Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emmy Noether

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Emmy Noether

Toolbox

This article has been intensively rewritten, refined, and revised for the past two months by myself (mostly the bio) and WillowW, with some extraordinary assistance from the kind folks at WikiProject Mathematics – particularly Geometry guy and R.e.b.. It has also received two peer reviews, from JayHenry and Karanacs.

There are some minor tweaks still coming on her contributions to invariant theory and elimination theory, but we feel that it is stable, polished, and ready to be Featured. – Scartol • Tok 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(My input was very minor. R.e.b. contributed much of the mathematics; I just tidied. I hope to help out with this review. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Comment You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah, this was the work of other folks; I usually don't use citation templates. sigh.. I'll try to get it all sorted. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I only found one – a cite book – and changed it to a non-template citation (since it only appears once). Please let me know if I missed others. – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You got it. The cheaters method of checking is to hit the "edit this page" tab and scroll to the bottom where the templates used on the page are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • A suggestion: use {{persondata}}
  • The section "1932" is rather... oddly titled. Could it be changed to something more descriptive?
  • "is/are considered" in the lead - by whom?
  • I found a contraction - there might be more, watch out for those.

I'll check the lead's prose later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I feel (and others I've worked with on the article agree) that infoboxes often distract from more than they add to an article. This is such a case, I feel.
I agree that "1932" is an unusual section title, but it was a year of turning points, and while I'm not opposed to changing it, I wonder if others agree that it should be changed. I'll scan for contractions and unattributed passive voice as you've mentioned. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the section title to "Recognition", since I realized – after being stubborn here earlier, heh – that the events of '32 all have to do with her finally receiving some recognition. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, {{persondata}} isn't an infobox - read the template. I'm fine with the other things, though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I'll add it tomorrow. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Added. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What a fascinating subject! The personality section, though, seems a bit out of place. I'll probably get around to finishing the article and giving a full review later. BuddingJournalist 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone else said this in another spot, and I wonder where you might suggest moving it. (The other editor never responded.) Maybe before "Expulsion"? – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved "Personality" to above "Moscow", to provide a transition between the main part about Göttingen and the more detailed sections on Moscow, Recognition, etc. Hopefully this is more suitable? – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments An article on a female mathematician! Yeah! Overall, I thought it was quite good. I can't pretend to understand the mathematics sections - I tried very hard and read very slowly, but some things escaped me anyway. I think that these "maths" are just too far beyond my meager abilities. I have a few questions and suggestions:

