Jump to content

Talk:Che Guevara/All-16to20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article closed for 5 days

I feel this was a good decision as the ongoing vandalism by Mattisse was becoming hard to control. Hopefully in the next few days those editors who are interested in working collaboratively on the article, free of harassing other members, will make their suggestions known. I am looking forward to others input ... especially Polaris if he is still out there somewhere. Redthoreau (talk TR 05:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, this protection can only affect the article's Featured status as it directly conficts with the "stability" criteria. - Caribbean~ H.Q. 05:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That is wonderful news that the article has been locked down. It is hopeless for FA anyway, as the FAR editors made clear when editors would not cooperate in removing the massive POV. Let's hope it stays that way for a while. Remember, last summer it was locked down for a month after Jimmy Wales, who was concerned about the POV put the POV tag on the article. We never reached consensus to remove the POV tag and I do not know how it got removed. Since User:Redthoreau became editing the article in December 2006, he has mad more edits than all the other ediots put together since 2004, including those that brought it to FA status. I suggest that if [[[User:Redthoreau]] intends to continue his massive editing, that he start interacting with editors on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara . He has ignored the FAR suggestions, considering them ridiculous. I have copied the direction several places so he could see the. I also encourage him to discuss changes on the article talk page and be responsive to editors on the article talk page. I have asked him to discotinue postings of article or political content on my talk page as well as Personal Attacks. Do no discuss article business on my talk page. It is inappropriate. Follow the rules and suggestions on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara and outlined multipe times there and on the article talk page if User:Redthoreau wishs editing to continue again on the article. Remember, you even reverted User:SandyGeorgia during FAR. User:Redthoreau haa ignored our group planning and did not join in. The edits User:Redthoreau was making were against group consensus. User:Redthoreau reverted me yesterday without warning or discussing, replacing the whole intro that I had been working on not only without discussing but without any warning. This started today's ugly atmosphere which occurs everytime another editor trys to work on the article. User:Polaris999 will not work on the article because of the editing attitude of [User:Redthorea]] . Also, please stio the political attacks and rants on the article talk pages. Comment on content, not on editors. I believe we should discuss all of this on the article talk page, incluing the vaious plans that were abandoned because of User:Redthoreau's participation. Many editors, like User:Polaris999 may have been driven off for could. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If this dispute has yet to be resolved after five days, drop me a line on my talk, and I'll reprotect. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 06:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I trust the ability of other editors to observe the situation and realize the numerous lies and falsehoods, User:Mattisse constantly puts forth. His irrational behavior is truly astonishing, and I don't know if I have ever witnessed anything like it. The problems arise because he believes he is above repute and that he is a falsely an de-facto moderator of wikipedia who can place false warnings on others talk pages, and then when they copy and paste the same warning back to him, he seeks official loop holes to have them banned. Mattisse also believes that he can justifiably make numerous edits without discussion on the talk page, but then when anyone edits something he may have recently edited, he freaks out and enters into what can only be described as a "peculiar editor’s rage”, furiously leaving talk page warnings, messaging moderators, seeking 3RR violations etc. It leaves the editor in a curious position as the visage he puts forth makes it very clear that you can edit an article, as long as you never put anything down that he disagrees with or follow the same pattern of behavior he exhibits. That is not how Wikipedia should work ........ Anyone can look through the edits and see that I make numerous mentions of trying to honor his suggestions (the few times he gave them and didn’t refuse to be specific) and that I constantly made pleas for collaboration and not the dictatorial irrationality he was displaying. Just from looking through this page alone, anyone can see the "curious" and confusing atmosphere that User:Mattisse presents as one second he will template that he is "LEAVING FOR GOOD" and for me not to contact him further, and an hour later he will return with more edits and warnings on my talk page in relation to the article. How can someone be expected to work collaboratively with someone who exhibits such a "bipolar" personality, and who never follows what he says? Mattisse has also started to show a penchant for following me around Wikipedia and placing tags on articles I make contributions on to annoy me. Not for an actual constructive purpose, but simply to cause frustration. --A moderator has already warned him of this on his talk page and hopefully he will thus discontinue this behavior.-- However implicit in this behavior is an example of his motivation, in where the desire (when it relates to me) is not for him to provide quality content (as I know he is more than capable of), but to continue a feud with me that I constantly have implored and pleaded with him to desist. Yes I have made a good deal of edits … but that was because my knowledge on the subject area, lead me to believe that the article was lacking in critical information and context. It is and will continue to be my desire to work collaboratively with any editor willing to work together in a respectful manner to create a better article, and I hope this can be achieved if and when the article is re-opened. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of a month long lockdown ?

