Talk:Martha Nussbaum

Restore the peacock tag
It's wild how obviously peacocked this article is. That anyone would even try to argue otherwise makes me suspect sockpuppeting. This kind of article demeans wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.136 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Excessive images
Hello everyone  have given no or minimal explanation for their insistence on the inclusion of the images. The simple fact that an edit is disputed is not a rationale for reverting it. No context is given for any of these images, such as her giving a speech to a conference of academics. They are just neutral images of Nussbaum. It is pointless to have so many different images that are functionally equivalent. FKC has suggested they somehow aid readability by "breaking up the monotony of an article that would otherwise consist of almost nothing but text", but that can't be the reason for their inclusion. If it were, why are the last two images in consecutive sections? Why are they all on the same side of the page making it look unbalanced? I think two images is acceptable, but not three. The article as it stands looks far too much like dating profile by someone who wants to show off multiple sides of their personality and doesn't think they can all be captured in a single photo. Except it doesn't even do that as the photos are effectively the same. Regards – 192.41.125.253 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please find something better to do. The images are fine and the reason I gave for restoring them is good enough. Articles consisting of nothing but text are boring and difficult to read because they are so monotonous: multiple images make an article easier to read by preventing the monotony of an almost text-only article. I do not know or care whether that is the reason why the images were added originally. Their exact placement is hardly important. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, readers are likely to wonder what the purpose of the images is or what their immediate relation to the surrounding text is given that no such explanation is given in the captions. Images don't make an article easier to read – how on Earth could they? If walls of text are intimidating to readers the text should be separated into reasonably-sized paragraphs rather than cluttering up the page with pointless images. Please see Image dos and don'ts: "Don't use images or galleries excessively. Don't add images that are not relevant." The purpose of images is to give encyclopaedically relevant info, not to make the article more interesting. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor I know what readers are likely to think of the images, and the issue is irrelevant anyway. I simply do not agree that images do not make the article easier to read. Differently paragraphed text is still text and text by itself, with no images, is monotonous. Your arguments are pointless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here as a reader, so I'm telling you my reaction as a reader to the images. I'm sorry you've misunderstood the purpose of images in articles. It's an encyclopaedia, not an art project. Image dos and don'ts says "Give context with captions and alt text." Manual of Style/Images says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." Your arguments are pointless. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I might also have quoted MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE where it says "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. [...] Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. If an article on a general already shows its subject in uniform, then two more formal in-uniform portraits would add little interest or information, but a map of an important battle and an image of its aftermath would be more informative. Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available." Can you cite any guideline where it says that aiding readability or making an article more pleasing to the eye is a recommended function of images? 192.41.125.253 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is your personal reaction to the images the important issue? I never suggested that the images should be included because they are artistic or attractive or decorative: that misrepresents me. I suggested that they should be included because they make the article easier to read. Nothing you have said convinces me otherwise. If someone wants to add captions to the images, that's fine. Lack of captions is not a reason for removing them. Furthermore, the images obviously are "significant and relevant in the topic's context", since they are of the article's subject, Martha Nussbaum; that makes them relevant by definition. Three images is not even close to being excessive. Nor is there a need for a guideline saying that images should be included as an aid to readability: that misunderstands the role of guidelines. Guidelines are not meant as substitutes for individual editorial judgment, and I'm using mine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikipedia is an illustrated encyclopedia and relevant, competently-taken pictures are bona fide elements of it. It is appropriate to keep all of these images. It is a standard and reasonable practice here to illustrate articles about notable people with multiple images, showing those people at a variety of times in their lives/careers and in a variety of contexts. Your deletions are non-constructive and your seeming willingness to edit war about this matter is foolish. -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Two imgs are enough, and one is a brightly colored dress in a modeling pose.. because... why? At least delete that one. Two are enough. Not a huge article. In fact, the article could stand some trimming. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I admire Nussbaum and her work. She is an independent, original, confident, and rather showy person and I think that what you call, in your edit summary, the "fashion pic" very much captures the personal style for which she is known. A picture often is worth a thousand words. Consider these descriptions of her from the 2002 Chicago Tribune article, "The Martha Show". -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you admire her. [I OTOH am only here because she is or perhaps was in a category of people opposing FGM; I watch several of those articles for sneaky vandalism.] The fact that you admire her is in some sense an asset and in another sense a liability. It's an asset because you are apparently motivated to improve the article (including personally uploading the image in question). It's a liability because it blinds you to the more fannish aspects of this page. This page is sprouting some fanfluff. [For an example of gratuitous fanfluff content, see forex the "hetaira" sentence.] I've seen far worse, don't get me wrong, and normally I would have a live-and-let-live attitude to mild cases of fanfluff in articles that presumably don't get very heavy reader traffic, but there are two actually big problems: 1) you were rude and dismissive to the IP editor who was completely right. 