Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

Untitled
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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox
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)
 * I tend to agree that the picture of him speaking is slightly better. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well; the bottom one has a lot more detail (that close-up of his nostril for instance...) Muffled Pocketed  12:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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): Pierre Bourdieu (sharper 1).jpgmir Koznyshev (talk) 16:30, 31 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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.  S n o w  let's rap 05:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment - I prefer the third image, which appears to be a clearer version of the first. At first glance, I liked the second image but after someone pointed out the focus on the nostril, I couldn't stop looking at it. It's a bit of a distraction. None of the images are great but the third is preferable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment. Summoned by bot. I prefer the first or third image, and see no difference between them. I agree that they it is a better photograph. The extreme closeup (photo number two) is just not as good a photo. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox 2
As you can see below, the previous discussion concerning the infobox image ended because the other alternative was deleted due to copyright issues. I found another image that does not have this problem and am now proposing that one as an alternative to the current image. The alternative image I am proposing is this:

Whereas the current one is this:

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)
 * I'm pretty sure that we prefer photos to artwork, but I can't find the guideline, so I've posted at VPM. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reply by Masem, where he notes that there is no strict guideline for preferring photos to artwork and it depends on the particular images, indicates one of the reasons why I believe the first image is better than the second, namely "there are clear cases where other images can be acceptable. If we have an aging actress where we have her photo in the 90s, but she was known as a starlet in her 20s, and we have a free reasonable accurate drawing of her then, that might be preferable". The first image portrays Bourdieu as he is generally known to the public, and its quality is certainly well beyond reasonable in depicting his likeness. I believe it is superior because of that and the other reasons I mentioned. Would love to hear others' thought on it as well.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 15:03, 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, 109.246.75.242. First, if you are user Vladimir Koznyshev, please do not edit while logged out. Second, do not move talk page discussions around the talk page without justification. New threads go at the end of the page, so you should not have moved this discussion. Third, if you want to change the article's picture it is entirely up to you to get consensus for that. I'm sorry, but I simply do not share your assessment of the merits of the two images. In principle, it is far preferable to have an actual image of Bourdieu, not some artist's impression of him. Your claim about how most people know Bourdieu is unsupported. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not that user. And as others have made clear in the discussion that principle is yours and yours alone. For some odd reason you believe your opinion on this matter is Wiki policy, when it is clearly not. And you keep repeating this unsupported claim. I have asked for arbitration as you are unrelenting and prone to edit-war. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Redrose64 indicated that photographs are preferred to artworks in cases such as this, so he appears to agree with me. I never said that my views were official policy. Your request for dispute resolution is futile. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Redrose64 wasn't sure and brought it up on the Village Pump section where t is clarified by MASEM and Jason Quinn that there are no guidelines or rules stating that "in principle, it is far preferable to have an actual image of X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_54#Do_we_have_a_written_guideline_on_whether_a_photo_is_preferred_to_non-photographic_art


 * That is just your opinion, nothing more. I would ask you to kindly refrain from presenting your own opinions as stated Wiki policy, and instead argue on the merits of the images in question, which clearly show that the first is preferable to the second for all the reasons I and others have mentioned: it is not grainy/blurry; it shows him how he was best known as a public figure (not when he was much older), and it is not cropped from a surprise snapshot. Incidentally, the original image from which that was cropped is no longer available on Wiki, so it is questionable what the copyright status of the cropped version is. You have no leg to stand on, and it is quite frankly very strange that you are so obsessed with this that you will edit-war over it.109.246.75.242 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to replace the photograph with another photograph then "it is not grainy/blurry" would be a relevant argument. It is not a relevant argument when you are trying to replace a photograph with an artistic drawing, because "grainy/blurry" does not apply to artistic drawings. The drawing has its own defects as an image. It is black and white, which is obviously not the best for depicting someone's likeness, and it looks burned or crinkled around the edges. I don't care about your views on how Bourdieu was best-known, as you have no evidence for them. If you actually care about how Bourdieu was best known, then you ought to support an actual image of him, as opposed to something an artist made up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I presented three arguments, you reduce it to only one, then proceed to dismiss it because of your personal opinion (presented as objective fact) while decrying that I am merely relying on my personal opinion. That is not very charitable. The arguments are that it is grainy/blurry, it is taken from when he was older and not as he was commonly known (this is not merely my personal opinion, a simple Google search attests to how he was most commonly pictured, and it was when he was younger), and it was taken in a moment of surprise, which means that it is an awkward pose. Others have noted the strange positioning as well (mentions of the nostril and such). The other image is a crisp, clear portrait of him as he was most commonly known, an artist-rendering of a photograph. The fact that it is black and white does not at all detract from its superior representation of Bourdieu to the other image given its various flaws. The point about the edges is meaningless as that can simply be cropped out. Finally, the copyright status of the second image is in question. The original image from which it was cropped is no longer available on Wiki. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the point about the edges is not "meaningless". They are certainly a reason for keeping out that image in its current form. They could not be cropped out without making the image much smaller, which would drastically reduce its already questionable value as a likeness of Bourdieu. Please stop flogging the dead horse, and find something more productive to do with your time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't concede the edges are a problem at all. They don't affect the quality of the image, especially when automatically reduced to fit the picture box size. But good to know that is now your only objection, which, it turns out, is indeed meaningless. The original image is actually large enough for it to be cropped without it affecting its superior value as a likeness of Bourdieu compared to the other (cropped) image. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/9Plbm


