Talk:Eduardo Bonilla-Silva

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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): Dwang314.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardly written

I tend to agree that this article reads like a puff-piece. What the hell is the "Publications and evolution of sociological views" section? Every other section in this article is pretty much OK, but this section makes me suspect that the article's subject has edited it; it's awkwardly written and has a couple of grammatical errors. It includes unnecessary information (descriptions of his books?) and odd, unencyclopedic formatting ("and many more..." under "Other works also include:").

For example, take a look at the article of another Duke professor, Robert Bryant. That's about all you need to see that this article isn't written well. 152.23.250.36 (talk)

POV tag

This reads like a puff-piece, full of superlatives about how great the guy is and his amazing past. It does not need adjectives and adverbs about how rich his education was, how amazingly intellectual his upbringing was, or how key figures helped him form his boldly independent views. There is also literally nothing about controversies or opposing views to his theses. It is also not terribly well written overall, and some of the sentence-construction is rather awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.195.145 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing many superlatives in the article. There's an argument to be made for reducing the reliance on primary sources, but that doesn't justify slapping a {{POV}} tag on the article in my opinion, especially without definite suggestions for improvement (where are the reliable, published sources about these supposed "controversies"?). Cleanup templates are not a badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]