  • Often described as the most important woman mathematician of all time - Is there any way to make this sound better? It sort of sounds like "dude, she was the best ever", if you see what I mean.
  • I do. Changed to: "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics..." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So much less Beavis and Butthead. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Emmy began using her middle name at a young age. - Is this significant enough for the lead?
  • No, it's not. I had changed it to this from something else which was not really accurate, and tried to cobble something together. I've rewritten the first part of that paragraph to make it all work and be relevant. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • she was a primary source for the second volume of his 1931 text Moderne Algebra - Sounds like she is a book
  • Heh, it does, doesn't it? Revised to "...her work served as the foundation for the second volume...". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely better. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The following year, Germany's Nazi government fired her from Göttingen - "fired her" or "had her fired from"?
  • The latter. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Should we translate the names of her papers? Also, shouldn't the papers be in quotes rather than italicized?
  • In the Brewer & Smith book (the most recent source I used – can't speak for maths people), they're all italicized. I'll see what I can do about translations. (I'll need help from the maths people.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess math papers are more important than papers in other fields. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh. I'm recruiting someone to translate these. – Scartol • Tok 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • With the help of Jakob.scholbach, I've added English translations of all of her works mentioned in the article text. If they need to be added to the References section, I have no idea how to do so, since the {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "translation" field. I'm open to ideas and/or guidance. – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the titles need to be translated in the references. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Near-sighted and talking during childhood with a minor lisp - awkward since adjectival verbs don't match
  • Agreed. I reversed the order of the sentence: "Known for being clever and friendly, Emmy was near-sighted and talked during childhood with a minor lisp." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of "Biography" oddly splits up the information on Fritz. Since there is so little, why not group it together?
  • Agreed. Rearranged and reworded. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For the next seven years she taught at the University of Erlangen's Mathematical Institute, without pay. - Why? Because she was a woman?
  • Presumably, although both the Dick bio and the Kimberling chapter indicate that it may have been a confluence of issues (Jewish heritage, gender, perhaps even personality). I worry that being too definite risks being inaccurate or suggesting certainty where there isn't any. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind, then! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • During her first years at Göttingen, she worked in an unpaid and undefined role - Could the problems with her gender be made more explicit here?
  • See above. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, never mind! Damn my quest for certainty in an uncertain world. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1920 Noether collaborated with a colleague named W. Schmeidler on a paper about the theory of ideals. Their work was the first to define left and right ideals. The following year she published a landmark paper called Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen, which analyzed ascending chain conditions with regard to ideals. Canadian mathematician Irving Kaplansky called this work "revolutionary",[17] and its importance is seen in the use of the term "Noetherian ring" to describe a ring that satisfies an ascending chain condition on its ideals. - This paragraph seems a bit wordy or repetitive.
  • Agreed. Edited for concision. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In other instances she allowed her colleagues and students to receive credit for her ideas, helping them develop their careers rather than demanding tribute - This suggests that she did demand acknowledgement from van der Waerden - is that true?
  • No, it's meant to indicate that she prioritized helping others over what she could have done (ie, demand tribute). I've reworded it to: "...helping them develop their careers at the expense of her own career." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The phrase "in other instances" suggests that somehow the algebra textbook incident was different - it doesn't seem that different, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to "She sometimes allowed...". – Scartol • Tok 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never really been a fan of "Personality" sections, mostly because I don't think people have static personalities throughout their entire lives. It seems to me like this material might be better integrated into a description of her teaching. The broad statements at the beginning of the section seem a bit too broad to be of any value. Could you describe yourself in a sentence like that?
  • Since this keeps coming up, I'll try to weave it into the fabric of the article. I'm not sure how to do it, but I'll give it a shot. (I like it as a separate section myself, but as Mayor Quimby once said: "If that's the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow!") – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've integrated "Personality" into "University of Göttingen". Hopefully it's more seamless. (Less seamful? More seemly? heh) – Scartol • Tok
  • I think this works better. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • She showed an acute propensity for abstract thought, which allowed her to approach problems of mathematics in fresh and original ways - This doesn't seem to describe Noether in any specific way - all mathematics is abstract.