I believe that actually a lockdown of a month (as has occurred in the past) may be needed ... especially considering the height of editor passions and intractability of current disputes. A “lengthy” cooling down period for all parties on the article may be in good order and would also allow those editors interested in future efforts, ample opportunity to discuss possible issues related to the current article. It would also provide time for other editors to contemplate joining on, to apply their knowledge and wikipedia know-how to the task at hand. Furthermore, for what it is worth, I believe that the article at present is beyond satisfactory (although yes possibly not up to FA status) but I fear that future flurries and barrages could be inevitable, without allowing editors time away from the daily “back and forth” and time to discuss the state of the article at present - free from ongoing alterations. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What are other editors thoughts on this ? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User:Nishkid64 to extend the lock for 7 more days to allow editors time to let their opinion be known. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fully protecting the article while we wait for others to casually come over here and participate in a discussion is not the way to go. It detracts from other users who want to edit the article in a non-controversial manner. The page protection is now expired, but if edit warring resumes, I will protect it again. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To: User talk:Coppertwig

  • I am only answering this so you will not block me for not following your instructions to put an entry on the talk page.
  • I am not the one who decides the POV. It is the FAR review that decides. I would give you a link to their comments, but you templated me for giving you the link before. You said that you would block me if I did it again.
  • The FAR review committee has stated many times that the requests for lists of specific problems are unreasonable. Also, I am not able to spend the next week or so doing all that work when it is not my opinion but the FAR editors who decides.
  • Please do not block me for this answer, as you have threatened, and this answer may fall under your blockable category.
  • I would rather bow out than go through anymore of this.
  • Please do not block me for this statement. These are my feelings.
  • However, if you do block me as you have threatened to do, there is nothing I can do about it.

Disputed Neutrality

The article has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Also the editor who applied the tag has not provided any opinion to justify that belief, and I believe that for the tag to remain ... there needs to be some rationale or suggestions. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


The lead section

I became involved with this article as a result of seeing and becoming involved with a 3RR report at WP:AN/3RR a few days ago. I've decided that at least for a period of time, I'm going to try to maintain a neutral position on all content disputes in this article: that is, I won't express an opinion for or against any change to the article. This is so that I can assist other editors in negotiating with each other and reaching compromises. At some later time I may decide to play a different role here.

Since there were some reverts involving the lead (introductory) section just before page protection, I'd like to encourage discussion of the wording of the lead section. Below, I'm trying to list almost all differences among the versions. I may have neglected some changes, and when more than one version is the same I usually only list one version that has a given wording.

Please put comments in the discussion sections. I'd like to see as many people as possible expressing opinions about which wordings you prefer and why. Please be specific and refer to reliable sources if possible. You may add more points to the lists if I missed some changes you would like to discuss.

Comparing the lead section in these versions: See also Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara

--Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be better if people would post comments immediately below each numbered point below, so I've removed the "discussion" headers.

I apologize, Mattisse. I should not have stated that you preferred something when you hadn't actually said so. I was half-aware of that when I posted it. Would it be OK if I list it as "version of intro reverted to by Mattisse"? Or would you prefer that it be called something else, such as "version of intro fix after Jimmy Wales put the POV tag on article"? You're welcome to supply another version. I encourage everyone to suggest other alternate wordings for the variations listed below, especially trying to compromise or trying to accomplish the goals of different versions at the same time.

I selected the "Zleitzen" version as a version edited by Zleitzen after which there were very few or no edits by Zleitzen other than reverts or small changes, and before which there were a number of substantive edits by Zleitzen over a period of several days. I don't claim that it's necessarily the best representation of Zleitzen's work, but it would take more investigation to find out.

Although I'm going to avoid taking positions on content disputes, I may take positions on particular editing actions. In particular, if someone reverts something and if in my opinion the person doesn't seem to have given a reason for the revert as far as I'm aware, I may state on this talk page that I oppose the revert and I may even re-revert. I plan to do this regardless of whether I have a personal opinion about the merits of the material and regardless of what that opinion is. If someone states a reason covering a whole section or the whole article etc., I may or may not consider that as being a reason applying to a specific change to a specific sentence, depending on things like how vague the reason is, and whether someone else has given a reason to do the opposite.23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I've read this talk page and the FAR, I won't remember everything. I would appreciate it if people would put links or section titles or etc. in their edit summaries to particular sections of this talk page where they've explained the reasons for their edits.

I may also do some edits on my own, on things I expect to be non-controversial, including, for example, fixing grammatical errors. If you disagree with those edits, I encourage you to ask me to revert them. Note the "self-revert" userbox on my user page.

