Talk:Martha Nussbaum

interest in law?

A particular interest in law? I thought she was best known as a proponent of virtue ethics? Victor Gijsbers 14:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

relationships

• content removed 07:50, 18 June 2007 diff)

Nussbaum and Sunstein as a couple actually means something - they get joint offers from universities. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/harvard_making_.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.74.171 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure quite what this is supposed to mean, but this is common among academic couples; it's sometimes called "the two-body problem". --Lquilter (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations

I have reverted the following edit which claims to fix various errors in the text: [2]. Since there are no citations either for the original statements or the changes, it is impossible to determine which version is correct. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability 'Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." In order to gradually improve the accuracy of the article, please give citations for changes. If you think something is wrong, you can also put a fact tag on it to challenge the material, or simply remove it. Buddhipriya 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, by the criteria you just cited, the entry should be romoved, not "reverted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.180.26 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned remark was added in this diff: [3]. Yes, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability uncited material that is challenged may be removed. An alternative is to place a fact tag on the dubious material, which alerts other editors that the material may be wrong or needs citation. Some editors routinely place fact tags on dubious material and then cut it after some time if no one has provided a source. Buddhipriya 06:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you claimed this was uncited; it was cited incorrectly, but the references to works by Nussbaum should be considered valid sources, and they followed each change made. ("(see, for example, "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach," in The Quality of Life)", "(see especially Women and Human Development)", "(see for example, "The Feminist Critique of Liberalism," in Sex and Social Justice)") I think this needs to be un-reverted - if there is something I'm missing, please let me know, otherwise I'll assume that the citation to her works were simply not noticed because they were done incorrectly, and that the article should be re-reverted. Davidmanheim 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the editing/reverting dispute in progress over at http://leiterreports.typepad.com/. The edit [available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Nussbaum&oldid=137269795] was written by a professional philosopher and verified by Nussbaum; it is therefore difficult to see how the revert can be justified. {{unsigned|Xoglet|13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)}]

I find it unfortunate that a professional editor with recognized credentials improves the accuracy of an article, and an amateur editor with no credentials comes along, and removes the changes, waving the Verifiability clause like a security blanket. The edited text by Sidgwick should be returned to the article, as he is verified by Nussbaum, and the references were to Nussbaum's work. atoponce June 25, 2007

By the way, this is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect- [4]. atoponce

Robert P. George dispute

I'm surprised there's no mention of that[5] in this article; it's in George's. THF 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Before Nussbaum edited this article, it said unhelpfully: "Her intellectual sparring partners have included Allan Bloom, John Finnis, Robert P. George, Harvey Mansfield and Judith Butler, among others." George and Finnis (also an opposing scholar in Romer) seem to have been taken out. Cool Hand Luke 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake: it's in the current version footnoted as a dead link to the Mendelsohn article about the controversy, just without mentioning George. THF 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rao critique

have removed Ramesh Rao's Frontpage Magazine piece. including this piece without discussing Nussbaum's views in the article, linking to Nussbaum's own article or much more notable reviews and qualifying where the "criticism" is coming from is not neutral at all, especially given Rao's and Frontpage editorial views, not to mention the Rao's cut-paste coatracking from Scott McLemee. Doldrums 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Images etc.

Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg

Somebody has recently replaced Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg by Image:Nussbaum.jpg in the article, which he says he has uploaded "at the behest of Ms. Nussbaum". I have reinserted the other Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg, because:

• The resolution of Image:Nussbaum.jpg is far inferior - in fact, it is so low that her face is barely recognizable. (NB: A much better version of the same photo is available here.)
• I can't see any problem with Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg. If Nussbaum herself or somebody else has a concern about it, this concern should be explained.
• Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg has the advantage of having a proper description including when, where and on what occasion it was taken.
• For images that have been published elsewhere, it is standard Wikipedia practice to require a confirmation that the copyright holder has indeed released it under a free license - in fact, most of these are speedily deleted if such a confirmation is missing, as it is for Image:Nussbaum.jpg (which appears on her homepage [6]). See here for advice on how to provide such a confirmation.

As for this edit: Unfortunately Wikipedia's technical setup means that it can't be verified that this is really Mrs Nussbaum editing, but assuming that it was indeed her, a few remarks: First, subjects of articles are very welcome to point out errors and information that they think violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view principle. In fact, if the removed statement was indeed wrong, I would like to thank her for this correction and apologize on behalf of the editor that inserted it in the first place. However, editing "one's own" article - especially when adding new content - is generally considered problematic, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It might be preferable to suggest changes on this talk page first. And when adding information, one should always cite publicly available sources.

