Talk:Che Guevara in popular culture

meta article

i am afraid that an article about chegueveras portrait in popculture is a meta article, a derivative that could be endlessly followed by articles about popculture wievs about che gueveras role in pop culture, etc. moreover i doubt that the popculture iconization of che in itself is a topic of sufficient notability. there are countless accounts of some object or another being represented to a noiceable level in popculture yet theres no need to create dedicated articles to these, just as theres no need for ches pop portrait. also i am unhappy about the che articles 'LEGACY and pop culture' paragraph linking to an article saying nothing about said legacy (perhaps because theres none, but then again why the dedicated article). to me he seems a confused young brat with not many notable thoughts left behind, however heroic might have been his life and death. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 22.Casa Sandinista de Granada (9).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

London error

The article says that the city of London, Ontario is named after Che. This is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostric3 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone

I think the Genesis section reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article.

That section's first paragraph begins by addressing the reader, which I think goes against WP:PRONOUN:

Walk through any major metropolis around the globe and it is likely that you will come across an image of Che Guevara, most commonly a stylized version of Korda's iconic Guerrillero Heroico. An archetype, capable of endless visual regeneration which, depending on your opinion, either helps tell the story of 20th century visual literacy or kitsch banality.

The next part of that first paragraph is OK - it's an opinion, but one attributed to a specific author.

However, the next paragraph, with its bold "Enter Che:" at the start, again starts to feel more like an essay:

Enter Che: the 1960s symbol of student revolution, the all-pervasive ascetic gaze used to add allure and mystique to a product, because either a sophisticated audience is savvy enough to distinguish between revolution and commerce while enjoying the irony, or oblivious of who he is or what he represents. This began the metamorphosis from Che the martyred resistance fighter beloved by many, and Che the violent Marxist revolutionary despised by others, to his dual paradoxical position in the global corporate capitalist culture.

Nick R^Talk 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that section is all kinds of wrong. It's not just the tone, but also maybe original research of the "synthesis" variety that suggests the POV of someone who really likes talking about postmodernism. They probably had fun writing it, but it's over-the-top. This article is pretty long-winded in general and could use some trimming of excess verbiage. Duxbag (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)