We can act as if it makes no difference whether the page is protected or not. Either way, we can get consensus on the talk page before making changes. If the page is protected, once we establish consensus for a change we can use the {{editprotected}} template to request that an admin make the change. The page is currently not protected. Redthoreau's edit changed the information in a template which has since been removed but did not change the protection status of the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I appreciate all of your work and commitment on helping improve the article. I am willing to happily follow all of your suggestions. Could you please add protection to the article however ... because without ... I believe that all of our/your hardwork could be in vain. Redthoreau (talk TR 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Redthoreau. I don't have the ability to protect pages, because I'm not an admin. You can post a request at requests for page protection to have the page protected. However, I don't know whether the request would be granted if there's no editwarring currently happening on the page. See the policy on protecting pages, and the instructions at the top of the requests page. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken quotes of editors from this talk page and posted them below where they seem to me to be relevant to discussing the various wordings listed. If you think I've taken your words out of context, I apologize in advance, and please feel free to delete, move, modify or strike out the quotes of yourself which I've put there (except that if someone has replied to them below, it might not be appropriate to delete etc. though striking out should be fine.) You're also free to add new comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - Are these snippets from the article sourced, if not in the lead then somewhere in the article? If they are not, then it is pointless to argue about which version. There is much in the article that is not sourced. I feel like that should be our first priority. Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions)

I apologize that I haven't taken the time to copy the wikitext, so links etc. are not shown here. If wordings from here are used it would be best to go to the original wikitext for them. Please put comments and suggestions immediately after each numbered point.

  • 1. B says as well as other countries, including the Congo which is not in A. C has leader of Cuban and internationalist guerillas.
  • 2. some versions say Guevara traveled rough. E says Guevara would embark on a journey.
  • 3. C says impoverished conditions instead of poverty. D says (particularly the indigenous peasantry. E says and be transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed.
  • 4. D includes author in the first sentence.
  • 5. D says medical physician instead of medic.
  • 6. D splits the first paragraph into two, after the first sentence.
  • 7. D says socio-economic inequalities were a result of capitalism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism.
  • 8. D says by socialism before "through revolution".
  • 9. E includes His ubiquitous image would also later morph into a countercultural alpha-numeric symbol, utilized by youth and leftist-inspired-movements throughout the world.
  • 10. E says insidious before "result of capitalism..." and World before "revolution".
  • 11. E includes This belief would lead him to become involved in Guatemala's social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose eventual CIA assisted overthrow, would solidify Guevara’s radical ideology.Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Per 4, 10 & 11 ... I believe E it is more accurate for several reasons. (1) It is imperative that he be mentioned as an "Author" I believe, as he wrote over 10 + books. "Author" is usually granted to someone who writes more than 2 ... thus I believe one can safely describe him as an author. Plus his legacy is encapsulated in his words and books, which sell thousands of copies each year throughout the world. (2) Also Guevara's ultimate stated goal was not revolution in Cuba, Bolivia etc ... but "World Revolution" against what he viewed as global Imperialism. From Guevara’s own words:

"The fundamental field of imperialist exploitation comprises the three underdeveloped continents: America, Asia, and Africa. Every country has also its own characteristics, but each continent, as a whole, also presents a certain unity." Che’s Message to the Tricontinental

(3) Arbenz's overthrow with help of the CIA, I would contend is essential because that in my mind is the "watershed" moment in Guevara's life. Until then he was a vagabond traveler, medic, poet, and "Marxist in theory" but not reality. It was his outrage of what he perceived as the CIA toppling Arbenz at the behest of United Fruit and Business interests (which he became disgusted with while personally touring United Fruit holdings) that solidified his view that the US was a hegemonic power that needed to be revolted against with force. If Arbenz is never overthrown, then I believe Guevara would have probably lived out the rest of his days as a wayward traveler (which I think his history bears out). Thus not to include that in the intro to me is a glaring omission. From Guevara’s own words:

“I was in Guatemala at the time, the Guatemala of Arbenz—and I had begun to make some notes to guide the conduct of the revolutionary doctor. I began to investigate what was needed to be a revolutionary doctor. However, aggression broke out, the aggression unleashed by the United Fruit Company, the U.S. Department of State, John Foster Dulles—in reality the same thing—and their puppet, called Castillo Armas. The aggression was successful, since the people had not achieved the level of maturity of the Cuban people of today. One fine day, a day like any other, I took the road of exile, or at least, I took the road of flight from Guatemala, since that was not my country.” Guevara: on Revolutionary Medicine

Redthoreau (talk TR 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that from his private diaries or a published version? According to Jon Anderson, there is a big difference. (See p. 213) Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither, an actual speech he delivered. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
But where did the "version" of the speech come from? A transcript in what language? Who translated it? Who published it? What it edited by Che for publication, as Anderson says Che did for his published works? Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the word author, where I have been quoted voicing various opinions, it is interesting that neither Karl Marx nor Vladimir Lenin, for example, is described as an "author". Maybe in these cases their political identity and formulations can hardly be wrapped into the word "author" which would be demeaning in the context of the life and the effect that either has had politically and historically? Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
However, looking more through Jon Anderson's book there are a lot of references to Che Guevera as a propraganda machine for the revolution and his "after the fact mythification" of the revolution, the stark difference between his private diaries and his published versions of events, the creation of "Cuban revolution folklore" and the fact that even now all his private diaries are not available (pages 180, 213, 225, for example). Below is a description of one of his earlier efforts (Jon Anderson, pp 237-238)

Che's narrative is as chilling as it is revealing about his personality. His matter-of-factness in describing the execution, his scientific notations on his bullet's entry and exit wounds suggest a remarkable detachment from violence. It is also in stark contrast to Che's published account of the event. In an article entitled "Death of a Traitor" he rendered the scene with literary aplomb. ... Che completed his parable with a description of the final moment of Eutimio's life heavily imbued with religious symbolism. ...This incident was seminal in the growth of Che's mystique among the guerrillas and peasants of the Sierra Maestra. From then on he acquired a reputation for a cold-blooded willingness to take direct action against transgressors of the revolutionary norms.

