Talk:Guerrillero Heroico/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Damiens deletions

Damiens, the link you continually cite on non-free content is in relation to images, video clips, etc - not cited verbal statements (under your current incorrect rationale, no quote could ever be used). You have offered no justifiable reasoning for your drive-by hasty deletions of sourced, notable, and properly weighted commentary, and thus I am offering up this section of the talk page for you to do so. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you believe so? WP:NFCC stands for non-free content criteria, and not non-free images criteria. --Damiens.rf 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, rather than continuing a futile cycle of both of us reverting each other 2 times every 24 hours, I am trying to understand how you believe that quoting and correctly attributing a newspaper quote (or book quote for that matter) is a violation of non-free content criteria. The policy you continually cite is WP:NFCC. Nowhere on this page does it state such a guideline, and yes it is primarily, (if not exclusively) in reference to images, video clips etc - not quoted statements in a newspaper. Under your current "blanket" rationale and reasoning, no journalist could ever be quoted from their own article on any topic, which is patently absurd. Until you can display and cite the exact phraseology or policy (here on this talk page) that you are utilizing in continually deleting cited material under NFCC, then I will continue to revert your deletions which I deem detrimental to the articles quality. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not applying a "blanket rationale" nor do I believe that "no journalist could ever be quoted from their own article on any topic". This is completely opposite to what I'm saying. We can use notable quotes to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea, as long as they are brief. This article's extensive use of quotations is akin to decorative use of non-free images.

Copyright policy applies to all copyright material, whether image or text. Large amounts of copyright text are unacceptable. --Damiens.rf 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the maintenance tag I added, there are far too many quotes on this page, so any reduction is welcome. Apart from the copyright issue (which I believe is valid - the quotation is much longer than justifiable), use in a caption violates captions policy and quotations policy ("editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article").--Rogerb67 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, in reference to your tag I have incorporated 3 more quotes into the articles text, and thus removed the tag. If you still believe there are "too many" despite the fact that Damiens has deleted 4 and I have merged in 3, then by all means please let me know and I will merge some others. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns regard to the undue weight being given to some random opinions. What's so relevant about what Jonathan Green, Nick Bell or Giorgio Mondolfo said about this picture? This is one of the most reproduced pictures in the world and a lot of people said a lot of stuff about them. Why are we giving a special status to some few unremarkable ones? --Damiens.rf 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, in regards to your question of relevance - Jonathan Green is the director of the UCR/California Museum of Photography, which themselves featured an exhibition entitled "Revolution and Commerce: The Legacy of Korda's Portrait of Che Guevara." He could be considered more than a "novice" on matters pertaining to photography or this specific photo. Nick Bell was the editor of the international graphic design magazine Eye, a magazine devoted to the field and impact of graphic images. As for Giorgio Mondolfo, he was a well known Italian photographer who was at the "epicenter" in Italy, when Fertrenelli first began utilizing the image in 1968. It isn’t as if these are “random” people simply giving their opinion. In reference to "weight" what about their statements do you find to be WP:UNDUE ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article flows somewhat better with fewer distracting {{Cquote2}}s. I note there were still four in the short "origins" section. However, simply incorporating them into the text, rather than actually converting them into plain article content where justified, makes little difference to the article as a "quote farm". I've gone ahead and been bold and edited the Origins section to be more what I was looking for; I've removed the quotes while keeping their references and incorporating any factual information not given elsewhere into the text. I'm not wedded to the precise details, but I do think most of the quotes must go. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I have reverted your recent deletions, as I believe they are detrimental to the overall quality and understanding of the article's topic. The statements by Korda himself are the most relevant of all the quotes (that you seem to be worried about). Merging them into the text would be acceptable, however deleting important and cited material is not.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My edits were intended to delete no factual content or references at all; I believe I succeeded however I am open to discussion on what was missing. They were intended as a copyedit to demonstrate how I envisage removing the excessive quotations this article suffers from. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a list of quotes. If you feel the quotes are important, I'm sure Wikiquote will be more than pleased to entertain them.

