigative powers were so phenomenal that none of his conclusions have yet been proven false." to give the article a NPOV. --DavidConrad 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Roentgen (spelling)

Roentgen is not only the English spelling, but also an alternative German spelling. --DrTorstenHenning 08:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I just studied about x-rays in my university class. They were discovered by William Roentgen. Hence "roetgenium". Why does wikipedia call him "Wilhelm Röntgen"?184.155.130.147 (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

PLAGARISM

Can some editor please remove this article, it does not cite this source, but this web site has the same word to word text: http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Wilhelm-R%25C3%25B6ntgen.wikipedia Pkazazes 11:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The first line on that web page's version of the article is "Please read Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's personal appeal." Let's consider whether that site or this one is likely to have been C+P from the other. Powers 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiograph

The radiograph in the article is NOT that of von Kolliker. It is of Roentgen's wife, Berta. Her hand and her wedding rings are in the picture, and were included in the paper submitted, and given to the newspapers. Von Kolliker volunteered his hand be x-rayed during Roentgen's first public talk in Germany, but this radiograph is not of him.[1], also Wiki CommonsGaviidae 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This is not an image of von Killiker. This IS a picture of his wife's hand. I have seen this image on other sites that all state it as Roentgen's wife's hand.RHSB Scipio 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it would seem you are both incorrect. Although this image was mistakenly uploaded as the image of Bertha's hand, even a casual glance at the link you just provided will show an obviously very different image. The talk page for the image established that this is the image of von Kolliker's hand. The image of Bertha's hand is of poorer quality, and of a left hand!! 72.177.116.87 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. The above message and associated change are mine. Xezlec 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On further research, it appears they are in fact both left hands, but nonetheless this is definitely von Kolliker's. See [2]. Xezlec 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. The second image ("Kölliker's") is a right hand, but from dorsal to palmar. How do I know? The styloid process of the ulna is dorsal to the distal radioulnar articulation. This can be seen in the image, since there is a distinct, but continuous line of this articulation visible. Thus it must be closer to the point-of-view than the styloid process. Anatomy is fun, isn't it? Neurogem (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Xezlec is right, but it should be noted that this image is widely mis-identified as Frau Roentgen's hand. I've seen several such misidentifications just doing casual Google-type research. Bigmac31 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Very learned comments. But why, exactly, was the image removed? and who removed it? It was a graphic,impressive and memorable contribution to the article. I suggest we put it back in and identify it as the hand of Von Kolliker. Boytinck (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

roentgen+

write something about connection between roentgen and anime 'fantastic children' in which he's very important person :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.92.155 (talk) 09:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Nothing after the Nobel?

Roentgen lived about 22 years after he got his Nobel Prize, and it did say that in 1900 he became a professor at Munich. But there is no mention of any scientific work he did after X-rays. Did he do any? Bigmac31 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I think that the name of the article should be changed to Dr. Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen because Röntgen had a Ph.D, entitling him to be called "Doctor". 66.159.69.132 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the scientists mentioned on Wikipedia had/have doctorates, but normal practice in a biographic article is to omit "Doctor" in the title, and instead to mention in the text that the subject earned a Ph.D., usually with mention of the university and the year. The same practice is followed on www.nobelprize.org. Dirac66 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The X-ray article shows the first radiograph of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand while the article of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen shows the exact same picture entitled radiograph taken by Röntgen of Albert von Kölliker's hand. One radiograph was taken in November 1895 the other early 1896 but which one is shown in this image? The google search gives more blured images stating that they were taken of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand. Can anybody help with this problem?--Stone (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is continued at Talk:X-ray#Image. Dirac66 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Albert von Kölliker" image reversed? It is shown the other way around in the cited source, which comes with the contemporary, German caption. By way of confirmation, in modern conventions the rings would be on the left hand and not as shown. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Googling definitely favors the left hand—the version in the cited source: flipped it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely von Kolliker's right hand. One can clearly see a wedding band, and in Germany, as well as many other European countries, the wedding band was and still is worn traditionally on the right hand, not the left hand. It doesn't matter whether a mirror image is used here, as it would be possible to print it from a glass plate either way, but the notation in Wikimedia of it being the left hand should be removed. The other image, that of Röntgen's wife's hand, is ambiguous, since a wedding band isn't discernible.—Quicksilver^{T @} 01:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept the point about the right hand being used for wedding rings, hence my qualification "in modern conventions", above. However, the contemporary source has left; at the moment anything else is speculation and original research. New reliable sources to clarify welcomed. Not wishing to be confrontational, but the Commons information now referenced to this effect, rather than deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To add a bit more confusion to this: Bertha Röntgen, née Ludwig, had her wedding ring on the left hand, cf. the photography at https://www.roentgen2020.de/roentgen-2020/der-mensch/index.html, whereas Albert von Kölliker had his on the right hand, cf. the painting at https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/uniarchiv/persoenlichkeiten/bedeutende-gelehrte/albert-von-koelliker/, and the wedding band is also clearly identifiable. The confusion in the X-rays comes from the posterior-anterior orientation (X-ray comes from doral to palmar) of the image, and there has been no standard imaging technique. Nowadays, one would add "L" for left, or "R" for right on the X-ray and use a standardized technique. Neurogem (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ernst Werner von Siemens

According to letters held in the Siemens factory archives, the manufacture of Prof Roentgen's tubes was entrusted to Max Gebbert of Messrs. Reiniger, Gebbert and Schall, a company taken over by Siemens AG in 1925. I propose to remove the sentence claiming that Ernst Werner von Siemens made them, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazi and Röntgen

I heared under Nazi Röntgen was out of honor and even X-Rays were renamed from Röntgen's rays to Lenard's rays. Please add info on this. I also heared that when the war erupted between Germany and the USSR, the USSR in turn, renamed Lenard's rays to Röntgen's rays (which is the Russian name for the rays even today).--Dojarca (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anything about this article correct??!! This article desperately needs to be more specific, and it needs to include more information on Roentgen himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.202.165 (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious affiliation and/or beliefs?

Just curious if there is a good source as to Röntgen's religious affiliation. One biography I read indicated that he spent a good deal of his retirement devoted to Bible study. Not a major issue, but might be of interest to the article and/or accompanying infobox. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Conrad

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move to Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen. I see some consensus to move to Wilhelm Roentgen and I'll do that if there are no policy-based objections.--RegentsPark (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm Röntgen → Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen —

• Most sources, including nobelprize.org use the full name.--ospalh (talk) User:Ospalh 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobelprize.org lists another laureate as Earl (Bertrand Arthur William) Russell. Nevertheless, our article is at Bertrand Russell per usage, including his own; the Nobel people are trying to squeeze more information into a few paragraphs than will go well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as pedantry; the middle name belongs in the first line. But, as long as we are on the topic, the English spelling is Roentgen, as with the SI spelling of the unit named after him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - contrary to the common name convention and useless to encyclopaedia readers. Deb (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.