Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emmy Noether article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Emmy Noether(pictured) was called "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began" by Albert Einstein?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
In 1935, Hermann Weyl subnitted an obituary to the New York Times, which they refused to print on the grounds that nobody had ever heard of him. There is an apocryphal story that Albert Einstein's "In the judgment of the most competent living mathematicians," was a slap at the NYT for being ignorant of Weyl's prominence. If there is an online copy og Weyl's obituary of Emma, I believe that it would be appropriate to cite it and quote a couple of paragraphs. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 263 of Rowe, 2021 says
There is another reason to entertain these speculations, and this concerns the obituary article that appeared in the New York Times on May 5, 1935, signed by Einstein. An oft-repeated story about this piece is that the author was actually Hermann Weyl, but since the journalists who handled these matters had never heard of him, they asked for something from his super-famous IAS colleague. Such stories are usually difficult to refute, and something like this may well have happened. But in this particular instance, surviving textual evidence makes clear that Einstein wrote the obituary in question, or to be more precise, he drafted a German text (Fig. 9.2), which served as the basis for the published obituary. Since it appeared rather late, some three weeks after Noether’s death, it seems entirely plausible that Weyl might have submitted an obituary to the New York Times, only to have it rejected.
What is the rationale for having the long section named "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)"? I do not understand why the overview of abstract algebra is necessary in this article.
The bullet points defining groups and rings seem particularly silly, since one can get better information about groups or rings by clicking the link to the corresponding article and reading the first paragraph or so. Homogeneous Cow (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you do not already have that background then the description of her contributions becomes unreadable, and we do not want to assume that reads who click a link to find out about something will ever come back from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True: the more background you have, the easier this article is to read. But in my opinion, it is usually better to let the reader decide what background they'd like to read further about. From my perspective (as somebody who knows something about abstract algebra but little about Noether), the article is so cluttered and overlong as to be hard to read. I started reading it to learn about her---not to learn about what a group is. Because I am lazy (like most readers), I quickly gave up on reading the article, discouraged at sorting through the definitions, and came to the talk page to complain instead.
It's not like the excessive background material is just confined to one section, either; see, for example, the section on Galois theory. The first three paragraphs are generalities about Galois theory, and only the final, fourth paragraph says anything about Noether. Surely this inappropriate for an article supposedly about Noether?
Also, you talk about the reader not coming back after clicking on a link as if it's a bad thing. If they decide they'd rather read about group theory than about a mathematician, surely we have no reason to try to prevent that? Homogeneous Cow (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, Noether did not marry (true?), but she have any romances? If not, the article should at least say so. It ends quite abruptly as it is. JingleJim (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some bullet points, because this comment is weird on several levels:
The article doesn't end abruptly at all; a 'Legacy' section is the de facto ideal way to end an article about a person, piece of media, etc.
It's up to you to show that there's notable coverage of possible romances that could be used, not for others to go looking for it.
Any possible romances would have no effect on the ending of the article, as they would fall into the 'Biography' section which ends with her death (the, again, de facto ideal way to end that kind of section). TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it obvious that a biographical article should include any romances when there's no evidence they (or their absence) is at all relevant to the article's subject's noteworthiness? Do you insist that's an obvious point about males in their articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRuby (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was delighted to see Emmy Noether on the Main Page this morning, and I wanted to thank the contributors who brought the article into such fine form. Reading the FARC discussion, I was impressed by their good sense and devotion to maintaining high encyclopedic standards. Hats off to you all! It's an article we can all be proud of.
I have long believed[a] that Emmy deserves more recognition from the general public, and share your gratitude for her appearance on the main page.
I noticed that this talk page shows a project for female scientists but not for female mathematicians. If one exists, it should be added, as her work on abstract algebra was her crowning glory, and it is hard to overstate its importance in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to everybody who has helped maintain this article over the years. I didn't even see our friend Noether on the front page, so disconnected am I (alas) from Wikipedia these days. I share WillowW's salute of everybody involved, and I thank her for all her help in the original FA drive.
I don't see her on the page now - and most of the content is "transcluded" so I can't find it in the pimary page history. Where was it on the page? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^To the extent of designing a satirical Yes they can! tee shirt in her honor.
In the lead it says "she lectured and performed research". Does one "perform" research? I would think one would conduct research, or perhaps engage in research. RoySmith(talk)22:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me (a person involved with American academia), both “conduct” and “perform” sound acceptable here, but “conduct” sounds better.
Google ngrams [1] confirms that “conduct” is more popular.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