See also Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly - encyclopedia articles should summarize the common knowledge about a subject; they are just not a very good medium to announce ongoing work and forthcoming books.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your analysis of the photos; if anything, Image:Nussbaum.jpg should be nominated for deletion.--Padraic 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it. --Padraic 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

wikicago My name is Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky and I am the Assistant Dean for Communications at the University of Chicago Law School. I am the keeper of the faculty photo library here, including the photos of Professor Martha Nussbaum. Professor Nussbaum has repeatedly asked me to insert one of her two approved photos in her wikipedia page. She very much does not like the photo that keeps being used here and finds it both outdated and unflattering. She says that the date that is repeatedly put on the photo (2006) is incorrect, as she has neither owned nor worn the scarf shown in that photo in many years. She has also not authorized whoever took that photo to use it in any way, and thus feels that it is in violation of her right of publicity to have it used in this space.

The photo that has been uploaded is her preferred photo and its use here is in compliance with copyright. She has a release from the photogrpaher to use it for any purpose she pleases, including uploading it here under a CC license with attribution. The photographer's name is Jerry Bauer. I am not sure what proof the other photographer has that this image can be used, but it has certainly not been used with permission of its subject. I am concerned that Professor Nussbaum's claims of ownership of her own image and photograph are worth less here than the claim of someone who has not sought permission of the subject of the photo.

Professor Nussbaum will confirm all of this by email if you would like to contact her at her official email address martha_nussbaum@law.uchicago.edu (which you can confirm is correct at her website - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum). I am happy to be contacted at m-ferziger@uchicago.edu if you would like to verify that I am who I say I am.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would let this photo stand. Professor Nussbaum would very much like this photo to appear and very much does not like the other photo. She has not tried to otherwise affect her entry here, and understands that the wikipedia community would be opposed to her doing so even if she wanted to. She merely wishes to have an unflattering photo (that she has not approved) removed from this space.

I urge the powers that be to contact Professor Nussbaum if they have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicago (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who is experienced with Commons pass on to them Professor Nussbaum's objections on the violations of her right of publicity? If it was taken after a public meeting, then I seem to recall that she has a right to object.

Also, I think this should be taken on board as equivalent to an OTRS statement, so am informing a volunteer. Relata refero (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• First, many thanks for uploading Image:Nussbaum Martha2.jpg. This time, I agree that it is a valid replacement for Image:Martha Nussbaum.jpg, as the new image has a much better resolution (and also a better description) than Image:Nussbaum.jpg (the previous photo by Jerry Bauer which had to be deleted).
• A month ago, I asked asked User:Arester, who - also "at the behest of Ms. Nussbaum" - had uploaded Image:Nussbaum.jpg, to provide evidence that the copyright holder had agreed to releasing the photo under a free license, by sending an email as described here. To my knowledge, no such email has been received under the address (permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org - I have an OTRS account and just checked again). Which is why this image had to be deleted this Thursday. To prevent the same thing from happening again, I have emailed a request for confirmation (Ticket#2008021610002155) to Mrs. Ferziger Nagorsky as she suggested above (in the hope that this makes things easier than requiring her to complete the final step of standard image uploading procedure by sending such an email to the permissions-en address). I am aware that new Wikipedia editors sometimes find it annoying that a honest claim like "I am X and act on behalf of Y" is met with suspicion by other editors, but please understand that each day we have hundreds of users submitting copyright content which they do not own - requiring such confirmation is our way of protecting the real copyright holders.

"On 28 September 2006 openDemocracy hosted a public dialogue between Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji and the philosopher Martha Nussbaum at the University of Chicago's International House. Here they are together following the event." [1]