  • But apparently some mathematics is more abstract than others. Although I know absolutely nothing about it, the books I've read indicate that – just as some forms of literary theory exist at quite a distance from the texts they discuss (as you know) – Noether's work was very abstract and hard for some people to connect back to the numbers themselves. Perpahs WillowW can more effectively explain this. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to try and explain this to the lay person somehow. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. :) As a foretaste, it's true that all math is an abstraction. But imagine an anstraction of an abstraction, and an abstraction of that, and yet another abstraction beyond even that. You might think that such super-abstract theories would not allow for many truths to be derived about them, since they have so few properties and offer few features or "handles" for the mind to grasp on. Noether's genius lay in deriving many essential truths for such systems; and they, being so general, instantly applied to all the less generalized mathematical systems, making them very powerful theorems indeed. Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it help to use the Einstein-relativity example at this point? There is a quote from Einstein saying he is surprised things can be understood in such a "general way". Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a great quote, but Noether's theorems, as astonishing and general and influential as they are, are not representative of what people mean by Noether's gifts for abstract thought, at least from my initial reading. The tools for deriving them were already there, most notably Lie groups and the [calculus of variations]]. It's her later work, after 1920, that is more representative of her "abstract thought", her unique approach to begriffliche Mathematik to which she gradually converted other mathematicians and where she made the tools herself, by choosing to define novel mathematical objects in tasteful, productive ways. I'm going to try to capture that in a new section, but it may take a few days. Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Her mathematical horizons broadened, and her work became more general and abstract, as she became acquainted with the work of David Hilbert - Again, I don't think the words "general" and "abstract" are specific enough.
  • I agree that "general" could probably go, but I'd argue for keeping "abstract" – again, just as some scientific work focuses on specific life forms or climate systems, others try to conceptualize abstractly what the underlying rules are behind it all (like the grand unification theory). It seems to me that her work became focused on a mathematics form of the latter. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we somehow describe the abstractness of it for people like myself? Is that even possible? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the smallest doubt that we can do it together. :) Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • research turned to determining the properties of ever-more-abstract systems defined by ever-more-primitive rules - I think the average reader will interpret "primitive" in the wrong way!
  • Agreed. Changed to "universal". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that, so of course I have no idea what you mean? :P "Primitive" here was trying to convey the idea of "basic" or "generalized", of stripping away ancillary details of a system to arrive at a core concept, sort of like Plato's ideals. For example, many things can be represented or described by a group; by inheritance, all those things partake of the properties of their group, and conversely, properties of the group must be found in every instance of it. Does that make any sense, or am I speaking mystically as usual? ;) Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and in my opinion "universal" does nicely here. Would you rather use "generalized", W? – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added some "citation needed" tags for a few statements that should probably have cites.
  • The maths people will have to take care of this, and the following three items. We're working on 'em. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • These have all been remedied. Huzzah! – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Invariant theory and elimination theory" section does not explain what Noether's contribution was; it just describes what invariant theory and elimination theory are.
  • While the maths sections are still being expanded (from what I can tell), I believe this problem has been addressed through reorganization (it's been retitled as "Algebraic invariant theory") and the addition of info. – Scartol • Tok 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do folks still think this needs work? It looks remedied from where I sit. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks much better to me. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This single work had a profound impact on the development of modern algebra - What was that profound impact?
That's almost exactly what the source says, the History of Algebra by B L. van der Waerden. He doesn't explain how himself, and, honestly, I don't think I'm going to really understand that before the FAC closes. I'm having a hard enough time catching up on pre-Noether mathematics, without having to understand the consequences of Noether's math for late 20th century mathematics. :P Maybe one of our mathematician friends can help out? Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Non-commutative algebra" section, can the two paragraphs be joined together? If not, can the first paragraph be expanded to explain central simple algebra a bit more?
On it; but please be patient until tomorrow. Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Footnote 59 is not formatted like the rest, with the appropriate link.
  • Good catch. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the German sources in the "References" list be marked as "German"?
  • Sure, why not? The {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "language" field, so I had to stick it in at the end of the line; I hope this is okay. (I assume you're referring to the hypertext links, not all of the German-language entries.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was referring to all of the German articles. I thought there was a MOS rule somewhere that all foreign-language references had to be marked with the appropriate language. Maybe that has changed, though. Ah! I can't keep up! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. – Scartol • Tok 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your eagle eyes. I look forward to having your support. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're my inspiration. I wish I had your eyes, and the brain behind them. :) 'Til later, Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I truly like the article. I'm not into FAC and standards, so I can't decide whether support or not. Just one comment: I strongly suggest that you supply the urls of the historical papers. (See my comment at the article's talk page). http://digizeitschriften.de has practically all historical papers available, for example "Rationale Funktionenkörper". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this resource, but I can't seem to make it work with the {{Citation}} template. I believe it's due to the fact that the URLs contain [brackets], which interfere with the MediaWiki software's processing of the code. For example, the URL for the actual article "Rationale Funktionenkörper" is:

