Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pierre Bourdieu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anti-consumerist??? Where did this come from?
Edited to be 'Sociology'.
Using anti-consumerist is like calling a chemist an anti-alchemist.
Completely ridiculous
All you people arguing about the image when the content is completely broken and incomplete need to get your priorities sorted, and get off this ridiculous power-trip your having over making meaningless decisions over his image. Read some Bourdieu's later work and you'll read him attacking this exact kind of behaviour. IRONY
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sk2266.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion at hand concerns whether this image of Bourdieu should be in the infobox: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Pierre_Bourdieu.jpg
Or this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bourdieu_Strasbourg_crop.jpg
Why do I believe the former image is better than the latter? As I noted in my latest revision summary: it is aesthetically and functionally better, for it is not a grainy, cropped image taken from a random meeting with other people. It is professional and shows him speaking. It is moreover also the image used on all the other major language versions of the article (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.). Finally it shows him as he was best known to the public appearance-wise; the other image is of him when he was already quite old and shows him in a way that does not fit the public impression of him as established throughout his career (just do a google image search for him).
There are also downsides for that picture, however. It is somewhat blurry, and I hope someone with the requisite Photoshop skills can produce a better version of it as that is one of the main arguments I've seen from those who prefer the other image.
If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears and am open to changing my mind, as I hope others are as well, in particular when a better version of the first image is presented. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
But not sure about the copyright. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
So anyone else have a preference for one or the other image, or is able to produce a sharper version of the first? I looked at the other major language wiki pages of Bourdieu (French, Spanish, Italian) and they all have the first image in the infobox as well. I have added a request for comment to get more opinions. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Vladimir Koznyshev is confused about what the purpose of an infobox picture is in a biographical article. The purpose is to show what somebody looks like, not to show what they look like when they are speaking or writing a book or thinking or anything of that kind. Actually, the picture is better if Bourdieu is not speaking or doing anything in particular. The image of Bourdieu gesticulating is not in any way aesthetically better, rather, it is weird and distracting. The other picture gives a better impression of his appearance. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Holy smokes, you two, what a massive amount of animosity for such a minor difference in content. Seriously, both of you have gone way beyond reasonable and civil commentary for what is, in essence, a style determination; neither of you was going to win this on an appeal to any firm policy or similar empirical argument, so going to the mat in the fashion (and especially at the length) that you two have is borderline disruptive. Vladmir, I presume you read the RfC guidelines before filing this, so you should have caught the part that the RfC proposal is supposed to be neutrally worded, presenting the arguments for each option, not favouring one and dismissing the other. Much more importantly than that, there was no need to mention FreeKnowledgeCreator or your gripes with him in the proposal--doing so just sets you up for more entrenched, personalized discussion; keep your commentary on the issues, not the "opposition", please. Most importantly, you should be aware that when you say "If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears. But until then, I will keep revising it for the reasons mentioned.", you give the impression that you are saying you are willing to WP:Edit war to keep your preferred version of the article in place, which is a disruptive activity that will quickly get you blocked on this project; I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you follow through on that commitment. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you have much more experience than Vladmir and ought to know better than to engage in ceaseless back-and-forth, especially with emotionally-charged language like "drivel" and so-forth, especially when we're talking about a style issue on which reasonable people could reasonably disagree. Coming at another editor with language like that is uncivil and nonconstructive. I urge the both of you take a moment and consider if your comments are at all proportionate to the circumstances or in any way appropriate to reasonable discussion on a collaborative project.
All of that said, I prefer the status quo/Strasbourg image. It's not ideal, but it is the higher quality image, with far better focus, as well as framing around the face--which is generally embraced as the most useful kind of biographical photo for infobox image, in my experience. Of course, consistency with other BLPs is not the only important factor, and certainly there are plenty of infobox images out there showing their subject from from different perspectives and in different levels of animation--so that's no determinative argument in itself. But ultimately, the other image is just far to blurry/low res/low quality to seriously contemplate, imo. Snow let's rap 05:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the first image is better than the second one because it is not blurry; it is not aesthetically odd in that it zooms in on his nostrils; it displays him as he is generally known to be public.
Please provide your input as to which one you prefer, and see below for the previous discussion on the matter. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 12:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Came upon this talk page by accident, read the discussion here, and obviously the first image here is the better representation of Bourdieu in every respect. It shows him as most people know him, not as an older man, grainy/blurry and in a surprised state as is the case with the second picture. I find it somewhat odd that there is an editor who appears to be obsessed with keeping the second picture when it is obviously inferior in every way, so much so that they're willing to edit-war over it. Since the person in question is unrelenting and the other editor seems to have given up on this I'm adding a dispute resolution request. Hopefully something productive can come out of that. 109.246.75.242 ( talk) 01:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/wacquant_pdf/HABITUS-INTERNCYECOSOC.pdf%26pli%3D1When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I just postponed the CSD G13 speedy deletion of this draft and was wondering if any of the content could be used in this article. I realize that part of the draft is essay-like but there might be some usable content or sourcing that those who know Bourdieu well could make use of. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
=. 103.159.214.186 ( talk) 05:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pierre Bourdieu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anti-consumerist??? Where did this come from?