Please could you elaborate on why you see it as essential to keep all the quotes, as opposed to their factual content, and why the facts contained within them cannot simply be added to the article body? --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of requesting a neutral third opinion. I hope that will assist in amicable resolution of the dispute. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, as I previously said, I am ok with the quotes or their content being merged into the text, however the edits you conducted (in my view) removed vital material which was within the quotes themselves. I do not see it "essential" to keep all the quotes, but to try and keep the content of those quotes (by whichever method you prefer).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not wedded to my particular text; if you indicate what (encyclopaedic) content I have left out, I'll be happy to try again, incorporating the information. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I am fine with including a fourth, fifth, or sixth opinion for that matter. I am unclear how such a request ensures the injunction of a "neutral" participant, but will act in good faith that it will. I also don't believe that we are far from an "amicable resolution”, as I have already attempted to alleviate the quotation concerns (and will continue to do so), but it is obviously your own right to request a third opinion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is considered rude to edit other peoples' comments on a talk page; please can you refrain? Changing the indent of a comment twice begins to look like you are trying to falsify the record. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Roger, I have not "edited" any of your comments. The only adjustments I have made are in reference to the correct of numbers of indents. Your accusation in itself could be interpreted as not only "rude", but in bad faith, as it would be clear to any observer that merely ensuring your statement lines up diagonally correct (not directly under mine) is not "falsification".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can read the edit history, or even the dates on the signing of various comments and make their own conclusions on why things were done as they were. Certainly the indents of my contributions were perfectly clear and orderly in each case before you inserted your comments in between them. I believe I have assumed good faith at all stages; if you believe otherwise, please feel free to take it to the dispute resolution process. To return to the matter at hand, please can you let me know what encyclopedic information I left out in my copyedit, so that I can make sure to include it when trying again? Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I don't believe you are acting in bad faith, and I hope that you also do not believe I am. To answer your specific question, I believe that your previous deletions removed important information contained within Korda's own personal quotes on the origins of the photo. I don't necessarily care if they are included as cquotes, but do believe that all of the info (or main ideas) from his quotes in that section should remain.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see what information I've left out. Please could you at least provide one or two examples of what's missing, to give me a start? --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, there are several examples. For instance your edits removed the notations that: Che "unexpectedly entered his view finder", that Korda utilized his medium telephoto lens, that Korda (who personally knew Che) believes Che's "personality comes through" in the photo, and that Korda sees "mystery" in his eyes, that the image always hung on Korda's wall from then on etc. Such facts may seem to be inconsequential, but to me they are all part of the story.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time to go through these points one by one:

• Che "unexpectedly entered his view finder". This is covered by the statement During Castro’s speech before thousands of onlookers, at 11:20 am for a few seconds, Guevara came into view, retained in my copyedit.
• that Korda utilized his medium telephoto lens This is covered in full detail in the Technical section just below
• Korda believes Che's "personality comes through" in the photo ... "mystery" .... The impact on Korda is sufficiently expressed in the retained quote; I don't think that recording every nuance of Korda's reporting of the profound impact is appropriate in an encyclopaedic article.
• the image always hung on Korda's wall from then on This is certainly encyclopaedic and should be mentioned, it also reinforces Korda's opinion of the photo, as you want to. My apologies for inadvertently removing it. However, restoring it did not require a full revert.
• to me, they are all part of the story - this is not what an encyclopaedic article is all about; it should be written so that lay readers get a concisely written, understandable treatment of the topic of the article. This does not require reporting every subjective term used by a person to describe it, no matter how close they were to the photograph or its subject.

