Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

message: 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)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the picture of him speaking is slightly better. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well; the bottom one has a lot more detail (that close-up of his nostril for instance...) Pocketed</sup> 12:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The new one is out of focus. Grainy beats unfocused any day of the week. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both not exactly sharp, but I concede I'm not using the optimal equipment to view them. Perhaps someone could have a go at photoshopping, either the original or this other one -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The picture of Bourdieu speaking is shown on Commons and Flickr as created in 2011 by Alicia Gaudi. Bourdieu died in 2002. There's a cropped but better-quality version on Le Monde's website at http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/01/23/pierre-bourdieu-une-pensee-en-mouvement_1632597_3232.html with an alt-text date of October 1998 and attribution to "AFP/Pierre Vardy". Can we be reasonably confident we do have cc-by-2.0 rights to use it? 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Also a much better version of it here: http://images.zeit.de/kultur/literatur/2010-11/bourdieu/bourdieu-540x304.jpg 
But not sure about the copyright. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. There's another of the same event here with the same date and attribution. A flickr account with 6 photos and no followers, I don't think a correct licence could be ruled out, but given the evidence I'm inclined to be skeptical. Back with the grainy photo then? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - Google's search-by-image strikes again! There's also a less cropped version at Le Monde and other pictures of Bourdieu speaking at a 1998 conference, identically dressed, in Liberation and der Freitag, all attributed to Pierre Verdy/AFP. 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Here's a sharper version of the first one I was able to make with an online editor (must be possible to produce a better one with Photoshop, though): Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what a picture of someone 'not thinking' could possible look like, but certainly the one FreeKnowledgeCreator is promoting does not fall under that category. I am also not sure what a 'weird' picture is in relation to someone talking, nor how that may be 'distracting' in such a way that one is unable to see what they look like. It seems weird to be distracted by that. Both pictures give an impression of his appearance, the question is which one gives a better impression, and that has to do with the quality of the picture. One is grainy and aesthetically 'weird' in that it is a close up of his face; the other is unfocused but I am in the process of putting it through photoshop to make it focused. Once that is done, people here can choose which one they prefer, until a consensus is reached. Without a consensus being reached, or a convincing argument being presented, I will continue changing the picture as I see fit, for FreeKnowledgeCreator's beliefs about what picture is 'weird' or 'distracting' or 'doesn't show someone thinking' aren't the standard for Wikipedia infobox pictures. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: the purpose of a picture in an infobox is to show what someone looks like. Nothing else. Hence it is better if it is a neutral image that shows someone doing nothing in particular. Of course one can see what Bourdieu looks like in the picture where he is gesticulating, but why include something irrelevant such as him waving or raising his hands when the only reason to have a picture at all is simply to show his appearance? You can repeat endlessly that the other picture is somehow more aesthetic. That won't change the fact that it isn't. Your comment that you will continue changing the picture as you see fit is regrettable. The accepted approached is that someone who wants to change an article needs consensus for their change; otherwise it remains as it was before. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you believe that an image is neutral when it displays someone 'doing nothing' (whatever that means), and therefore somehow better shows what someone looks like, does not make it so. There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well? Both images clearly show what he looks like, and so fulfill the criteria of the infobox image. The question is which of the two is better. You believe the grainy, 'weird' close-up picture is better, I and some others do not. Other users have said that the other image has its faults, too, though unrelated to the 'doing nothing' criterion you made up. It is unfocused, which someone will hopefully fix. Another issue that was mentioned was copyright. If it can be shown that the image I suggested is indeed subject to copyright, the matter is resolved as it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether (I found it there, and it is the only other available option as far as I know; at least I have not yet been able to find another image of him that is free of copyright per the Wikipedia guidelines, but perhaps someone else can). And no, I am not now going to keep changing the image. I will await the end of the discussion with the aim of reaching consensus, per Wiki guidelines. But consensus does not mean that your opinion is the automatically accepted one just because it reflects the status quo. At least, I have not find anything in the Wiki guidelines that says that. I would love to hear more opinions on this from other users; which image do you prefer, and do you not agree that the current one is simply not good on various grounds (e.g., extreme close-up, grainy, unprofessional)? Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Doing nothing in particular" means that someone is shown standing or looking at the camera, and that's all. What did you think it meant? Per common sense, of course that's what a picture in an infobox of a biographical article should show. Regarding your comment, "There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well?", see WP:OTHERCRAP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per common sense that's not them 'doing nothing', it's them standing or looking at the camera. What you meant to say was 'I want images of them not gesticulating or speaking', which is fine for your personal standard for what a 'neutral image' is, but it's irrelevant for the content of an infobox, which is to show what a person looks like. Both images fulfill that criterion, and in my opinion and that of some others one does so better than the other for a variety of reasons (e.g., it is not grainy, not a weird extreme close-up). So like your image criterion of somehow showing someone 'not thinking', 'doing nothing' is equally meaningless, per common sense. And yes, the fact that there are countless infobox images on biographical entries that do not fit your personal criteria means that it is not official Wiki policy, it's just your personal preference. And no, your personal preference does not trump that of others', no matter how much you try to present it as some kind of universally valid rule or policy.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What drivel. If you want to show what someone looks like, of course you show them standing calmly and looking at the camera, not making weird hand gestures. The only reason to show someone making hand gestures would be if their hand gestures somehow helped or informed the reader. They don't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). Yes, we already know your personal set of criteria for what an infobox image ought to look like. It's irrelevant. I'm interested in other peoples' opinions, preferably those whose ideal image doesn't include showing someone 'not thinking' or 'doing nothing [except what I want them to be doing]'.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Vladimir Koznyshev, my views are not irrelevant, because I'm an editor with the same right to edit this article as anyone else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They're irrelevant to me, just as my views are 'drivel' to you. Not sure which characterization is worse. Actually, I am, and it's not mine. In any case, in the context of Wikipedia your views are as relevant as mine or anyone else's, and since our opinions are already known, I'd like to hear more from others. I read that's actually one of the ways to reach consensus.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for your input! I am indeed not at all an experienced user on here so forgive me for any mistakes I've made during the process. I have done my best to avoid them by reading through the guidelines and policies. My RfC comment was not the one that is at the beginning of the section, that was already there when the discussion began. I added my RfC note and worded it as neutrally as I could in the final contribution on the talk page, and by then I had also clarified that I would not continue revising it unless consensus was reached, though I understand why that could be easily missed in the rather lengthy exchange with FreeKnowledgeCreator (I have just now edited the original comment to reflect this!). Having said that, your preference for the current image is perfectly reasonable; the other image being blurry is certainly a negative for it, though I believe the graininess and other negatives of the other one make it worse. However, if someone puts the other image through Photoshop and gets a better version (I tried myself but I'm crap at it; might give it another go soon), would you be open to preferring the other one instead? If so the matter can be easily resolved by someone who's skilled at Photoshop. As noted I'll give it a go myself again soon. Thanks again for your helpful contribution.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your preferred image is unacceptable because it does not clearly focus on Bourdieu's face and therefore does not identify him so clearly. Much of the image is taken up with Bourdieu's gesticulations, which unlike his face do not help to identify him in any fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Snow Rise, it's not about the quality of the image for FreeKnowledgeCreator (it being blurry), they just find it unacceptable per some subjective criteria they made up which as you and others have pointed out is merely their personal preference. Looking forward to more comments, including yours on the less blurry image. Also, hopefully someone with Photoshop skills sees this and can make an even better version of it.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm using common sense about what is best for an encyclopedia. An image is appropriate when everything in it is suitable for the purpose for which it is being used, in this case identifying the subject of the article. Bourdieu's gesticulations are not relevant to identifying him, so it is better not to use a picture where he is gesticulating. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can keep justifying your purely subjective preference for an image by appealing to "common sense", but it's evident that it's just your personal preference, as 5 editors have now shown.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I disagree; the second image is best because it gives the reader the clearest impression of Bourdieu's face. The nostril is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/wacquant_pdf/HABITUS-INTERNCYECOSOC.pdf%26pli%3D1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010230113/http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm to http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032241/https://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8443/ws/files/47350542/Religiousfields_author_non_format.pdf to https://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8443/ws/files/47350542/Religiousfields_author_non_format.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Draft:Bourdieu's theory of practice in International Relations theory]]