Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] The Maoist Article

The Maoist article doesn't bash the politics at all. It makes commentary on the film production, but not the politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.66.203 (talk • contribs)

I removed the Maoist reference because it's unsigned and submited by an anonymous contributor to that web site. I did however, include, two not so reverantial reviews of film: Roger Ebert & the National Review. On balance article even handled. Luigibob 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ext links

Removed various ext links that were not about the film per se. Folks should find them on the other articles about the book. Luigibob 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nordlinger comments

It could be argued that his comments have nothing to do with the film. So he does not like Che. Oh well. It has nothing to do with the film proper. Should it be removed? Other negative comments about the film could be found, I assume. More in due course, I assume. Great film (my thumb WAY UP!). I just saw it on DVD. A lot to say but it's all my POV. Good edits, however by anon user. Luigibob 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say remove him once a better quote is found. Cop 633 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing multinational coproductions

To revert the edit by Jeff Watts to having a category for each producing country is correct, as consensus stands right now. There are three opitions for categorizing multinational co-productions, each with pros and cons, open for discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization#Multinational co-productions and multilingual films. Everyone is welcome to comment and new ideas are welcome as well. Hoverfish Talk 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lago Frás or Lago Pirihueico

Did Che travel into chile by Lago frias or by Pirihueico Lake? To travel trough Lago Frías sems to mee ilogical as he would have to cross also Nahuel Huapi Lake and Todos los santos lake.. Dentren | Talk 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Granado cameo

I added this to the cast list, as the actual person comes in to play themself in the end of the movie, someone deleted it. This isn't mentioned in the plot either, and is significant.. after the two characters say their goodbyes, there is a clip of the actor watching the plane leave, then a bit later Alberto himself is show in the same shot and angle watching that same plane leave, "years later." I don't currently have reference, but the article for Alberto Granado, under the section 'Career in Cuba' mentions it. Nnnudibranch (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added in cast at bottom, with role as cameo listed in parens. Not needed in plot as it's a cameo, 10 seconds worth.
Thanks Nnnudibranch (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MD2.jpg

Image:MD2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

HANDLED Luigibob (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MD4.jpg

Image:MD4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

HANDLED Luigibob (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for tags?

User:Mattisse, you placed 3 tags on the article, dealing with neutrality, essay format, and tone ... yet you did not offer any specific explanation for several days on the talk page. Me or Luigi would be happy to rectify any concerns with the article that you have (or you would be more than welcome to fix them as well), but you will need to be more precise on the exact issues you have with the present state of the article. Usually a tag is accompanied with specifications or explanation on the talk page, and there is no way to ensure that your objections are alleviated, without knowing exactly what they are. Also do you have any specific suggestions of how you would fix the issues you feel need to addressed as they would be appreciated and helpful? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Redthoreau's comment. Best --- ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with article

  • First, the article is not properly referenced per WP:V etc. Please use reliable, unbiased third party sources.
  • Third, as you know WP:NPOV is the cornerstone of wikipedia. Please read throughly as you do not seem to understand it.

There are others, but you can start with those. If you do not understand the policies, please ask for explanations at various wikipedia places that explain these policies. Including me, hopefully as a last resort. I am rather surprised, after the comments you received on the FAR review page, that you are unclear about these polices now. Mattisse (Talk) 03:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I am grateful for you providing some "general" criticisms, and have already read all 3 of those articles numerous times. However, I would appreciate in the future if you would withhold personal insults such as "you do not seem to understand it" and refrain from bringing up past disputes, as they are not constructive. Please stick to the specific content of the article. As for NPOV that is often a more subjective criteria, up to ones personal interpretation and subject to one's bias ... and those criticisms will have to be made specifically ... and not simply by saying an article is POV. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What on earth does 'Notability' have to do with it? Is Matisse suggest we delete the article? Very weird. Cop 663 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More problems with the article

The article is mostly plot summary if you discount the embedded lists of performers, film locals, release dates etc. The plot summary is not neutrally written. Example:

Guevara makes his symbolic "final journey" that night when despite his asthma, he chooses to swim across the river that separates the two societies of the leper colony, to spend the night in a leper shack, instead of in the cabins of the doctors. This journey implicitly symbolizes Guevara's rejection of wealth and aristocracy into which he was born, and the path he would take later in his life as a guerrilla, fighting for what he believed was the dignity every human being deserves. As they bid each other farewell, Alberto reveals that his birthday was not in fact 2 April, but rather 8 August, and that the stated goal was simply a motivator: Ernesto replies that he knew all along. The film is closed with an appearance by the true life 82-year-old Alberto Granado, along with pictures from the actual journey and a mention of Che Guevara's eventual 1967 CIA-assisted execution in the Bolivian jungle.