So maybe the author part is key to his role in the Cuban Revolution. Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...conscious of his role as an architect of Cuba's new official history, Che gave each [portrait of a man] totemistic significance as a representative of the values to be cherished or vilifed in the "new" Cuba.

(Anderson p, 241.) Mattisse (Talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, you make it as if "Revolutionary folklore" is original to Cuba. It is inherent in every single nation, and every single revolution in world history. George Washington for instance in American folklore, is not seen as a slave owning, aristocrat, who as a 22 year old colonel killed 10 unarmed French ambassadors at Jumonville Glen …. But rather a noble revolutionary Who could not tell a lie about cutting down his father's cherry tree, and who was strong enough to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
But what is very evident from Jon Anderson is that is what Guevara's role was. He took on the job of creating the job of creating the myths for Cuba.

Writing of the peasantry's own gradual acceptance of the revolution, Che employed religious symbolism, rendering their travails as a kind of Pilgrim's Progress in which individuals found redemption through sacrifice, attaining final enlightenment by learning to live for the Common Good."It is a new mirical of the revolution that—under the imperative of war—the staunchest individualist, who zealously proutec the boundaries of his property and his own right, joined the grea common effort of the struggle. But there is an even greater miracle: the rediscovery by the Cuban peasant of his own happiness with in liberated zones. Whoever witnessed the apprehensive murmurs with which our forces were formerly received in each peasant household notes with pride he carefree clamor, he happy, hearty laughter of the new Sierra inhabitant. That is a reflection of the self confidence that the awareness of his own strength gave to the inhabitants of our liberater area. p. 299

Guevara was a propaganda machine. Publishing these articles which would flood Cuba, running a newpaper, etc. {p.286) He was the creator of the "revolutionary folklore." He was following the textbook. He did not want anything original to Cuba. Mattisse (Talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading Andersons 800 pages ... is the main thing you are left with - is Che as a "propaganda machine"? In the case of a popular revolt ... "propaganda" is necessary. That is why Guevara created Radio Rebelde ... to counteract the "propaganda" Batista was also putting out about Castro and his fighters. Both sides were using it --- as all Armies in wartime do. I am not sure, why you attribute this behavior to Guevara as somehow being "sinister" or different, than all armies in war time – regardless of ideology. Hell, the US was plotting Operation Northwoods as a means of propaganda for instance. One could make the argument as well ... that it was Radio Rebelde (Which Che set up) that was the single most important entity to Castro’s ultimate success. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(The above comment was modified by Redthoreau at 16:58 30 March 2008 (UTC).)--Coppertwig (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdate) Redthoreau, Please just address the content and not make comments on the editor.

Of course, Guevara does things for a reason as does everyone. I did not say he had no reason nor did I say his writing was the most important contribution of Guevara. I am trying to piece the story together. I believe, although I am no longer clear what section I am posting, under that we were discussing Gue's importance as an author. I am merely providing quotations that represent the sourced information I have found so far on the subject.

Also, Do you have reference sources for what you say about or is it a synthesis representing your opinion and therefore Original Research? Mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above is struck out as the comment it was in response to has been changed substantially and I am not sure it pertains anymore. Mattisse (Talk) 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing his role as an author in the section "Last part of lead" below, and as I state there, I would be more than happy to provide sources for any statement for which you are unclear of its authenticity or accuracy. Just let me know what you want me to cite, as it is very time consuming to citation every 4-5 words i.e. "The Earth is Round"[1]. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Please provide references for the statements in the lead, even if the source appears elsewhere in the article. The lead has been the most controversial section over time. Each statement in it has been opposed at one time or another. Please do not dismiss the requests of other editors for sourcing as asking for references for "the earth is round" statements. (By the way, the earth is not completely round.) Also, everything in the lead must have a source elsewhere in the article anyway. How else do we evaluate "undue weight"? Mattisse (Talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Striking out as the subject of thread has changed due to change in comments above. Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the word "author": the following quote might be of interest. It says "écrivain", which I translate as "writer".