If I restore my edit, adding the fact that Korda kept the photo on his wall, would that be a good starting point for a mutually acceptable version? --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, the restored version of your edit I believe would be acceptable, if you at least retained the first quote by Korda ("shakes me"), which I feel fits well in the overall article.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've restored my copyedit, and made the agreed changes. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, please apply this method to the other quotes in the article as well! --Damiens.rf 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I am glad we could come to an agreement, and I am ok with your edits of that section. As for Damiens, there is not a rule forbidding the use of any quotes whatsoever, and I believe that you continue to go about this the wrong way, by hastily deleting any quote you find "decorative" without maintaining the quotes content in the article. To me such unilateral actions are not conducive to the spirit of wiki consensus, and they only cause edit wars and further problems.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you both like the changes to that section. Hopefully we can work together to improve the rest of the article similarly. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I figured I would clear up the confusion on Wiki's quote policy as well.

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

— Wiki Quote Policy

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

La Times Quote

I have been “bold” and restored the previously deleted and disputed quote from the LA Times, because I believe the statement is helpful to understanding the subject at hand. Most of the article and commentators deal with the impact of the picture, while this quote, looks at the actual aesthetics of the picture itself. I feel that this statement is essential to gaining a better understanding of the topic at hand and thus would like to see its inclusion remain (as it did for many months, until a sole editor objected recently). Wiki policy clearly allows for the usage of quotes to illustrate a point, which this clearly does. Also I know that wiki policy states that quotes should not be used as a caption, so I have ensured that ample space is between the image and statement, as to imply that it is not a “caption” for the image. However, I am opening up this part of the page for discussion on this quote specifically.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been shown how innapropriate that is. I've reverted. Stoping acting as the article was yours. --Damiens.rf 13:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I note my name has been invoked on edit summaries. To be clear, I am of the opinion that this copyrighted quote is too long to constitute fair use, that it violates caption policy or guidelines per my comments above, and that it is in any case inappropriate to the article, adding nothing substantive to what is already there, excepting perhaps a description of the photograph itself. If a description is appropriate, it should be done in neutral plain text in the article body, using descriptive rather than peacock terms.

Quotations themselves are interesting as there is in fact little policy or guideline to guide us; WP:QUOTE is an essay, and while I believe it probably is a fair reflection of consensus, I am not aware of anything substantive to validate this opinion, and MOS:QUOTE is concerned only with the mechanics of including quotes. Perhaps the best indicator would be to look at featured articles, in the state they were promoted to that status. Personally I have never seen a featured article that contained anywhere near as many quotes as this one, particularly of the length of the quote currently under dispute, and others in thiws article. I've never seen such liberal use of {{cquote2}} either. My personal opinion is that this article overuses quotes – particularly outquotes – significantly, and that most of the quotes should be merged entirely or partially into the article text, along the lines of the consensus edit to the Origins section. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the "Exhibits" section

The Exhibits section can't go unsourced. I've added a tag asking for sources, but it was removed with the explanation that one can verify the information by contacting the Wikipedia author or by doing a google search[1]. At least from my understanding of WP:V, this is way beyond our criteria. --Damiens.rf 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, of course most material should be cited. As the author who created the exhibition list, I believed that it was self explanatory and acted as a "quasi" reference in itself. However, I will assume WP:good faith in this instance (despite our recent "history" of conflict) and provide individual citations for each instance. I hope that you will also do the same, and not return to a pattern of edit warring as occurred previously.   Redthoreau (talk)

Damiens, I have referenced all of the exhibitions and thus removed the tag.   Redthoreau (talk)

Great work. Don't you agree the article is much better now (despite of a lot of work still to be done)? --Damiens.rf 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote farm