2) I see at least one HUGE problem that must immediately be deleted as per (any one of half a dozen policies, esp. WP:BLP): "During her studies at Harvard, Nussbaum encountered a tremendous amount of discrimination, including sexual harassment, and problems getting childcare for her daughter". Delete immediately; consensus is irrelevant. If you look at the interview, she makes a very vague and very general comment about her unproven, unverified perception that maybe she might have faced some sexual discrimination. Unverified. Our article is clear-cut and strong in its language. It should be deleted. In theory you might be able to get away with "Nussbaum suggests that she felt she perhaps faced some amount of sexual discrimination at Harvard", but even THAT is actually and truly unacceptable because it's unverified speculation. I suppose it might even have legal ramifications; IANAL (I am not a lawyer). So here are three suggestions for resolving this: 1) Delete that sentence immediately. If you don't, I will, in a day or two. OOps I re-read BLP and it says "DELETE IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DISCUSSION", so I did.  2) Apologize to the IP 3) Keep your fannish impulses just a little more in check, please, and keep the page just a little bit more free of fanfluff. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are the images supposed to illustrate? We already know what she looks like. If you want to signpost the article with images you have a diversity of choices. You could include images of her alma mater. You could include images of her giving a lecture on one of her important ideas. You could include a photo of one of her printed works. You could even include something to illustrate an abstract concept she has developed or originated. But you instead insist upon effectively having the same image three times over. Your deletions are non-constructive and your seeming willingness to edit war about this matter is foolish. Surely not as foolish as cluttering up an important article with pointless images, nor, for that matter, rollbacking good-faith edits with edit summaries. It is a standard and reasonable practice here to illustrate articles about notable people with multiple images, showing those people at a variety of times in their lives/careers and in a variety of contexts. Except...that's exactly what these images don't do. They are taken at relatively short intervals, and no context is given to any of them. I totally endorse what Lingzhi2 said in writing "The fact that you admire her [...] blinds you to the more fannish aspects of this page." I accept that the "'fashion pic'" may "[capture] the personal style for which she is known". But I can't help but feel the black-and-white image is included just to be artsy. I'm not seeing much rationale for inclusion of these photos beyond "I like it". 192.41.125.253 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Does ping work on IPs? Anyhow, in my opinion, FWIW, you're 100% correct, but it's a fanpage, and so long as they don't violate WP:BLP, let them have their damn fanpage. But whatever. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, no it doesn't. I just happened to notice from my list of contribs that my most recent edit wasn't the current version so checked for new updates. Thing is, WikiPedant and FKC are the ones who supposedly care about the article. They should be most invested in seeing that it adheres to editorial standards and doesn't just act as a shrine to its subject. I'm not a text puritan or image minimalist, but if you want to include several images, there are so many better ways of doing so. From your last comment I'm getting the impression that we shouldn't bother to put in the effort to improve the article as it's no big deal anyway. That an article will never be perfect is no reason to let its quality stagnate. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have grasped my meaning precisely. I spent 2 years working on Bengal famine of 1943, and what did I get? Kicked in the teeth. But that article actually matters. Recently I've been trying here and there to improve the Tienanmen Square protest article for the upcoming 30th anniversary. That article also matters. No offense to Nussbaum, who is obviously far more accomplished than I am, but her bio details matter only to the group of people who care about her bio details. You could put a pageview count template up. I assume the number is small. So...... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but it's neither "their" page nor is it a "fanpage". Being a fan of Nussbaum gives you no special privilege to decide how the article should be arranged, much less to effectively use it as a way of honouring her. See WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:FANPAGE. They should work on finding some other, better, more diverse selection of images that illustrate the immediate text they accompany, rather than just being generic images of Nussbaum. If they don't I certainly will, eventually. It is the encyclopaedia's integrity and its usefulness to the reader that should guide our editing practice, rather than the sensibilities of Nussbaum's fanboys. 192.41.129.118 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You're right again. 2) It doesn't matter. It's a bullshit puffpiece bio. No one cares. Argue if you want to. have fun. I only commented because they brushed you off like you were some kind of asshole, which you aren't. I thought it was rude and arrogant. But having said that, this is pointless. No one reads this page. No one cares. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you defending me, and if you aren't interested in participating in the discussion, that's fine, but don't go downplaying others' attempts to improve the article. Don't think your limitations are the true measure of limitations. Just because you might not be familiar with Nussbaum doesn't mean she isn't important, or that it's only her dedicated followers who are viewing the page. She is quite a big name in academia, and especially in philosophy. If you feel there are bigger fish to fry, kindly go and do that. But don't be dismissive of others' interests just because you don't share them. 192.41.131.250 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I'm not dismissive of Nussbaum. No way. Her accomplishments in life outweigh mine by more than ten to one. I'm somewhat dismissive of this page about Nussbaum. If I leave you'll lose 2-to-1 against its WP:OWNers, unless they reconsider. Are you gonna go ahead and trim out the fanfluff text as well? Hmmmmmm. OK I'll unwatch the page. No matter what anyone says, if you see some BLP violations (I barely even skimmed the page) delete on sight. Good luck! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The American Spectator, November 2010: "The Politics of Disgust"
https://web.archive.org/web/20101205015833/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/02/the-politics-of-humanity/1

This article by David Tubbs does not engage with the substance of her book, and comes to nothing more than an unargued-for assertion that heterosexual sex in the confines of marriage is sacred. I'm not interested in spending my life in an edit war as I try to diminish the influence of things like this, but I'm willing to spend the time it takes to write this sentence to say that referring to a bullshit article from The American Spectator by a homophobic bigot in response to Nussbaum's work makes Wikipedia look dumb. Maybe there should be a section called "Dumb Things Written on the Occasion of Martha Nussbaum's Writings", and this article could be included there. 159.196.41.177 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Proposal
I plan to create an article on Nussbaum's book "Creating Capabilities;" a more detailed version of my idea can be found on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riyeng/Creating_Capabilities. Riyeng (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, Section 2

— Assignment last updated by DStrassmann (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)