Médecin, archéologue, écrivain, journaliste, photographe, poète, joueur d'échecs, sportif, il va devenir guérillero, président de la Banque nationale, ministre, ambassadeur. Pas de doute, le Che est pluriel. Son je, il l'a dirigé avec lucidité et tenacité vers un nous. It est un kaléidoscope, chaque facette éclaire et oriente les autres. (Translation: Doctor, archeologist, writer, journalist, photographer, poet, chess player, sportsman, he will become a guerrilla, president of the National Bank, minister, ambassador. Without doubt, Che is plural. He has directed his "I" with lucidity and tenacity into a "we". He is a kaleidoscope; each facet illuminates and orients the others. p. 95, Jean Cormier avec la collaboration de Hilda Guevara, Alberto Granada. 1995, 1997, 2002. Che Guevara. Nouvelle édition augmentée. Editions du Rocher. ISBN 2 268 04302 9

By the way, I'm sorry I modified the header of one of these subsections; I hadn't understood at that time how people were trying to arrange them. (Also, Mattisse, I put some messages to you on my talk page.) --Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

second paragraph (third and fourth paragraphs in some version(s))

I'm starting the numbering at 101, not because there are more than 100 edits to consider, but in order to allow room to add more numbers in the previous section if necessary.

  • 101. A says Guevara died at the hands of the Bolivian Army in La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967. Participants in and witnesses to the events of his final hours testify that his captors summarily executed him, perhaps to avoid a public trial followed by imprisonment in Bolivia. B is similar but has executed him without trial. C says more briefly, Guevara was summarily executed by the Bolivian Army, in the town of La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967. E says very briefly, where he was captured with help of the CIA and executed.
  • 102. D divides the second paragraph into two.
  • 103. D says Later while in Mexico in 1956 instead of Some time later.
  • 104. D says from the regime of the U.S. supported Cuban dictator General Fulgencio Batista
  • 105. D says For a few months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", as understood under revolutionary theory, overseeing the public "revolutionary tribunals" [1] and executions of between 55 [2] and a few hundred[3] suspected war criminals associated with the previous regime.[4][5] For his part Jon Lee Anderson author of the biography 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life' [6] has stated that: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason, rape, torture, or murder." [7]
  • "Even though this sentence has a citation from Anderson on PBS I think it should go: "Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson has contended that through his five years of research that he was unable to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent."
    My reason is that I don't know what "an innocent" means in war. Anderson says: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder." Are we to believe there were trials and such? Did not he execute people for the same reasons he was executed? We do have to reduce the POV of this article. ..."     was said by Mattisse 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (paragraph break rendered in wikitext by Coppertwig)
  • "re the "innocents" question: I can think of many reasons why JLA might not have been able to find "a single credible source" that have nothing at all to do with whether the individuals executed were in fact innocent or not. ..." was said by Polaris999 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "I would like to remove the sentence because, even though Anderson said it, I don't think it applies to the situation and is needlessly pro-Guevara. I don't think we know one way or the other. And "innocents" in a revolutionary situation depends on what side you are on." was said by Mattisse 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Could be removed as far as I am concerned ..." was said by Polaris999 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 106. D says touring the world and meeting with leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism
  • 107. E says and be promoted to commander in (26 of July movement)
  • 108. E says playing a pivotal role in the successful
  • 109. E says US backed instead of US supported Cuban dictator
  • 110. E says After the Cuban revolution, Guevara would serve in many prominent governmental positions including President of the National Bank and “supreme prosecutor” over the revolutionary tribunals and executions of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.
  • 111. E says he was also a prolific author
  • 112. E says to incite instead of to fomentCoppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Last part of lead

  • 201. B says Somewhat ironically, this photo of the Marxist icon has also spawned a capitalist merchandising machine.
  • 202. The last two paragraphs of D have extensive discussion of his legacy: re writings by and about him; quotes by Jonathan Green and Ariel Dorfman, etc.
  • 203. E says Both notorious for his disciplined brutality and revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines,
  • 204. E has a paragraph about his legacy, different from the version in D, including romantic visage.
As the editor who last compiled it, I favor version E, and consider it to be the most accurate and encompassing. As for issues related to proportionality to the rest of the article, I feel that those issues should not be addressed, until we reach consensus on the rest of the article, as proportions may be ever evolving. I am also willing to address anyones concerns on the specific rationale for the wording, and provide citations to back up all/any of the leads claims. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(quote from Jon Anderson, p.282)

The time had come for the rebels to assert their authority over the sierra's inhabitants and establish a semblance of law and order in the region. ... The new rigid code of conduct for rebel behavior, meanwhile, was causing resentments, particularly in Che's column, where tensions were running high over the zeal displayed by his newly appointed "disciplinary commission." Those tensions now reached a bloody climax.

Then follows a description of an incident in which Lalo (one of Che's soldiers) impulsively held a pistol to another soldier's head and shot him. Following the decision regarding what the punishment should be for Lalo, a large group of fighters threw down their weapons and demanded to leave, including the head of Che's disciplinary commission.
(quote from Jon Anderson, p.283)

In spite of Che's best efforts at ascribing treasonous motivations to the men who left, the incident is less convincing as a moral tale of revolution than as a glimpse into his hardened personality at the time. Che's trail through the Sierra Maestra was littered with the bodies of chivatos, deserters and delinquents, men whose deaths he had ordered and in some cases carried out himself. The code of discipline he had imposed within and without his growing family of fighters had created an atmosphere in which acts such as Lalo's could easily occur. The leader sets the example, and Che's underlings were merely emulating his behavior in their own crude way.