I've counted 65 quoted passages in the current version of the article. This is too much for an encyclopedic entry. The article has been tagged with {{quotefarm}} and the tag should stay until the text is brought back to a real article. --Damiens.rf 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, a good article should be filled with quoted statements, as it is the best way to ensure accuracy, preserve personal npov, and guarantee verifiability. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a "Quote Farm". A quote farm (as I understand it) is an article that simply lists quotes in the style of wiki quote. This article is mostly comprised of quotes that are part of the prose (with the occasional block quote at the start of each section, which is also appropriate in my view, as these are the notable opinions by those experienced with the subject matter). Your claim of 65 quotes is also patently absurd, as many are paraphrased remarks with only a few words or part of a sentence that contain quotation marks (to accurately show their origin to the stated source). Moreover, you have continually displayed an anti-quote hysteria (amongst your plethora of other hysterias that lead you to rampage through wikipedia deleting and templating countless articles, without ever really spending anytime to actually construct one). What you want to do is lessen the readers understanding of the subject ... because you have a distaste for quotes ... that is fine ... but this is not Damiensipedia. I suggest if you would like the template to remain ... that you follow wiki procedure by suggesting a rewriting of a particular section, in order to encompass the content without your "dreaded" quotation marks. If that is done then we may avoid the daily routine of both of us reverting each other 2 times a day.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.

— WP:QUOTE

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, chill down so that we can concentrate on discussing the content, not the editors. I have to disagree with you that quotes are "best way to ensure accuracy, preserve personal npov, and guarantee verifiability". In some occasions, it's important to cite someone verbatim to guarantee no interpretations introduction of pov. But this is far from the case on most of the 65 use of quotes we found on this article. And no, a Good Article should not be filled with quotes. A Good Article should use quotes whenever necessary, but no more than that.

A quotefarm is not an article that simply lists quotes, but an article that overuse them, like this one. --Damiens.rf 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a passage on the essay WP:Quote that I believe fits well here (and I'll quote it): "Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject.". I believe this is exactly what's happening with this article. --Damiens.rf 11:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, It's hard to "chill down" when you have continually displayed bad faith with me for the last few weeks in edit wars that resulted in both of us being blocked, and yourself being blocked twice. You seem to pretend that your actions exist within a confined bubble, and not as part of the overall context of our ‘quasi-feud’ that you seem determined to continue & exacerbate. A few things as well: (1) Stop citing "65" quotes, unless you are prepared to outline where you are deriving this number from (I have a theory about where you are pulling it from, but because of decorum I'll refrain) - as for myself I count far fewer --- especially when in order to meet the criteria of a quote the full sentence must be a quote, and not merely part of a sentence or a few words. (2) It is your POV, that a good article should not utilize quotes, however just as with the Che Guevara article talk page recently, other editors disagree with you and find them quite insightful and illuminating (in fact much more so, than a novice's reinterpretation of them). (3) It is also your POV on what constitutes a "Quote Farm". This non-conventional 'wiki-ism' is not clearly defined. (4) Gotta love the irony that you "QUOTE" the section on quotes, to argue against quotes. Reminds me of the sign I saw recently of "No Soliciting", outside of an advertising agency. (5) Since it is obvious to me that you enjoy this ‘personal tug of war’ too much to refrain from continuing it, can you at least attempt to be reasonable in your requests … and realize that I have been collaborative in many aspects thus far (citing the exhibits and answering the OR tags at your request) --- while you seem unwilling to even budge or compromise on any of your “demands” which are not clear policy, but rather your editorial preference.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, in addition, I have incorporated all but 3 of the more evasive block quotes into the articles text, and still you insist on pestering the issue. = If you believe that this information can be maintained without the use of accurately quoting the originator then have at it. As for me, I prefer to give the authority their full credit for the words they create (something that a deletionist with a fair use phobia such as yourself, should certainly empathize with). Why do you insist on rewording the ideas of others and removing their origin? The Catch 22 you are attempting to construct is one in where if I merely include the content without the quote, you will cite OR as you have done already … and if I quote the content verbatim you cite QUOTE FARM. Thus in your world it is better not to have any actual information, from anyone with a semblance of authority on the subject. Maybe we should just let you rant throughout, and make it your own personal essay?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Farm

These are the quotations currently used in the article:

