Talk:Martha Nussbaum/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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. {{subst: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)

Is there some kind of critque at all I find it odd as much information that is on this page, there isn't any criticism.

Images etc.

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.

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)

uchicagolaw: I have re-uploaded the photo that Professor Nussbaum had here until September 2010. The file was removed by CommonsDelinker on 29 September 2010 for lack of license. However, this file is licensed under Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0, and has been licensed under a Creative Commons license since it was uploaded in May 2008. I have emailed the permission from the photographer to Wikimedia Commons and hope that this file will persist on this page. The Uchicagolaw Wikipedia account is maintained by Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky. I previously had the wikicago account but I couldn't upload the file under that account for some reason. This information may be verified, if anyone needs to, by emailing me at m-ferziger@uchicago.edu. Contact information for the subject and the photographer are in the file data. —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

uchicagolaw Professor Nussbaum has received permission to upload (under a CC Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license) another photo at higher resolution. This photo is from August 2010 and has been uploaded. Please contact Marsha Nagorsky at the University of Chicago Law School if you need more information about this photo. —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 29 October 2010 (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)

Quote from Camille Paglia

The article reads, 'Scholar and public intellectual Camille Paglia credited Fragility with matching "the highest academic standards" of the twentieth century.' This quote is taken from a passage in Paglia's essay Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders that is mostly concerned with criticising Nussbaum. There is much more criticism of Nussbaum in that passage than there is praise of Nussbaum. I am not sure that it is appropriate to quote the small part of that passage that is positive, since it could suggest that Paglia's view of Nussbaum is far more favourable than it actually is. I think the article needs to be rewritten to clarify matters. Skoojal (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a passage of Paglia's on Nussbaum which is quite positive. If I remember correctly, Paglia identifies Nussbaum as one of three academics whose work she admires, along with Edward Said and Gillian Rose. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I support the inclusion of the Paglia quotation or a similar quotation from someone else, because Fragility is considered an important work, and some indication of its standing is appropriate. — goethean ॐ 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Paglia's reference to Nussbaum, Said, and Rose is in a different essay. I'm not rushing to remove the quote from this article, simply pointing out that there may be a problem with extracting a positive remark from a mostly negative passage. Skoojal (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectification

From the article:

Nussbaum also refines the concept of "objectification" as originally advanced by Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Nussbaum defines the idea of treating as an object with seven qualities: instrumentality, denial of autonomy, inertness, fungibility, violability, ownership, and denial of subjectivity.

I can't make sense of this. Are these the qualities of an object or of objectification? The sentence "Nussbaum defines the idea of..." seems incomplete. AxelBoldt (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The seven qualities are the constitutive parts of the concept of objectification--that is, treating a person not as a subject but as an object. All qualities need not be present as a necessary condition of objectification, however. Nor does one of the qualities or a plurality of qualities necessarily constitute objectification without consideration of the context. It's a complex argument, but the article does state her basic position clearly enough.--147.9.54.183 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The American Spectator

The article quotes The American Spectator: One conservative magazine, The American Spectator, offered a dissenting view, writing, "[H]er account of the "politics of disgust" lacks coherence, and "the politics of humanity" betrays itself by not treating more sympathetically those opposed to the gay rights movement. The article also argues that book is marred by factual errors and inconsistencies.[54]

Is such a tabloid-like magazine supposed to be a reliable source?--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Which book?

"She further developed the idea of the threshold, with reference to constitutional law, in her Foreword to the 2007 Supreme Court issue of the Harvard Law Review, "Constitutions and Capabilities: 'Perception' Against Lofty Formalism," which will ultimately appear in revised form as a book from Harvard University Press." Which book is that? --141.35.40.136 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be Creating Capabilities. I've fixed it. — goethean ॐ 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination claims

Nussbaum's claims of discrimination should be stated as claims, not as fact. I have made the proper changes. 109.65.206.221 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of Latin Titles

Latin titles should be capitalized not with English rules (De Motu Animalium), but only using capitalization rules for body text (De motu animalium).

I'm not a native speaker, but I think this rule applies also to English texts.

Could anyone confirm this? --Ousia (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed from the External links section

Interview with Martha C. Nussbaum: “If citizens are not independent, then what we have is not democracy, but instead some sort of fascism or totalitarianism”", Barcelona Metropolis, 2011.

--Lee P. (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors

More information is needed about Martha's ancestors. As it is, we only get two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.239.144 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is more information needed? Her ancestors seem to me to be utterly irrelevant here, other than the fact that she's tried to make them relevant by describing herself as "WASP elite" and the product of "an aristocratic upbringing" (both of which made me throw up in my mouth a little). Frankly, I doubt both claims. She prepped at Baldwin, a middling sort of private school. Her father was apparently a lawyer of little note, and the Cravens are no illustrious family in the US. Her mother could supposedly trace her ancestry back to the Mayflower, along with about 10 million other people today. She claims that the "WASP elite" is "very preoccupied with money and status", which has been utterly contrary to my observations; most old-family/old-money WASPs don't care about money or status (indeed, they consider both to be vulgar, and caring about them, even more so). It seems to me as if Ms. Nussbaum is trying to exaggerate both her roots and all she "gave up" by converting to Judaism in order to fight oppression, or however she wants to characterize her life's trajectory. (It's ironic that she's clinging to the surname of a man she was briefly married to 25 years ago. So much for liberation from patriarchy.) Bricology (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Martha says that her father Craven was born in the South of the U.S. This is somewhat different to the impression given that he was from New England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.166.213 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

She described her father as having racialist opinions. This might be true, but they are very unpopular to the generation born in 1947, like Martha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martha Nussbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070803112258/http://www.akad.se/Nussbaum.pdf to http://www.akad.se/Nussbaum.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martha Nussbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609180056/http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-applying-the-lessons-of-ancient-greece-martha-nussbaum-dvd--pi-2407861.html/ to http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-applying-the-lessons-of-ancient-greece-martha-nussbaum-dvd--pi-2407861.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"neo-Stoic" or "modern Stoic"

I notice the term "neo-Stoic" in this article - and I am wondering if it may be there as a result of confusion between the terms "neo-Stoic" and "modern Stoic".

I seriously doubt they're referring to the philosophical movement of the sixteenth century that sought to combine Stoicism with Christianity. It's far more likely that it is meant as a reference to Stoics of nowadays -- for which the term is "modern Stoic".

The context is the sentence: "She has defended a neo-Stoic account of emotions that holds that they are appraisals that ascribe to things and persons, outside the agent's own control, great significance for the person's own flourishing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.255.214 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Martha Nussbaum. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Martha Nussbaum. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfair peacock tag

On 13 December 2018 somebody (IP address only) added a peacock tag. They refer to things added by Nussbaum herself or colleagues. Nussbaum has edited several times saying "added a book of mine published today", or "added a new award" or on one occasion giving the date of her marriage. I understand such things to be allowed by Wikipedia. There is a long section on awards. This is a common section in such articles. There is no reason they should not be comprehensive. Ditto for the Honorary Doctorates section. I compared the article on Noam Chomsky and there are similar long lists. The reference to media, which I take to mean interviews etc. in the External links should be no problem . Again, I compared to Chomsky and it is similar. In the body of the text, where there is reference to her work receiving positive comment there is also reference to criticism. I am not well up in philosophy but I know she is a big name. Note the External link naming her in the top 50 philosophers. I feel the tag is unjustified and should be removed. talk) 02:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Made a very slight change to address "Peacock" charge and removed tag.Aineireland (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Capability approach

As Nussbaum is so much associated with the Capability approach, it is strange that it is barely mentioned in the textAineireland (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)