(Italics in text above are Anderson's.) Is this what you mean when you say Che was revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines,? Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Partially yes, and his "disciplined brutality". There are numerous accounts of the men who fought alongside Che, who recall him as being a strict disciplinarian and an extremely demanding leader who used cold calculation in dealing with those who swayed from his path. However, some of these same men who fought alongside him in the same breath will talk about how they also “loved”, “feared”, and “admired” him, and saw him as a “fatherly” type figure. I think there is a great deal of complexity with Guevara, which is not as black and white as “killer” or “Messiah”. He is controversial, beloved, and despised by a myriad of people all for differing reasons. This makes articles about him so difficult to write, because to address all of the complexity, one has to appear as if they are discussing 2 different men, thus invalidating both accounts because of discrepancy. The same man who is prayed to next to Mary and Christ in Bolivia to this day as a Saint, is also the man who is viewed as analogous to Hitler by embittered Cuban exiles. His lionization also refers to different aspects of his life and personality, than those his detractors rely on. Not realizing that both can be accurate. He can be an empathetic, loving, charitable, martyred rebel, devoted to the poor and afflicted ... and be a cold, calculating, rigid, killer, who was quick to execute those he viewed as “traitors” to his lofty ideals. Both are possible. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you give sources for this, preferably not from his published work especially as Anderson says there is a stark difference (p. 231). Or is this your synthesis? Mattisse (Talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, which statements would you like citations for? (Keeping in mind, it may take me a day or two to compile some of them for you). Also are you ever going to give me a citation for the account of him fleeing and almost shooting his own man, I have been asking for?Redthoreau (talk TR 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind as well that Jon Lee Anderson was given access to all of Che's diaries and personal items (Hence, why he was able to compose such a definitive portrait) - and that editing of personal memoirs which are written without intention of ever being published to the entire world, is a common occurrence, especially when they relate to national heroic figures of that particular nation. Moreover, a great deal of his work was published while he was still alive, and is not based on his personal diaries, but his speeches that he personally delivered, and the ideas that he personally wrote. Can you imagine the U.S. government allowing full unadulterated access to a Reagan’s, Ford’s, or Nixon’s personal diaries for instance - the presumption would be absurd on its face. Guevara has received more in depth investigation and personal inquiry and access into his own private thoughts than almost any controversial figure I can name from the 20th century. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like sources for almost all of it. For example, per MoS, everything in quotes needs a direct citation. Also, for everything that comes after "I think" as it is not what you think that is important, as I am sure you are aware. Give sources for all statements. Remember that when Guevara was publishing while he was alive he was consciously working and reworking on the after the fact mythification of Cuban revolutionary folklore and its heros, and see the other quotes I have put on this talk page from Anderson that Guevara was consciously creating a new history for the new Cuba he as creating. Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical edits