1. "absolute implacability" "anger", and "pain"- Korda
2. Che's "character, firmness, stoicism, and resoluteness" - Korda
3. "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century." - Maryland Institute College of Art
4. "the most reproduced image in the history of photography." - V&A Museum
5. "Korda’s image has worked its way into languages around the world. It has become an alpha-numeric symbol, a hieroglyph, an instant symbol. It mysteriously reappears whenever there’s a conflict. There isn’t anything else in history that serves in this way." - UCR/California Museum of Photography
6. "I remember it as if it were today ... seeing him framed in the viewfinder, with that expression. I am still startled by the impact ... it shakes me so powerfully." - Korda
7. "obviously in the public domain." - Lintas and Rex
8. "This is my best Che picture" - Korda
9. "the first time I saw the picture by Alberto Korda, I was not even slightly interested in the author. I was only fifteen, and it was the picture that had drawn us - many for the first time - to gather in the streets, crying Che lives!" - Giorgio Mondolfo
10. "At a time when Cuban revolutionaries want to create Vietnams all over the world, the Americans run the risk of finding their own Algeria in Latin America." - Jean Lartéguy
11. "The official photograph of Che Guevara; on his beret the star, the symbol of the Comandante." - Paris Match
12. "wanted the image to breed like rabbits" - Jim Fitzpatrick
13. "there to be a bit of me in there" - Jim Fitzpatrick
14. "I’m a bit mischievous, so I never told anyone." - Jim Fitzpatrick
15. "I love the picture and wherever I am in the world, if I see it, I take a photo of it. I always have a chuckle when I see that little "F". I know that it’s mine." - Jim Fitzpatrick
16. "Cuba trains doctors and then sends them around the world ... I want their medical system to benefit." - Jim Fitzpatrick
17. "curious" about Ireland "from a revolutionary point of view" - Jim Fitzpatrick
18. "great admiration" for (...) the first country to "shake off the shackles of the British Empire" - Jim Fitzpatrick
19. "Che’s image may be cast aside, bought and sold and deified, but it will form a part of the universal system of the revolutionary struggle, and can recover its original meaning at any moment." - Edmundo Desnoes
20. "it is the image of a very dashing young man" - Darrel Couturier
21. "age of free love and flower power ... the time was ripe for a figure" - Darrel Couturieror
22. "image that could represent this great diversity in thinking and behavior the world over." - Darrel Couturieror
23. "age of religious revolution" (...) "elevated him to almost martyrdom." - Darrel Couturieror
24. "struck by his magnetic physical attraction, comparable to the aura of a rock star." - Richard Gott
25. "almost everyone had the same impression, and journalists were particularly susceptible." - Richard Gott
26. "blessed with a unique appeal, an incalculable enchantment that came completely naturally." - Julia Costenlos
27. "indisputably the dazzling star of the show" - K Gajendra Singh
28. "getting an autograph of a celebrity." - K Gajendra Singh
29. "charismatic presence in green olive fatigues and black beret" - K Gajendra Singh
30. "the very best of the Hollywood and Bollywood stars all rolled into one" - K Gajendra Singh
31. "genial charm" that "might have made Charles Boyer envious." - Henry Brandon
32. "scaring the hell out of him" - René Burri
33. "angry" Che was "pacing" his tiny office like "a caged tiger" - René Burri
34. While "hectoring" the reporter and "chomping on his cigar" - René Burri
35. "if I catch up with your friend Andy, I'll cut his throat" - Che
36. "one of the great icons of the 20th century." - Peter Blake
37. "the photograph enshrines Che as a mythic hero. Taken from below, the revolutionary leader with searching eyes and resolute expression becomes larger than life. A perspective that dominates the imagery of social realism, it bears an irresistible aura of authority, independence and defiance." - V&A Museum
38. "absolutely the most famous of history" - Skime
39. "captures beauty and youth, courage and generosity, aesthetic and moral virtues of a person who possessed all the characteristics necessary to be converted into a symbol of an epoch like ours, lacking in historic legends and mythic incarnations." - Skime
40. "the red star in Che's beret was up there with 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.'" - Richard Gott
41. "pop art is a rejection of traditional figuration, rhetoric, and rendition. Its egalitarian anti-art stance was the perfect corollary for Che's anti-establishment attitude." - Jonathan Green
42. "Let me say at the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." - Che