http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=514934

If anyone has any ideas on how to overcome this, I'm all ears. – Scartol • Tok 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On it, boss. :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

...done! :) Willow (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Danke, WillowW. Your Fahrvernugen is sehr gut. I don't know how to speak German. – Scartol • Tok 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Na, das war ja nett, Jakob! :) Sei mir so gut, und werf einen flüchtigen Blick auf den Artikel, List of publications of Emmy Noether; ist alles richtig übersetzt und alle mögliche Links gemacht? (Ich bin keine Deutsche, das geb' ich von vorn herein zu, aber ich schlag mich so durch, wenn's sein muß — oder ich versuch's zumindest. ;) Wenn alles richtig ist, dann werd' ich das alles übertragen. Jede Korrektur ist höchst willkommen, und wenn wir noch was machen können, um Deinen Support zu gewinnen, das tun wir ja gerne. Schönen Dank im voraus! :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No idea what the preceding text says, so unless someone tells me differently, I will interpret it as a significant contributor support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Struck per translation of the German from Dr pda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Couple of further comments (already present at the article talk)

  • "Galois theory is related to invariant theory". Please explain this. Galois theory is concerned with associating groups to field extensions, whereas invariant theory is about groups occuring in geometric transformations etc. So the relation, if any, is very rough, in my view. I would just eliminate the "is related to i.th."
  • "a finitely generated domain A over a field k has a transcendence basis x1,...xn such that A is integral over k[x1,...xn]." I'm not sure whether the term transcendence basis is the usual term. (It may be so). As far as I know, tr.b. refers to a field extension K over k. Perhaps you just say that A has some elements x1,...,xn such that...
  • In the non-commutative algebra, I could imagine a word about the Brauer group would be a plus. Such a remark would show how modern the stuff they did still is. Perhaps just a footnote. (The Brauer group classifies division algebras).
  • As for references: in addition to the refs you already have, I propose to add a ref to a contemporary math textbook whenever a particular theorem is talked about (for example Noether normalization lemma, also give a link to Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra or something similar. This way a reader interested in the mathematics (less in history) will have the opportunity to learn the theorem (the historical refs are of less value in this respect, because the mathematical language has completely changed). If you want, I can help out with these. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed this article in depth previously and just had the chance to re-read. It's very well-written. I believe it's neutral and stable. Conforms to MOS items as far as I know. I'm not qualified to comment on the mathematics, so the fitness of this section should be attested to by someone other than myself. --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Comments - Not far off, but some fixes needed.
Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ooof. Since it was a photo of a younger E. Noether, I assumed it was in the public domain. But of course that's not enough – and I have no idea how to find out the copyright status. I'm out of ideas here, except to remove it – and that would be such a shame. No picture of her at all? =( Ideas, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is in the public domain - you just needed a source. I have found one and updated the image page. Took five seconds - easy! Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Smashing. Thanks, A. – Scartol • Tok 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the sort of collapsed boxes at the bottom of Isaac Newton, for instance? If so, what do you have in mind? (There aren't any "University of Göttingen" boxes, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is great, but I am wondering why the lead is six paragraphs long? It doesn't seem to summarize the article very well. Please consider reorganizing and condensing to make it concise. I recommend three paragraphs for an article of this length. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Originally it was four, but the fourth was very long (and we agreed that it needed all of its info), so the fourth was divided into three separate paragraphs. I actually feel that the lead – long though it is – does a good job of summarizing the article. The page is divided into two major sections: biography and mathematics/physics contributions. I feel that the lead encapsulates these, but of course I'm open to ideas from others on how to proceed here. – Scartol • Tok 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the lead is an excellent summary of the article. The last three paragraphs work either split up or as one paragraph, in my opinion. However, Wackymacs, perhaps you could indicate what areas of the article are under- or overrepresented in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - The lead has been copyedited, but nothing else since June 7th. Prose still needs improvement throughout, not just the lead. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Any chance we could get some specifics on what's wrong with the prose? LaraLove just did a copyedit. (I asked her to watch for redundant prose and overlinking especially.) What needs fixing? – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you actually look at that link, you'll notice no textual changes were made outside of the lead. The only prose changes were ones in the lead, from what I can see. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, you said that already. But you didn't answer the question. Any chance we could get a list of specific non-lede changes that you feel are still needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that when a person does a copyedit and doesn't change a sentence or paragraph, it means that the copyeditor believes the sentence or paragraph to be of high quality and doesn't need revision. This is what I usually do; perhaps others work differently? I assumed this was the case with LaraLove's copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Requirement for professional formatting. Otherwise good.