• Once that has been completed, I think we can consider the whole matter settled and the following will become moot, but at the moment I still have to say that I am very surprised about this statement: She says that the date that is repeatedly put on the photo (2006) is incorrect, as she has neither owned nor worn the scarf shown in that photo in many years. - The photo is taken from a larger image showing Nussbaum together with Akbar Ganji, which was uploaded on Flickr by the people from OpenDemocracy who organized the event where it was taken. The date of the photo was given by OpenDemocracy, and it agrees with the date of the event as confirmed by an annoncement from the University of Chicago Center for International Studies, among others. It should also be noted that Akbar Ganji was imprisoned in Iran from 2000 to 2006, so even if the OpenDemocracy people are wrong, the photo is unlikely to have been taken before 2006. - So the photo was taken at a public event, after a public appearance of Nussbaum and Ganji as the main protagonists of the evening, and obviously with the knowledge and consent of both persons, as they are clearly posing for the photographer; and published by the event's organizers. Considering this, it was reasonable for the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia to assume that Prof. Nussbaum's personality rights were not being violated. It would perhaps be a good idea if Prof. Nussbaum asked OpenDemocracy directly to delete this image from Flickr.
• Concerns of living people which are subjects of an article are taken very serious at Wikipedia. We do want to get the article right, and we do not want the article to become a source of stress for Prof. Nussbaum. But to be honest, the fact that she would find this image "unflattering" and objectionable is not obvious to an independent observer; it certainly was not to OpenDemocracy. Thanks for your efforts to resolve this, and for donating a high-quality picture.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, High. Now that we've cleared up the rights to the black and white photo, I agree that it should the lead photo. However, this still leaves 2 questions:

• • Given this publicity rights claim, can we still leave the Flickr photo on Commons?
  • If we do have the legal right to use the Flickr photo, should it included in the article as a secondary photo?

In regards to the first, I really have no idea about how publicity rights work, and have sent a request on the Commons mailing list for advice. In regards to the second, as much as it may lead to a lot of anonymous reverts, I don't see any reason to omit a secondary photo of the subject of an article, despite objections of "unflatteringness". Thoughts? --Padraic 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it much either, and think its not a particularly recognisable one. There's no rule that more than one photograph should be in the article if available, and I'd rather it be kept out. Relata refero (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While at present I can't see a legal obligation to remove the image from Commons (IANAL), I don't see a pressing need to use it in this article either, now that we have a free properly sourced high-quality image which fulfills the encyclopedic purpose of identifying the article's subject. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you for helping me resolve this. I have no problem with you seeking to confirm my identity (indeed, I prefer it!) and am grateful that you took the time to hear me out. I have forwarded the information about the OpenDemocracy Flickr site to Professor Nussbaum. In the mean time, it would certainly make my life easier if the other photo did not reappear, but I understand that making my life easier is not your job... Again, many thanks. wikicago —Preceding comment was added at 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: In the meantime, Mrs Ferziger Nagorsky has confirmed her identity as the owner of the account User:Wikicago, and the permission for Image:Nussbaum Martha2.jpg via an email to OTRS as suggested above. I have updated the image description pages here and on Commons accordingly. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge tage with Capability approach

I am far from an expert on the subject but a look at the breadth of her published work and teaching career is not reflected in the current article that is heavily weighted to the Capability approach which has a seperate artcile. Either more info on her other interests and career work should be added and the heavy current section on C.A. streamlined into the article about that particular topic. Somebody should also add an infobox.--64.231.214.104 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article needs to be developed to include the full range of her work. At the same time, the description of the Capabilities Approach stays mostly focused on her particular contribution, so I think it's appropriate. The article needs additions, not the elimination of the capabilities approach.--216.164.61.154 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While we're discussing this, shouldn't we decide/differentiate between the "Capability Approach" and the "Capabilities Approach"? Actually I don't really mind which term is used, but we should try to use it consistently, right? I've seen both usages in academic publications ... usually people use the singular when referring to Amartya Sen's work, and they use the plural when referring to Martha Nussbaum's work. Anyone known anything more about this? ChristopherHoney (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the article about Nussbaum, we should stick with whatever she uses. In capability approach, use whatever is dominant in the literature in general. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sen and Nussbaum used essentially the same model, so even here we should use the dominant form in the literature overall, I think. I don't support a removal of info from here, but an expansion of her other work on gender, FGM and especially Kant and cosmopolitanism etc. Relata refero (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Does anyone know how we decide whether to use Template:Infobox philosopher or Template:Infobox academic? --Padraic 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this. I went with academic, more comprehensive. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had actually set up the philosopher infobox and then got an edit conflict with you! It must be something about that wide image that makes it look like it needs an infobox around it. I agree the academic one is more comprehensive, and better looking - I was just wondering if there is a policy on which one takes precedence. --Padraic 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the image. No, I don't think there is a guideline... though I'm surprised there isn't. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)