43. "Che Guevara has become a brand. And the brand's logo is the image, which represents change. It has become the icon of the outside thinker, at whatever level, whether it is anti-war, pro-green or anti-globalisation. Its presence, everywhere from Belfast to Soweto, or from walls in the Palestinian territories to Parisian boutiques, makes it an image that is out of control. It has become a corporation, an empire, at this point." - Trisha Ziff
44. "statuesque image taken from below" which "derives from a visual language of mythologized heroes harking back to an era of socialist realism" - Trisha Ziff
45. "a classical Christ-like demeanor." - Trisha Ziff
46. "as the ultimate revolutionary icon" with "his eyes staring boldly into the future" and "his expression a virile embodiment of outrage at social injustice." - Jon Lee Anderson
47. "Reporters Without Borders should call themselves Reporters Without Principles." - Granma
48. "despite the claims of ownership from Korda's heirs, the State would now hold any rights associated with the photograph." - Sarah Levy
49. "Under the relatively low requirements articulated by U.S. courts, Korda's Guevara image should obtain copyright protection." - Sarah Levy
50. "The outcome of future litigation hinges upon the duration of protection available within a jurisdiction." - Sarah Levy
51. "There was never any official ruling on whether the depiction constituted a violation of copyright." - Ariana Hernández-Reguant
52. "Korda took the picture while working for a state-run newspaper, his actual property rights would be questionable under both Cuban and international law." - Ariana Hernández-Reguant
53. "We have a plan to deal with the misuse. We can't attack everyone with lances like Don Quixote, but we can try to maintain the ethics of Guevara's legacy." - Aleida March
54. "It will be costly and difficult because each country has different laws, but a limit has to be drawn." - Aleida March
55. "inspired by Italian paintings of martyred saints and Christ" - Paul Davis
56. "As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world, but I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che. " - Korda
57. "The first image I did of Che was psychedelic, it looks like he is in seaweed. His hair was not hair, it was shapes that I felt gave it an extra dimension. That was the image I produced for the magazine and that was done before he died and that is the important thing about that image. At first it didn't print. It was considered far too strong and revolutionary. I was very inspired by Che's trip to Bolivia. He went there with the intent to overthrow the intensely corrupt government, helped by the Americans at the time, and that's where he died. I thought he was one of the greatest men who ever lived and I still do in many ways. And when he was murdered, I decided I wanted to do something about it, so I created the poster. I felt this image had to come out, or he would not be commemorated otherwise, he would go where heroes go, which is usually into anonymity" - Jim Fitzpatrick,
58. "Che was the revolutionary as rock star. Korda, as a fashion photographer, sensed that instinctively, and caught it. Before then, the Nazis were the only political movement to understand the power of glamour and sexual charisma, and exploit it. The communists never got it. Then you have the Cuban revolution, and into this void come these macho guys with straggly hair and beards and big-dick glamour, and suddenly Norman Mailer and all the radical chic crowd are creaming their jeans. Che had them in the palm of his hand, and he knew it. What he didn’t know, of course, was how much that image would define him." — Lawrence Osborne
59. "Possibly more than the Mona Lisa, more than images of Christ, more than comparable icons such as the Beatles or Monroe, this image has continued to hold the imagination of generation after generation." — Hannah Charlton
60. "Despite the spectacularization of the image of Che, what remains compelling are the many instances worldwide which the photograph persists as a rallying point for political struggles. To articulate resistance, to define local rebellions, to announce solidarity with others, activist artists will undoubtedly continue to remake, reclaim and recontextualize Korda’s photograph, and in this way create what the English critic John Berger calls an 'alternative photography.' " — Brian Wallis
61. "I know that often, especially young people buy a t-shirt with the image of Che on the front without knowing who Che was. They buy it because they know it says "rebellion", and because it is the style, not because they understand or identify with Che's vision. But there are those who will buy the t-shirt and then ask the question, "Who was Che?"" - Diana Diaz