  • It's way too overlinked; I've removed some from the top of the article. Generally, avoid repeated links and obvious things like "English". It's not a dictionary, and we're supposed to know what "piano" means. Please weed out the trivial bright-blue splashes throughout, so that you focus the readers on the high-value links (of which there are plenty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 08:46, June 4, 2008
  • I've reviewed each link in an attempt to fix this. Please let me know if I've missed any that should be removed. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment

I wanted to comment to honor the apparent hard work of the editors involved in the article. I read it through, though I am unable to support because I do not understand the concepts described in the article that are vital importance to its overall cohesiveness. But I am unlikely to do that due to my own failings. I must leave it up to someone else to determine if they are sufficiently explained. However, I found her biography engaging and interesting. I would like to have had lunch with her. That would have been fun. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Amendment: I pointed my partner to this article because she has a math minor and an affinity for this sort of thing. For the comprehensiveness of the mathematical concepts, she said it was as well-written and sufficiently explained as could be since there is no language available to break it down any simpler than it already is, in any concise manner. However, she did think that the Third Epoch was considerably less detailed than the previous two, as if the editor(s) had run out of steam at the end, or didn't understand it. Hope that, uh, helps. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. My eyesight is so good I could count the number of acne on a forehead. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing (pop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. ElCobbola raised the issue of Image:Noether.jpg above. Unfortunately images from the early twentieth century are something of a twilight zone as regards copyright issues. I think we can accept that this photograph was taken between 1900 and 1910, but the photographer could have been aged 25 at the time, or lived a long life: another 40 years would suffice, as 1940 is less than 70 years ago. To establish that this is in the public domain in the US (which is what matters), what you really need is evidence that the image was published before 1923 (in the US) or before 1909 (outside the US). Otherwise, we have to wait until about 2025 before we can use it... :-) Geometry guy 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oof. Well, as I said before, I've tried without success to find a picture of Dr. Noether which is certified PD. Can we apply for fair use if we don't know the copyright status? – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      For fair use you really need to know the copyright holder, unfortunately. It's a royal pita. The only thing I can suggest is to check the books you cite for pictures: it is possible that some of them give image credits. If you can find any hints of publication of a photograph before the dates above, you may have a public domain image. Otherwise, you may at least have a known copyright holder. Geometry guy 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • But of course I just took the books back to the library. =P I'll see what I can do. – Scartol • Tok 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The image from Moscow State University is of the main building, a postwar example of Stalinist architecture. It was completed in 1953. It seems incongruous to have an image of building which did not then exist representing her tenure there in 1928–29. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Will try to find a different pic. – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While doing a minor copy-edit, I saw that the lead is, in my opinion, more detailed than necessary. I removed the titles of her papers, as it seemed unnecessary and distracting to list them in the lead. I recommend removing any quotes, as well as any insignificant details that are explained in the body, i.e. her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys". Lara❤Love 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your copyedit, Lara, especially on such short notice. However, the question of the lead has been laboriously discussed, refined, debated, and analyzed, as you will see in the resolved items under Talk:Emmy_Noether#Comments_from_Randomblue. While I really appreciate your attention to detail, I'm afraid this is exactly why I balked at the idea of another copyedit when Wackymacs first suggested it above. (This is nothing against you, Lara, please understand – the comments are coming from about 700 different directions. I apologize, LL, for not explaining this beforehand – it would be hard for you to have predicted this.)
Now, how should we proceed? I've made it clear elsewhere that I preferred the lead as it was. Awadewit said on the talk page:

These papers are clearly some of Noether's most important works; ergo, I think we should mention them. I would also endorse keeping "Noetherian rings" - how many people have a mathematical concept named after them? Very few. To a reader like myself who doesn't know anything about the math, a detail like this indicates how important Noether is.

Ozob concurred:

Noetherian rings are one of the most important concepts ever introduced in abstract algebra, probably only second to the basic definitions of rings, modules, and so on. They absolutely need to be included in lead; I think they deserve a hundred-point type sign saying "THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!"