 * That took me about 10 seconds in mspaint. But I am sure you will find some other fault with it now. You appear to have been beating this dead horse for over a year and still haven't let it go. Taking your own advice and doing something more productive with your time seems like a healthy thing to do.109.246.75.242 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have reversed your position. First you said that the edges could "simply be cropped out", implying that they are a problem, now you suddenly suggest that they are not a problem. They obviously affect the quality of the image, as they are ugly and distract attention away from the main part of the image showing Bourdieu's face. They are clearly visible when the image is shown in the article's infobox, so you are quite wrong to suggest that they are not a problem. As for the cropped version you linked to above, it is predictably worse than the uncropped version. It still shows edges that look burned or crinkled, and it is in no way appropriate for the infobox. Where did you get the idea that an infobox image of someone should show a close-up of (only part of) their face? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never had the position that the edges are a problem, simply made the case that your objection that they were wasn't valid as they could easily be cropped out, which is the case. Both in the original version as in a cropped version it is superior to the other image in the various ways I have already outlined. It is not grainy/blurry, it is not unrepresentative in terms of age and positioning, and it is not cropped from an image that is no longer available on Wiki. Predictably you invented another reason to not like the cropped version, which makes no sense at all as it shows all of his face and does not have all the obvious flaws of the other image. The shift from "it is a drawing", to "it is black and white", to "it has edges", to "when you crop out the edges it looks bad in my opinion" has been an interesting one to observe, especially given that they were all presented as objective fact and in some cases even as Wiki policy, when it is nothing but your personal opinion. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The cropped version does not show all of Bourdieu's face. You have cut out the tip of Bourdieu's chin. That is an example of how cropping images can produce a worse result than the original. I have made no shift in my position, despite what you imply. The image is inappropriate for all the reasons I have indicated. An additional one is that an infobox image of a person should not depict only their face or some portion thereof. A proper image would show as much of a person as it reasonably can, as that gives a better impression of them. For that reason alone the current photograph is better than the weird picture you tried to edit war into the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the cropped and uncropped versions show all of Bourdieu's face. Your preferred image however doesn't, instead zooming in awkwardly on his nostril from an angle. That is an example of how cropping images can produces a worse result than the original, incidentally. That by itself is sufficient reason to not have that as the standard image, but fortunately there are the others I have mentioned which eliminate it beyond any reasonable doubt. The very fact that the original image of the cropped version you prefer is no longer on Wiki should exclude it from consideration. Should Wiki have an image of a person that hardly anyone recognizes (when they were much older from the time they gained public attention, taken unexpectedly from a weird angle, grainy/blurry and cropped), or a crisp, clear artist rendering of a commonly used profile shot of which everyone recognizes them as? For someone not interested in wasting time and flogging dead horses this should be easy to answer. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Your cropped version removes part of Bourdieu's chin - as anyone who compares it to the uncropped version can see for him or herself. The current version, in contrast, does indeed show all of Bourdieu's face, as anyone who looks at it can see. Why would you claim that it doesn't? Bourdieu's nostril is of no importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the cropped and uncropped versions show the chin, and his face, just fine, whereas in your preferred image the awkward angle hides one side of it while zooming in on his nostrils, as other editors have also observed. Why would you claim that it doesn't? In any case, the copyright status of that image is in question now that the original version of it has been deleted. I have requested its deletion for that reason, and expect appropriate action to be taken shortly. Irrespective of the outcome of that, I welcome any comments from third parties on this matter. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears the deletion has gone through already. It is strange that you, who appears to know all the rules, failed to pick up on this one. I will now make the appropriate changes to the infobox image as the matter seems resolved, though no thanks to your obstinacy. Kindly refrain from edit-warring in the future. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Pierre Bourdieu, painted portrait DDC 8931 (cropped).jpg

Draft:Bourdieu's theory of practice in International Relations theory
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)