Talk:Guillermo Díaz (actor)

Requested move

Guillermo Díaz → Guillermo Diaz – On his official site and MySpace, his name doesn't have an accent mark. Was inccorectly moved a few months ago. Crumbsucker 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I do find several sites that refer to him (at least, some celebrity, actor) using the accent, such as IMDB, and the official homepage is currently not responding. —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the correct link for his website. http://www.guillermodiaz.net/ Crumbsucker 12:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Re-re-listing for lack of consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• The request failed since nobody supported the move after re-re-listing. --Dijxtra 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guillermo Diaz.JPG

Image:Guillermo Diaz.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) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth

There is conflicting information. IMDb has him born in 1975. Clarification on this would be great. | Ateo (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeds

It says on the page that he finished his acting with the tv show 'Weeds'. But as Season 6 hasn't been released yet and it isn't clarified if he has a part in it. I think we shouldn't cut it to 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.139.24 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to use the descriptor "cholo" to describe a type of character role?

See additional discussion in the edit summaries and User_talk:Hearfourmewesique#WP:JARGON

Comments

• No it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to use. 1) Wikipedia should NEVER be using a (even potential) racial slur as a descriptor when not in a direct quote. In this instance, the source uses the term "Mexican thugs" and never the term "cholo". 2) Wikipedia should be written in clear language and not depend upon piping when there are common English terms. 3) Wikipedia follows the sources, as stated above, the source uses the phrase "Mexican thug" Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

and given the muliplicity of uses of the term [1], usage of a term that actually has straightforward clarity must be given preference. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Using the more PC "Mexican thug" is appropriate, and does make the text any less clear than cholo. Even though this term is referring to this actor's roles, unless we are quoting something directly from a WP:RS, there is no reason for a non-PC word to be used where an alternative exists.— Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• First and foremost, the piping of cholo by Active Banana is wrong. This is the correct paragraph, which also extensively explains why it is not a slur at all. Here is the detailed response I have given on my talk page:

It is not a slur in this context, specifically in this paragraph, quote: "The term[...]has infiltrated into mainstream American English use, specifically in association with American youth movements such as the "lowrider" subculture, or the hip hop scene in general. The word is sometimes associated with Hispanic gang culture, especially in popular media." It is even specified that "Despite, or because of, its long history of denigrating semantics, the term Cholo was turned on its head and used as a symbol of pride in the context of the ethnic power movements of the 1960s." The "intrinsically technical jargon" does not apply in this case, since it's not a "tech geek" article. Finally, Wikipedia encourages us to write articles using our own words rather than exactly copying sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

it encourages to write in our own words when our own words are clear and correct. having to click to a piped section of an article to get the correct definition out of many is most definitely NOT clear. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

and in addition, there is absolutely no evidence that the speakers in our source when using the term "Mexican thug" were implying anything at all like you claim in the particular use of "cholo" that you are advocation to add WP:OR to the reasons NOT to be using the term. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term quoted is from a section "United States". All users of the English Wikipedia do not come from the United States, thus there could be some interpretation issues at hand. Overall, this is a very minor issue, but using your own words is referring to writing article text that doesn't have to stick with exact quotations (otherwise WP would just be a collection of quotes). You can use your own words in describing that subculture role without using the "Cholo" slang word. Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana, you pose a question and then answer it yourself as if it were someone else's (top of the paragraph)... this is not how it's done. Leef5 – the article is about a US actor who played the same role several times, which matches the cholo subculture right down to body language, intonation and accent (which Diaz fakes for the character's sake). Therefore, the US usage fits as we are talking about several US films that depict US culture. As for WP:OR – if the source would have said "criminal belonging to a gang", would it be original research to rephrase it as "gangster"? No, and neither is calling a Mexican thug (and in Diaz's case, also a gangster for the most part) a cholo. This is indeed a minor issue, but since Wikipedia is not censored, we have no need in getting PC here; besides, this is nothing like using the n-word, as clearly shown in the piped article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To say that the role matches the cholo subculture right down to the body language, intonation and accent is exactly what WP:OR is and why we are not allowed to use OR in articles. Unless you have a WP:RS that makes the link for us that his acting style matches the cholo subculture (and uses that word), it is against WP policy to use our own research to try and identify his acting role.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read my response above – quote: [I]f the source would have said "criminal belonging to a gang", would it be original research to rephrase it as "gangster"? No, and neither is calling a Mexican thug (and in Diaz's case, also a gangster for the most part) a cholo. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said on WP:NORN, there's no need to bring in a dubious claim of OR. And dubious here is a euphemism. You're allowed to use common sense when deciding whether a word is appropriate in paraphrasing a source. Saying "cholo" doesn't claim that the character matches the subculture right down to body language. It just paraphrases the source's phrase "Mexican thug". Observing the character would be original research if it were the basis for a statement in the article, but it isn't. It's the basis for evaluating one aspect of word choice. However, it's no basis at all for failing to evaluate other aspects of word choice. "Cholo" is also used as a slur, and it's completely unclear to very many English-speaking readers. Either alone would be reason enough to rule it out. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider myself 3O trouted - appreciate the clarification of OR vs paraphrasing.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read my response on the OR noticeboard. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Guillermo Diaz's parents are not Puerto Rican, they are Cuban. He is Cuban American. The source listed is not currently available.--Lawrlafo (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)