Edited to be 'Sociology'.
Using anti-consumerist is like calling a chemist an anti-alchemist.
Completely ridiculous
All you people arguing about the image when the content is completely broken and incomplete need to get your priorities sorted, and get off this ridiculous power-trip your having over making meaningless decisions over his image. Read some Bourdieu's later work and you'll read him attacking this exact kind of behaviour. IRONY
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sk2266.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion at hand concerns whether this image of Bourdieu should be in the infobox: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Pierre_Bourdieu.jpg
Or this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bourdieu_Strasbourg_crop.jpg
Why do I believe the former image is better than the latter? As I noted in my latest revision summary: it is aesthetically and functionally better, for it is not a grainy, cropped image taken from a random meeting with other people. It is professional and shows him speaking. It is moreover also the image used on all the other major language versions of the article (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.). Finally it shows him as he was best known to the public appearance-wise; the other image is of him when he was already quite old and shows him in a way that does not fit the public impression of him as established throughout his career (just do a google image search for him).
There are also downsides for that picture, however. It is somewhat blurry, and I hope someone with the requisite Photoshop skills can produce a better version of it as that is one of the main arguments I've seen from those who prefer the other image.
If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears and am open to changing my mind, as I hope others are as well, in particular when a better version of the first image is presented. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
But not sure about the copyright. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
So anyone else have a preference for one or the other image, or is able to produce a sharper version of the first? I looked at the other major language wiki pages of Bourdieu (French, Spanish, Italian) and they all have the first image in the infobox as well. I have added a request for comment to get more opinions. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Vladimir Koznyshev is confused about what the purpose of an infobox picture is in a biographical article. The purpose is to show what somebody looks like, not to show what they look like when they are speaking or writing a book or thinking or anything of that kind. Actually, the picture is better if Bourdieu is not speaking or doing anything in particular. The image of Bourdieu gesticulating is not in any way aesthetically better, rather, it is weird and distracting. The other picture gives a better impression of his appearance. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Holy smokes, you two, what a massive amount of animosity for such a minor difference in content. Seriously, both of you have gone way beyond reasonable and civil commentary for what is, in essence, a style determination; neither of you was going to win this on an appeal to any firm policy or similar empirical argument, so going to the mat in the fashion (and especially at the length) that you two have is borderline disruptive. Vladmir, I presume you read the RfC guidelines before filing this, so you should have caught the part that the RfC proposal is supposed to be neutrally worded, presenting the arguments for each option, not favouring one and dismissing the other. Much more importantly than that, there was no need to mention FreeKnowledgeCreator or your gripes with him in the proposal--doing so just sets you up for more entrenched, personalized discussion; keep your commentary on the issues, not the "opposition", please. Most importantly, you should be aware that when you say "If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears. But until then, I will keep revising it for the reasons mentioned.", you give the impression that you are saying you are willing to WP:Edit war to keep your preferred version of the article in place, which is a disruptive activity that will quickly get you blocked on this project; I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you follow through on that commitment. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you have much more experience than Vladmir and ought to know better than to engage in ceaseless back-and-forth, especially with emotionally-charged language like "drivel" and so-forth, especially when we're talking about a style issue on which reasonable people could reasonably disagree. Coming at another editor with language like that is uncivil and nonconstructive. I urge the both of you take a moment and consider if your comments are at all proportionate to the circumstances or in any way appropriate to reasonable discussion on a collaborative project.
All of that said, I prefer the status quo/Strasbourg image. It's not ideal, but it is the higher quality image, with far better focus, as well as framing around the face--which is generally embraced as the most useful kind of biographical photo for infobox image, in my experience. Of course, consistency with other BLPs is not the only important factor, and certainly there are plenty of infobox images out there showing their subject from from different perspectives and in different levels of animation--so that's no determinative argument in itself. But ultimately, the other image is just far to blurry/low res/low quality to seriously contemplate, imo. Snow let's rap 05:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the first image is better than the second one because it is not blurry; it is not aesthetically odd in that it zooms in on his nostrils; it displays him as he is generally known to be public.
Please provide your input as to which one you prefer, and see below for the previous discussion on the matter. Vladimir Koznyshev ( talk) 12:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Came upon this talk page by accident, read the discussion here, and obviously the first image here is the better representation of Bourdieu in every respect. It shows him as most people know him, not as an older man, grainy/blurry and in a surprised state as is the case with the second picture. I find it somewhat odd that there is an editor who appears to be obsessed with keeping the second picture when it is obviously inferior in every way, so much so that they're willing to edit-war over it. Since the person in question is unrelenting and the other editor seems to have given up on this I'm adding a dispute resolution request. Hopefully something productive can come out of that. 109.246.75.242 ( talk) 01:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/wacquant_pdf/HABITUS-INTERNCYECOSOC.pdf%26pli%3D1When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I just postponed the CSD G13 speedy deletion of this draft and was wondering if any of the content could be used in this article. I realize that part of the draft is essay-like but there might be some usable content or sourcing that those who know Bourdieu well could make use of. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
=. 103.159.214.186 ( talk) 05:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)