This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Hello everyone
@
FreeKnowledgeCreator: @
WikiPedant: 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)
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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=User:Riyeng/Creating_Capabilities. Riyeng ( talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, Section 2 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Riyeng ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DStrassmann ( talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a complete bibliography to the page. It would provide valuable context for readers and researchers, allowing them to better understand the scope and impact of her contributions to philosophy and related fields. Currently, the page includes major works, but a full bibliography would enhance the page's completeness and utility. Raskolnikov7 ( talk) 18:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Hello everyone
@
FreeKnowledgeCreator: @
WikiPedant: 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)
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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=User:Riyeng/Creating_Capabilities. Riyeng ( talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, Section 2 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Riyeng ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DStrassmann ( talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a complete bibliography to the page. It would provide valuable context for readers and researchers, allowing them to better understand the scope and impact of her contributions to philosophy and related fields. Currently, the page includes major works, but a full bibliography would enhance the page's completeness and utility. Raskolnikov7 ( talk) 18:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)