Talk:Che Guevara in popular culture/Archive 1

Quotes

The quotes in the article are starting to make this page into a shrine for Che and creating neutrality issues. i think they should be removed.Ucscottb4u (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Negative quotes from reliable sources that apply to the content are allowed as well. POV applies to editors wording, not to sourced content.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

but the sourced content serves no purpose but to include POV. the entire genesis section is pointless and not relevantUcscottb4u (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern isnt only about POV. the quotes serve no puprose in the article. they don't improve quality, rather they detract from it. Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So the Genesis section was not relevant, but you decided to add another quote to it ? (Which I correctly formatted). Also I am working on writing more in the genesis section ... it won't only be quotes, as it is a work in progress.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

i was getting the impression i wasnt putting up a very persuasive argument and i wasnt going to get into a revert war by deleting the section. so i decided i would add some more counter point. i am curious to see how you flesh out the section. I still have concerns about the value of the quotes through out the articleUcscottb4u (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Fashion quote about che's burning eyes. I dont see any value to that at all. before removing id like to get a second, or if nothing else, a good reason it should stay. Ucscottb4u (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - Reasons for Keeping it. (1) It is from a reputable source = Time Magazine. (2) It refers to the most common form of Che in popular culture = T-shirts. (3) It is from an respected author and professor at Duke University - Ariel Dorfman, that obviously believes Che still has relevance to today's world, which is balanced out by the quote in the criticism section that he doesn't and is negative. (4) In the spirit of maintaining WP:UNDUEWEIGHT it shows how to some people - Che's face still holds meaning and resonance - not just in a popular culture way. = What are your reasons against it ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The only value I see it brining is that it’s about the most iconic pop culture use of Ches image. My reason for wanting to remove it is just that. It has no real value to the article. Being from a reputable source (both author and place of publication) is not IMO enough to make it valuable addition to the article. The quote is more about the authors reverence for Che, then about the image. The image is just the reminder to author of (in his opinion) Ches relevance to the world.Ucscottb4u (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I am not quite sure what your point is. The article is on Che in popular culture ... and it is Dorfman's opinion that his use in popular culture (especially T-shirts) conceals his relevance rather than enhancing it. That is of course relevant to the article ... just as it is relevant that according to Berman (whose qualifications are shaky at best) Che was a totalitarian and thus that is overshadowed by his use in popular culture.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets start of with the quote itself "Deep inside that t-shirt where we have tried to trap him, the eyes of Che Guevara are still burning with impatience." I get the impression the sentence could have simply read "the eyes of Che Guevara are still burning with impatience" but Dorfman wanted to express his displeasure with Che becoming just a image on a shirt. The shirt reference wasnt central to the point of the sentence. Also I am not sure how you can question Bermans qualifications. Hes a professor at NYU and Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute.Ucscottb4u (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You could pick apart every quote like that. For instance maybe Berman just wanted to call him a "totalitarian" but to explain those that disagree with his analysis, he placed them in a "Cult". Also it was not my intention to question Berman's qualifications in general, but rather his qualifications in relation to Che Guevara. As far as I know he has never written or been involved with a book on Guevara, and his controversial article with a host of questionable claims - has 0 citations ! Thus it isn't clear to the reader whether he thought up these ideas himself, or actually read them somewhere.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

i think it is important to note at this point, that my concerns about the inclusion of this quote is not that i disagree with the sentiment (though i admit i do disagree) but that i dont see the value of the quote to the article. I still dont see the value of quote. I dont think my disection of the quote was to the degree your implying it was. Its not a giant intellectual leap to say that the main point of the sentence is about a desire to see ches goal achieved and not about the shirt.Ucscottb4u (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think a fair compromise for the time being (unless anyone else weighs in) will be for me to move the quote into the actual prose, and find another relevant quote that deals with his role in fashion (on shirts) etc.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

im not sure thats actually a compromise. The quote would still be a part the page when i still dont see its value. There must be another quote about his image in fashion that be used to replace it? that would be more of a compromise, as i dont think the articles needs half the quotes its has, but it would still have the same number just not that one. Ucscottb4u (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am not exactly sure why you have such a problem with this one quote, but to me it's not worth it to continue discussing it, so I'll just remove it, and hope that you will see it as a willingness for me to work collaboratively.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont mean to seem closed to compromise. i would be ok with a different quote in its place. I am sure there must be one that would work.Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I like the new quote. I think its a good fit for the sectionUcscottb4u (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have added an appropriate criticism section, to provide a place for reliable criticisms of Che's use in popular culture. Of note, this is for criticisms of his use in Popular culture, not for criticisms of Che Guevara (the individual) which would belong in the article Legacy of Che Guevara.

I’ve never written a new section of a article before. Up until now I’ve only edited previous entries so i wanted to get some insight before I added this to the article. This is what I wanted to add to the criticism section:

"There are those, both detractors and supporters that object to the use of Ches image in popular culture. Some of his supporters object to the diminishing of his image by its use on popular culture. They see it in conflict to his ideology. While his detractors question the use of the image of someone they see to be a mass murderer on t-shirts."Ucscottb4u (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a bad starting off point, although "mass" comes off as POV and is unnecessary. Also there is more richness of language that could be used, but the initial inclination I believe is good. I am also going to be working on that section as well, and thus you can either add yours first, or wait a day or two and then make edits to mine - either way.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

i decided to add it as is, minus "mass." i didnt add originally as my point of view. when i wrote that paragraph, i was trying in each part to speak from there point of views (that is when i was writting the supporters side i wanted to get there POV and then detractors, i wanted theres) since this section actually is about a point of view.Ucscottb4u (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Che in Politics

I am confused as to the need for this section. Che is at the end of the day a political figure. Isn't listing references to him in politics rather redundant? i havent look at similar pages for similar figures. the page is supposed to be about a political figure being reference in mainly non political areas. just a thought. Ucscottb4u (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I intend to reform this section and make it more about popular culture as it relates to politics, for example things like the fact that Hugo Chavez wears Che t-shirts etc.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Essay" template

I added the "essay-entry" template primarily because the beginning of the article (before the lists) is written in the tone of an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I'd guess the original version was pretty much an essay and minor changes were made since then. I noticed it first upon noticing the word "you" in the "Genesis" section. The general tone of the article seems like that of an essay, so it needs quite a bit of revision. --V2Blast (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to revise the current content, and (as the primary author of the article) I feel that you may not be taking into account the 'informal' subject matter in question. The introductory paragraphs were compiled from the existing literature on the matter, and thus yes partly reflect the vernacular of those who have researched or written about the issue. I have removed the template, as it should be as a result of an editor voicing specific criticisms or suggestions only to find others unreceptive.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)