Two of the three reviews of the film from neutral sources are negative regarding the portrayal of Guevara. Only one, from the New York Times, the same newspaper whose report Herbert Matthews created the Castro as hero image, was favorable.

All other sources in the article came from pro-Guevara site. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV to ensure your article is neutral in tone as well as employing neutral, unbiased third party sources for reference citations. Most of the article is not referenced, especially the statements that could be considered controverial. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pro Guevara" sites ? " So is any site that doesn't refer to him as the incarnation of Satan a "Pro Guevara" site ? The sites utilized are not Socialist.com ... they are the most reputable News sources in the World - ie (New York Times etc). Also your statement about Herbert Matthews displays extreme personal and irrelevant bias on your own part an entire newspaper is not judged by one persons reporting 40 years ago) ... and makes me question your own ability to be NPOV as an editor on this article. Also yes ... the film is not a "even handed" documentary ... it is a "idealistically" portrayed film looking at the young Guevara's diary ... before he became the controversial revolutionary "Che". Thus yes there are not any mentions of the man who would kill people later, because that is not the stage of his life being depicted. Also Mattisse I believe it would be helpful for you to realize that you are a "fellow" editor ... not a moderator or authority figure on this article. Your opinions are valuable ... but just as valuable as everyone else’s. Thus I believe that a more collaborative tone would be helpful, rather than a managerial one. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The passage you quote could certainly be improved a bit, but it's important to note that the film itself is not neutral. The film is a sentimental depiction of Guevara, presenting him as an idealized hero. Thus, the plot summary will inevitably do the same.
By the way, which are the "pro-Guevara sites" that you're referring to? Cop 663 (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse as for the Pro Guevara accusation, I would point you towards WP:UNDUEWEIGHT Which says that ...

"POV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.".

This film was widely acclaimed and won a plethora of awards. The only people who criticized the film itself, were individuals already opposed to the politics of the character in question and the criticisms were connected to an opposition to Guevara's later politics. Thus yes the article should present accurately the fact that the movie recieved an overwhelmingly favorable review from most reviewers. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
MORE ON WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as it relates to FILM REVIEWS Metacritic which compiles Reviews actually lists 32 positive reviews and 6 negative ones. Thus for proportional accuracy the ratio should be roughly 6 positive reviewer comments for every 1 negative one. Redthoreau (talk TR 08:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis length

A tag was added saying the synopsis is too long. In fact, it's only 700 words. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words". So it's actually fine. Cop 663 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re poster

It's a poster, everything required by Wiki was included....this is personal.....and it is WRONG.... and enethical...why is site locked...WHY?Luigibob (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Poster was never protected, or requested for protection (as far as I can tell), same for the other images on this page that were marked as such. SkierRMH (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive -vs- Disruptive?

Mattisse ... considering our recent and heated feud that has been taking place for several weeks ... I do find it questionable for you to now having taken interest in all of the articles that I have recently worked on. After not editing any of these articles ever before. Now sure every editor on wikipedia has the right to work on whichever article they wish ... and you could truly be interested in improving the quality of "coincidentally" the same articles that I recently worked on (even though the probability of such an occurrence would be very low) --- thus it leads me to question your true genuineness of criticisms and critiques. Going through and excessively tagging every photo on every article I have worked on, along with POV tags, tone tags, length, tags etc (as if you are an administrator, which you are not) could be warranted ... but they could also be an example of an attempt to create "annoyance". One that an administrator already warned you about this past week. I hope this is not the case, and that your motives are collaborative and not destructive. I would also contend that because of our past and very heated rivalry ... that it may be best for you not to mirror all of my edits, as you are already aware of our personal feud which as history shows us both, usually creates unnecessary frustration for the both of us. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.motorcyclediariesmovie.com/reviews/index.php

What reliable, unbiased, thirdparty organization is hosting this website? It does not disclose its associations. It cannot be used as a neutral reference source without knowing more about the site. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It appears to be solely an assemblage of short laudatory quotes on the The Motorcycle Diaries (film), given out of the context of the published review, on the film. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 04:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.S. The site http://www.motorcyclediariesmovie.com/ is a promotional site for the The Motorcycle Diaries (film) and is therefore ineligable as a neutral reference source. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re NPOV

I have made some edits that try to delete NPOV prior edits. I also deleted any reviews that DO NOT have any references. I agree, if you have a quote, you need a reference...more or less, period.. Best Luigibob (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large Movie Poster ?

I don't understand why now the movie poster is so large? The measurements have not changed. Anyone ??? Redthoreau (talk TR 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)