Talk:Karen Uhlenbeck

Missing Institution
As can be checked by looking at Professor Uhlenbeck's CV, she was a tenured Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1977-83, between her position as Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her position as Professor at the University of Chicago. So UIC should be listed in the "Institutions" section along with the other two. 74.0.62.122 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Marriages
I believe the notes that "she was the wife..." seem misplaced and are incomplete, and perhaps should be integrated into the main text? As I understand it (from reading the cited biographies and elsewhere), she had the benefit of an MIT educated father and artist mother (although she claims that they held back her education). She married well, into the Uhlenbeck family (as noted), and together with her husband, she came to the University of Illinois. In published remarks about herself, she claimed that she deserved positions at MIT, Princeton etc, where her husband was given offers, but that "he followed her" to Illinois. They later divorced (rather than say, her being widowed). 98.222.133.56 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some misinformation here regarding her marriage(s). This text of this article states that she married Olke C. Uhlenbeck but the information in the box at the top right lists her spouse as Robert F. Williams. There is no Wikipedia article about Williams but the article about Olke C. Uhlenbeck lists Karen Uhlenbeck (her) as his spouse. It appears to me that both articles need corrections.Wcomm (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Added the information according to the Celebratio interview with her in 2018. It says that she married Olke Uhlenbeck in 1965 but the marriage ended in 1976, and that by her 1988 move to the University of Texas at Austin, she was married to Robert F. Williams. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karen Uhlenbeck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209034304/http://rene.ma.utexas.edu/users/uhlen/ to http://rene.ma.utexas.edu/users/uhlen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

NAS
According to a source cited in the article, Uhlenbeck was the first female mathematician in NAS. recently changed that to "second", and I reverted, since none of the three sources cited say that. However, I think Gliode is correct: Julia Robinson was actually the first. Can we have a decent source for this? --JBL (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Pinging to please discuss this here instead of edit-warring about it! --JBL (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Now that you've brought this up, and I've spent the last little bit poking around, sources for both seem to state this unequivocally. For example NPR vs. AMS. I have sent NPR an email asking for clarification on where their information comes from, or if there is some nuance here that we're missing. For now, we should probablyremove any ordinal statement and simply state that she was elected in that year.  G M G  talk  15:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, they got it from us ;). The source for the claim "first" is not obviously terrible but not obviously reliable for this detail, either.  I agree that (at least tentatively) removing the claim is prudent. --JBL (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still no update from NPR, but I'll comment here when they reply.  G M G  talk  22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we not counting Gertrude Mary Cox as a mathematician? Because she was also elected in 1975 in the Applied Mathematical Sciences section, the same year as Robinson. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly just waiting for an answer from a reputable source.  G M G  talk  23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a biographical memoir published by the National Academy Press (alternate link) from 1994 mentioning that Robinson was the first woman elected to the mathematical section of the NAS (pg. 22). An LA Times obituary published in 1985. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any serious disagreement that Robinson was before Uhlenbeck? This is also easy to look up in the NAS member directory. I thought we were trying to find a source for the claim that Uhlenbeck was the second. But even that seems dubious (see Cox, above). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh that was my impression from However, I think Gliode is correct: Julia Robinson was actually the first. Can we have a decent source for this? But regarding Cox, if the NAS has separate sections for applied mathematicians and mathematicians, i.e. the NAS regards them separately, then shouldn’t WP? — MarkH21 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even Princeton (where she is now) describes Uhlenbeck as the first female mathematician to be elected to the NAS. Here’s an AMS book describing Uhlenbeck as the second. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Books and research papers
What is the purpose of having the books and research papers labeled "RNL", etc? Those abbreviations aren't used in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. See the footnote marks in the Research section. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "RNL" isn't used in the body (and maybe others). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the selected publications are not actually discussed in the article text. I think the appropriate fix is to discuss them, or if there is nothing to say about them then maybe they should not be listed under selected publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it is OK to list them (I'll leave that decision to others). I was just wondering what the point of the abbreviations that weren't used.  That's all I have to say about that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be consistently formatted with the ones that are used? We could relabel them A, B, C, etc., easily enough but consistent formatting would still involve choosing labels for all of them, and that system would be harder to maintain if we change our minds about which publications to include. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)