I have made a few minor grammatical edits and wording alterations to the article. However I will not address "Content" without first discussing or allowing other editors a chance to review the content, here on the talk page. It is my hope that other editors will follow this same course of action, as to prevent inevitable edit warring, and a future page lockdown. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the procedure of discussing first before editing. I agree that this doesn't have to apply to non-controversial edits such as correcting grammar -- realizing that if someone does object to those edits, they then become controversial. I might discuss even grammatical changes before editing, but don't expect others to do so.
Thank you for your comment about version E above, Redthoreau. I think it would be helpful if you would get more specific, and put comments under some of the numbered points above commenting on specific phrases that differ between the sections. For example, when you say that E is more accurate, could you back that up with references to the sources? Coppertwig (talk)
Sure ... doing so up above after each differentiation. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, would you forgive me for having mistakenly marked a version as being preferred by you? It would be helpful if you would also add some comments to the section about the lead above, though of course you don't have to. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A minor grammatical edit: I'd like to change the punctuation in "Ernesto Guevara de la Serna was born on June 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina. The eldest of five children in a family of mixed Spanish and Irish descent; both his father and mother were of Basque ancestry.[Basque]" I'd like to change the punctuation so that the part "The eldest ... descent" becomes part of the first sentence rather than of the second. The reason is that, dangling, one can't find a noun for the adjective "eldest" to modify. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding an apostrophe in "by trips end" to make "by trip's end".
I hope you don't mind, Redthoreau, if I comment on some of the grammatical changes you've made. I'm intending to avoid getting into content disputes, so there are merely suggestions. Coppertwig (talk)
I don't mind at all ... you have shown yourself to be more than fair, and I appreciate your fair handed objectivity in relation to these matters. Redthoreau (talk TR 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re "which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially now in various English-speaking countries." The way you changed "are" to "and" is fine. Another alternative is to leave it as "are", and change "as" to "that". I think the semicolon before "and" should be a comma, and that possibly some editors would argue that there should be no punctuation before "and" (I'm not sure about that).
Re "a shipment of Škoda infantry and light artillery weapons were sent": I suggest keeping the singular "was", since "shipment" is singular.
Re changing "most of the 82 men died or were executed" to "most of the 82 men were killed or executed": This seems to me to be of a similar nature to the changes which have been found to be controversial in this article, and to change the meaning significantly. Therefore, would you please provide a reason, Redthoreau, for making this change? Similarly for deleting "formerly Belgian Congo, later Zaire and". Coppertwig (talk)
To answer your Q: The reason for the first change was for more specificity and accuracy. I believe that as it read previously, the vague wording left open the possibility that the men simply "died" from sickness, the seas, old age etc. When someone is killed from a natural disaster or illness, the common wording is "died" ... however when someone is shot in combat (as these men were, the common word is "killed"). For example ... i.e. JFK didn't “die” while driving through Dallas ... he was "killed” while driving through Dallas etc. Also the "executed" is not a matter of debate, as it is universally accepted that Batista's forces had a "no prisoner" policy in relation to the attacking rebels. As for deleting the former chronological names for the DRC, that was simply a matter of streamlining content. I found it unnecessary to list all of the nation’s former names, and believe the former and current one sufficed. For instance in mentioning a historical figure of a certain nation, it isn't necessary to list all of the chronological names that country has had up to the present. The contemporary one at the time, followed by the present day one I believe suffices. As always I am open to debate on any of my comments, and respect your opinion. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re "Following the coup, he again volunteered to fight but soon after Arbenz took refuge in the Mexican Embassy and told his foreign supporters to leave the country." I would insert commas before and after "but soon after", or at least after "fight", to make it easier to parse the sentence. As it is now, it looks as if "soon after Arbenz took refuge" is a phrase, but the rest of the sentence won't parse if that's treated as a phrase.
Re "After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine [[consulate]] where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to [[Mexico]].<ref>Taibo, Paco Ignacio II. ''Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che'', p. 74.</ref>" I would put a comma after "consulate". Also, I see ref tags here. Are there supposed to be any ref tags in this article? Does this need to be converted to a Harvard citation? I'd like to do that, as I need to learn how: I'm only familiar with ref tags. Please confirm that the ref tags are not supposed to be there and then I'll figure out how to do the Harvard citation. Do we use ref tags for anything in this article? In this case, it seems to be a name of a book, so perhaps it's not supposed to be in ref tags.
Re "Although he planned to be the group's medic, Guevara participated in the military training with the members of the Movement, and at the end of the course, was called "the best guerrilla of them all" by their instructor, Colonel [[Alberto Bayo]].<ref name=anderson2>{{Citation| last =Anderson| first =Jon Lee| year =1997 | title =Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life| place =New York| publisher =Grove Press| page = 194| isbn =0-8021-1600-0 }}.</ref>" I would add a comma after "and". If that's objected to, I would remove the comma after "course". Again, here's a ref tag, and even a citation template; I suppose these are supposed to be converted to the other citation system. (Again, please confirm and then I'll do it.) -- Coppertwig (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I appreciate your efforts and am more than happy to address any questions you have in relation to my comments. As for your grammatical suggestions, I believe that all of them are justifiable and would support you changing any/all of them, if you wish. I will reply to each independent issue separately up above. Redthoreau (talk TR 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Redthoreau. I hope I'm not taking up too much space on this talk page with minor grammatical points, but I'd like to be careful not to make edits that might lead to conflict. Later when we've maintained calm, collaborative interaction for a while I may decide to be slightly bolder. By the way, I'd like people to know that besides my self-revert policy I'm also a member of the Harmonious Editing Club (see userboxes on my userpage) which means that I voluntarily restrict myself to the 1RR: one revert per page per 24 hours. With regards to self-reverting, though, I'd like to mention that if I re-revert a revert and someone asks me to self-revert that, I probably won't. Other edits I would usually self-revert if asked, at least while I'm maintaining a neutral position as I am now.
Thank you for explaining the reasons for those edits. I should perhaps have made clear that I wasn't opposing the content of the edits. I was only questioning the procedure, that is, whether edits are made without discussion or explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to reply with those explanations.
I've posted a message to Mattisse and Redthoreau on my talk page.
More grammatical (etc.) fixes: "an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma an old, leaky cabin cruiser. " I suggest a comma after "Granma".
"most of the 82 men were killed or executed upon capture." This sounds as if it might mean "were either killed upon capture or executed upon capture", which doesn't make sense. I suggest changing it to "most of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture."
"as a bedraggled fighting force deep into the Sierra Maestra mountains" I would change "into" to "in".
"With Castro and his men withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether he was alive or dead " Here, I suppose "he" means Castro, but at first glance (and confusing it with another time period) I wondered whether it meant Guevara. I suggest replacing "he" with "Castro"; but there may be a way to re-word the sentence so that Castro doesn't appear twice. Something like "With the group withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether Castro was alive or dead."
"Che considered this "the most painful days of the war."" I suggest "these" insted of "this", since "days" is plural. Something more specific could perhaps be used instead, such as "those months" or "the time period following that interview".
"Back in their camp they learn of the murder of Frank Paiz": I suggest past tense "learned" to match the tense of the rest of the paragraph.
"Ley de la Sierra": This appears only as a superscript, although it's part of the sentence. I suggest repeating it in normal-sized text before the superscript.
"The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime, was done under the hope of preventing the people themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened during the anti-Machado rebellion, which threw the society into chaos." I suggest deleting the comma after "regime" in order to avoid separating subject and verb with a comma. "The justification...was done under" doesn't seem to make sense. I suggest deleting "done under". Another possibility would be to delete "the justification for".
"show down ": Change to one word, "showdown".
"and President of the National Bank of Cuba.": period should be a comma.
"To display this Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane as did Castro." I suggest a comma after "this" and a comma after "cane".
First sentence of "Disappearance from Cuba": I suggest, per WP:EL, not mentioning the link to the taped interview there, but only listing it in an "External links" section at the end of the article.
Second sentence: Note that there are several "citation needed" tags. Maybe one of you could find references for these things in your books. I just tried to find it in my book. I didn't even find the bit about him speaking at the UN in New York. Instead, I found it saying that in March 1964 he represented Cuba in Geneva at the first world conference on commerce and development. (p. 339).
"...and then vanished altogether, his whereabouts were a great mystery...":I suggest changing the comma to a period to make this two sentences, now it's a comma splice :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. Nice work and excellent suggestions. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll put them in later, and I'll do some work on the citation formatting. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perspective on FAR - Please do not move again