I don't want to be stubborn, but it seems like a case of "We decided it ain't broke..." to me. – Scartol • Tok 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been through the process, I appreciate your frustrations! :) As someone who doesn't know the math, I found the article very interesting. However, when reading the lead and making my suggestions on it, it was about readability. While the papers may be important, for someone reading the lead to get an idea of what the article is about, the titles are not significant. It's similar to a sorority article I reviewed several months ago which listed the names of all the original members. Yes, they were important, but for readability, no one wants to read a list of names. I agree that the mention of the rings is important, and a big deal. The mention of boys however, not so much. So, for me, it's a matter of deciding what's most important and significant and including it in the lead in a way that flows best for the reader.
Also, I believe going into specifics in the lead should be avoided. The point of the lead it not only to summarize the article, but to draw the reader in... to make the want to read the entire page. Summarizing by giving only the key information, and touching briefly on each topic, gives the reader the basic information while leaving them with a hunger for the details. That is what brilliant prose in a well-constructed lead is to me. Lara❤Love 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Randomblue (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Specifics should be included in the lead. We don't say "Charles Dickens was a famous novelist" and then neglect to mention his famous novels and we don't say "Albert Einstein was a famous scientist" and fail to mention what he discovered. Without the details, the reader just gets a vague of sense of Noether as a famous mathematician - that is not enough. What was she famous for in mathematics is the key question. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we need to be specific! Adding not-so-specific titles like "Proof of a main theorem in the theory of algebras" takes up a lot of space in the lead and isn't interesting. The lead should focus on, for example, the content and impact" of these papers; that is the engaging material.Randomblue (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting the lead should be vague. There's a difference between summarizing with the basics and being vague. ...her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys", is interesting, but not particularly important, for example. It's also not mentioned in the body. It should be moved there. I removed the list of titles and Willow has improved the prose, so it reads much better now. Lara❤Love 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if this has been discussed before, but "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics" seems contentious to me. Surely Ada Lovelace and Maria Agnesi are, at the least, more well-heard of than her? indopug (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here could easily lead to an argument about who is most important, whether "well heard of" and "important" are equivalent, and whether Lovelace's contributions were primarily to mathematics, but I think that misses the point. What we should be discussing here is not whether she really is the most important but rather whether it is factual to say that she is often so described. Do you think this claim is insufficiently sourced? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Attribution would be nice; "According to X, 'Noether is the most important...'" Since Einstein seems to have believed it, why not attribute it to him? Since he is so popular, his statement regarding her importance would carry weight with a lay reader, while at the same time disassociating her supreme importance from being "fact". indopug (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the whole question of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever." is a little silly, but it is part of the historical dialog about Noether, so we pretty much have to cover it. It does help readers appreciate the importance of her work, and fire their enthusiasm for learning about her. :) My own feeling is that no attribution is needed in the lead, especially not having seen any contention in the published literature. Although we all have our personal favourites (e.g., your examples, Hypatia, Sophie Germain, Sofia Kovalevskaya, etc., etc.), the present consensus of mathematicians and mathematical encyclopedias seems to be for Noether, as you can see from the "Assessment" section. I appreciate the advantages of citing Einstein, but that wouldn't reflect that consensus; also, despite the New York Times headline, Einstein was not a mathematician and "did not pretend to be", according to Pais' biography. Willow (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK no worries; I honestly hadn't seen the Assessment until now. FWIW, having read that section, it looks a little silly having seven almost-consecutive sentences (incl. the two blockquotes) that are just variations of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever.", besides revealing little additional information. While sentenes such as "In a 1964 World's Fair exhibit entitled "Men of Modern Mathematics"..." and "In his obituary, fellow algebraist B. L. van der Waerden says..." are interesting, the others are "consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians", "greatest woman mathematician in recorded history", "greatest woman mathematician", "greatest woman ever to work in the field", "greatest woman mathematician up to her time", "best woman mathematician of all time", and "greatest mathematicians (male or female)". Is it possible to trim that section and remove a few of those sentences? Maybe cut down on the use of the G word? It just seems redundant and repetitive to the point where the reader goes "oh ok already she's the best-ever, lets move on". indopug (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images:

  • I think it was mentioned above, but Image:Noether.jpg needs more details to support a public domain claim. {Country and date of first publication, as well as the date of death of the author if that is the basis for the PD claim.)
  • Image:Erlangen 1916.jpg may not be in the public domain in Germany (if that's where it was published), which uses life+70 as the copyright rule. It is at risk of deletion there. Recommend moving back to en Wikipedia and licensing as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
  • Image:Paul Albert Gordan.jpg, same as above, if published in Germany. Also needs details on authorship and publication.
  • Image:Zuerich vier Kirchen.jpg could use an English description if it's being used in an English article, but not a big deal.

Kelly hi! 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)