I argue that the use of such a huge number of them indicates the article is poorly written, and needs works from someone with better summarizing capabilities. --Damiens.rf 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, what you are classifying as "Quotes" is sometimes a sentence with a few quoted words (showing that indeed it is not the editor's interpretation of that view), but the original author’s choice of words. To me as someone who has done research professionally, that is appropriate and superior research to a 'mere interpretation'. The above "Farm" to me, only confirms to me that the article is VERY WELL RESEARCHED and specific. What you are misinterpreting as a "Quote Farm" is in fact a properly written article in my view, as a "Quote Farm" in my view, is when someone merely lists quotes as if it was wikiquote. These are blended in with the article and more than appropriate. ----- This view of a quote farm is YOURS solely (as it is not clearly defined) ... and thus not worthy in my view of a template. If another editor also shares your view, then I believe a template could be justified … but at this time, all that is confirmed is that you have an anti-quotation hysteria (coupled with an urge to edit war on articles where I am the primary author). Fix them if you wish (while maintaining their content) but don't simply drive by template solely based off of the fact that you enjoy being a pest. Moreover, it is a shame that you didn’t spend the time and effort working on the article, that you did listing off the above quotes.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. They prove that you (as the main author of this article) can't express yourself very well. At least not in an encyclopedic way. No Good Article would have this amount of quotations. Most of them are pointless, others replaceable by better prose, and many just decoration. --Damiens.rf 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious, expecting me to take vernacular/composition lessons from an editor who displays an elementary understanding of the English language. If this problem of over-quotes is so obvious, then how come you are the ONLY editor to want to template this article as a “Quote Farm” in the 1+ year it has been this way? At the current time, this ‘problem’ exists solely in your head, and has become an issue for you to harass me with, based off of our past edit-war in which you were blocked twice. Go find another hobby or editor to pester … or (here’s a novel idea) actually try to improve an article yourself, instead of merely templating or listing images for deletion (your current reason' de tre).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He isn't the only editor that thinks there are too many quotes here, also, I believe that you should read WP:MOS, as per the composition of this article. Secondly, personal attacks and incivility are not allowed here, so I would suggest you strike through your comments using <s></s> tags. Third, just because an article has existed in a state for a long period of time does not mean that people have thought it right, just, or correct. I have seen attack pages that have gone unnoticed for years, until someone finally stumbled upon them and deleted them, or nominated them for deletion. Fourth, tagging articles for improvement is a contribution, tags exist for a reason, if they didn't serve to improve wikipedia, we wouldn't have them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotation overload

