Talk:Noah Feldman

Untitled
I made the change from NYU school of Law to Harvard University, because in his most recent article in NYTimes magazine section, he was listed as a Harvard Law Professor.Slapshot01j 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gossip
The stuff about the supposed tiff is a bit inside baseball and not deserving of encyclopedia content. Who cares if a religion which he rejects is angry. Why crucify hime for it. This stuff should be removed as it does not matter. 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Radio Guy 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attractiveness
The paragraph calls for a picture of the couple, not cropped... Anyone? Happy138 05:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Orthodox Jew"
Removed article from category "Orthodox Jews" -

Including a "Jew" who marries a non-Jew (without her even having converted) as "Orthodox" is unacceptable and out-of-touch (Is noam Chomsky a Zionist because he grew up in that environment? - even his name reflects that tradition - "Noam" is pretty much an Israeli name). Maybe a new Category can be created called "Orthodox-Born Jews" - which would be more descriptive of this story. In this category would be included many more people such as Henri Bergson, Emmanuel Lévinas, Lazar Kaganovich and others 79.182.137.62 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjunct fellow
Can someone explain to me what does it mean to hold the position of an adjunct fellow? I'm translating the article and there is no official equivalent term in my language. Thanks Asaifm (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment
In April 2017 he said in a Slate article that there are sufficient grounds to impeach Donald Trump for corruption. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2017/04/the_impeachable_offenses_of_donald_trump.html Should this be added? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Education and Career
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, it's noted that "in 2008, he was appointed the Bemis Professor of International Law.[2]" But, the very first line of the article, the succinct and (presumably) current overview, states that he's the Felix Frankfurter Professor. So, as an interested but lay reader, I ask, when was NF named Frankfurter Professor?Gaussgauss (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Birthday Edit?
The first sentence has Feldman’s DoB as May 22, but his bio has it at May 20. YiddyCPA (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been fixed.


 * The Infobox and the first sentence contradict each other on this. Whichever date is the "official" one should go in both places.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Lock during judiciary impeachment hearings?
This page is being vandalized live during the impeachment hearings of the Judiciary committee of December 4, 2019. Maybe lock this page and those of other scholars featured in the hearings while they last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.21.140.226 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019
Birth date and age should be corrected. Under Noah's photo the birth year is 1990 and his age displays as 29. His birth year is actually 1970. 69.131.226.178 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see the issue you describe in the current version of the article. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Books section too long and promotional?
The books section seems a bit promotional, and none of the quotes are properly attributed. It's difficult to know if the quotes are by Feldman or by a reviewer. Is such a collection of review quotes normal in a biography? -kyykaarme (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. Either the quotes should be attributed, or they should be removed. If, as I suspect, they are taken from the books' jackets, they are mere puffery and should be removed on that ground. (Broken Constitution has just recevied a harshly critical review in the NYRB issue of May 12, 2022.) --Pechmerle (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Image
We are using a 2017 picture of him (see on the right, top). Two accounts, and, have recently switched the picture to one from 2022 (below it). Both have made the argument in edit summaries that we do not have rights/permission to use the 2017 photo. This is incorrect: it is cropped from File:2017 Festival of Faiths (34684172875).jpg, which at the time of upload was verified to have an acceptable license on Flickr. Even if the image has since been removed or its licence changed, we can still use it under the license as it was then. (In any case, the place to challenge inclusion of the image is on Commons; Wikipedia can use any image hosted on Commons.) The one argument for the 2022 picture is that it is more recent, but they are only 5 years apart and I agree with, who reverted Sanskrita3000 the first time they made the change, that the 2017 picture is better as an infobox identifier. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The photographer, John Nations, has revoked permissions for the 2017 photograph, and we cannot afford to have a copyright infringement. We are currently speaking with the festival of faiths to see if we can get permissions back.
 * In the meantime, we do have permissions for the most recent 2022 photo.
 * With a living biography, it is advisable to utilize a more recent photograph.
 * We will attempt to source a photograph with permissions from 2023, but we request that you stop utilizing the one that has permissions which are currently being questioned, for legal reasons. Kantian20 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We do appreciate your quality editing, and apologize if we have misunderstood what your intent was with reversions to a photo whose permissions are under dispute currently. Please let us know what the issue is with the 2022 photo - why do you not agree it is superior under wiki policy? Kantian20 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I see that, who uploaded the 2022 photo, has now uploaded a cropped version on Commons and you have replaced the article photo with it; 3rd image on the right, for reference. This makes a better infobox image because it is no longer full length (and no longer has so much extraneous background); we prefer a portrait type of photo. I am no expert in photographic / website esthetics, but since unlike the 2017 it's not a picture of the subject "in action", I think it would be even better trimmed further, to focus more on his face (i.e.: I'd lose the hands and the edge of the door/screen). The position of Commons is that the release of an image for use there cannot be revoked; see c:Commons:License revocation. This includes release on Flickr under a compatible license at the time of upload, as in this case. I find exceptions being made on request for very recent uploads; but the upload form specifies that the release is irrevocable. In any case, I repeat what I wrote above and in at least one edit summary: the place to take issue with the permissibility of using the photo is Commons. Go to the "description page on Commons" for File:2017 Festival of Faiths (34684172875) (cropped).jpg and the file from which it is derived, File:2017 Festival of Faiths (34684172875).jpg. On Commons (not Wikipedia), there is a link to nominate a file for deletion; in the skin I am using, it's in the sidebar on the left, but it may well be somewhere else in the default skin. That takes one to an efficiently automated process; you can try there to get both files removed from Commons so that they cannot be used. But unless they are removed, it is an untrue accusation that English Wikipedia editors are using a photo we do not have permission to use. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)