This article obviously has an overload of quotations. Most of them are unnecessary, as with a little effort the quotes can be reworded in the editor's own words to avoid the need for so many direct quotes. That is what is done in almost all wikipedia articles that are not copyvios. Merely stringing together a series of quotes is not writing an article for Wikipedia. Please just reword the quotations to avoid this over abundance of quotations. An editor's job is to write an article, not simply list quotes. If you want to do that, perhaps you should consider a list format instead of an article format. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, please feel free to participate in this effort of "rewording" if you like, as my main concern at the moment is for all editors to be alleviated of their (over-quote) concerns - so that the tags can be removed.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations style

The citations on this article needs cleanup. The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates should be used for consistent formating, and the name" attribute of the <ref/> tag should be used for avoiding repeating references (what currently happens with "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", repeated 16 times, or "A Copyright Revolution: Protecting the Famous Photograph of Che Guevara”, repeated 3 times in a row, and many others).

I'll start working on that in some hours, but anyone feel free to step in. --Damiens.rf 12:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the "Further reading" could also use {{cite book}} for improved consistency. --Damiens.rf 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the citations could use some work ... but sadly it seems that instead of being proactive and improving the article by fixing them, you continue to follow your modus operandi by simply pointing out a problem and then move on with more tagging, templates etc   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote Issue

Damiens, I am no longer going to dispute the number of quotes in the article, and will cede to consensus on the matter of them being too numerous. However, I do believe that they should be incorporated into the article, similar to the first paragraph that we all agreed upon ("Origins"). Do you not share this view? I do not want to return to our former edit warring, but why are you declaring quotes "decorative" when we have clearly already discussed that this is your opinion, and not a wiki policy. Quotes are clearly allowed, however yes Wiki has a policy on over-quoting, thus I am in agreeance with you now that they should be incorporated into the article. Please respond back in good faith, as I want to work to an amicable solution on your concerns. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe every quote in that article are decorative, only those I've removed. Most of the other quotations contain facts that should be incorporated in the text (like Mattisse was doing). But the ones I've removed seem to be just siting in the start of some sub-section to give the reader some internal spiritual state, by citing someone's opinion about the matter (and not discussing this opinion). I could find no relevant "fact" on them, but of course I could have overlooked something. --Damiens.rf 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And now I've just noticed you've reverted my edit. Please, undo that so that we can keep discussing. I won't edit war with you once again. --Damiens.rf 17:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, I have reverted myself (which I hope shows a new commitment to work together). Now as to the 3 quotes that you deleted. 1 of them is a statement by Korda's daughter on the image of her father both WP:notable & verifiable (as it is cited). It only stands alone presently, but it could easily be incorporated into the article? No. Moreover, do you believe that no quotes whatsoever should stand alone, or just not these ones. Because many wik articles have an array of quotes which stand alone. Basically is this a "style" issue that you dislike, or are stand alone quotes something you believe violates wikipedia's mode of style etc? As for the other 2 quotes, the concept of an "alternative photography" is significant, along with "a rallying point for political struggles" and the "Beatles" example is merely to display the ubiquitous nature of the image. Would you allow me half an hour to try and incorporate them, and if you are not happy with the result you can revert or we can disuss why?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems with standalone not-commented-about quotes are that they give the readers the impression that Wikipedia is somewhat endorsing the opinions expressed on the quotes.

The first remoed quotation, for instance, is just Trisha Ziff's opinion. No matter how much I believe this person can give insightful comments about things, this is just my opinion about his opinion. And there isn't a reason a neutral article should give this opinion a special status.

The same holds for Brian Wallis's opinion about the image's importance and impact. I know he's a great guy and has a lot to say. But Wikipedia is not the place to promote his ideas and insightful points of views.

The third removed quotation is one more insightful saying by Trisha Ziff.

Basically, what I'm trying to point out is that a lot of people said a lot of things about that image, good and bad, insightful and stupid, inspiring and monotonous, but we, as Wikipedia editors, are not entitled to picking up the better ones and give them the special statuses of being a must-read in relation to the photo.

One example of a valid use of quote, I believe, is the Korda's statement about copying the image ("As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died..."). His opinion about this matter is very material to the topic, and should be mentioned and discussed (as it was undoubtedly mentioned and discussed in various reliable sources). But this does not holds for the opinions I've removed recently from the article. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, OK, as a sign of my commitment to work with you (instead of us working against each other) I will let those deletions go. However, my main focus remains to get rid of those awful (in my view) tags atop the article. So please let me know what you would like done, so as to alleviate your desire for them to remain. I am willing to honor your suggestions in order for this to happen. How far from being over-quoted do you believe the article is (realizing that of course some quotes are necessary to ensure accuracy). Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply. To assert exactly "how far" is this article from being over-quoted, I would have to count the quotations again, and I'm not willing to do that at this time. A quick look at the text gives me a hint that there's still a lot of work to do. For sure, the point is not to remove every quote in the article, but to re-write with a more encyclopedic tone. --Damiens.rf 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, I have removed the over quote template as I am unsure of how many you would still like removed. If you disagree with this then please revert my edit as I am NOT trying to override the will of you or other editors. I am open to continue to work on the quote issue until you and others are satisfied with the result. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)