User:Coppertwig, if you are sincerely wishing to help improve the article so it can have the POV tag removed and pass FAR, please read Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. These are the complaints that must be addressed. My reading of the complaints is that the massive POV is the major complaint and until that is addressed, worrying about commas etc. is not going to address FAR concerns. It is noted in the FAR that the POV increased substantially in January 2008. The article was started in 04/15/2002.

  • Article stats
  • First edit 04/15/2002
  • Total edits: 8573
  • Total edits beginning 2008: 1933 (20% of total article edits since 04/15/2002)

Since 04/15/2002 the edits break down 8573 (combining major and minor edits)

---Breakdown of edits---
First edit 09/03/05
Last edit 03/02/2008
First edit: 12/09/2007
Last edit: 03/26/2008
First edit: 7/12/07
Last edit: 03/20/2008
First edit 08/06/06
Last edit 07/19/07 (he has left wikipedia)

Until the POV situation is dealt with, good editors will not be willing to work on the article. There was discussion in FAR to revert the article to one of the earlier versions as the POV was considered so ingrained in the article that it would be easier to start with a cleaner, shorter version. The following is copied from the FAR review. Please keep in mind that SandyGeorgia is a neutral editor. It is her job to monitor the FAR.

----Copied from FAR page----

This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include WP:LEAD, WP:SS, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK. In short, the article may no longer met Wikipedia:WIAFA. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mattisse 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: long-standing concerns on the talk page about NPOV are more serious than the other issues raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:

File size: 143 kB
Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
References (HTML): 24 kB
Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
References (text only): 7 kB
Images: 122 kB

Current version (Feb 23)

File size: 385 kB
Prose size (HTML): 113 kB
References (HTML): 108 kB
Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)
References (text only): 42 kB
Images: 348 kB

The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed.[13] to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The article's size has drastically been reduced since those comments, thus I believe they are no longer relevant in reference to the article being too large. (2) The article itself has been drastically edited, cut down, streamlined (a great deal by yourself and to your credit Mattisse) since those comments, thus I believe they may no longer refer to the article in its current state. (3) More importantly, Much of the POV was in the "Legacy" section which now no longer exists as part of the article. I believe that the article is written from a very neutral stand at present, and no editor has yet to point out a specific instance of POV (which is subjective in nature) that we can discuss, and possibly correct. (4) I feel that an evaluation of the current article is the only thing that would be helpful ... not comments of an article that bears little resemblance to the one, with which those comments refer. (5) Me and Coppertwig (above) and hopefully more editors in the future, are painstakingly going through each sentence and section to provide/investigate their justification. I would invite you to participate Mattisse. (6) I would add the classic quip in relation to out of context statistics: "The average human has one breast and one testicle." ;o) Redthoreau (talk TR 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please do not move my comments again to suit your needs. Article size was one issue that removing POV helped reduce drastically. The rest of the comments still apply. POV is in the eye of the beholder. You may think taking it out of the legacy section removed them, but others may not agree. Also the other comment about links at the bottom are still a problem if the article is to retain it's FA. Perhaps you do not want it to? Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, It was not moved to "suit my needs". It was moved to retain chronological relevance. Almost all the comments in the material you posted are in reference to the article on Feb 23 ... that resembles very little of the article today (much to your credit BTW). Thus the comments are misleading. (1) The size has been drastically reduced to an acceptable level. (2) Yes, POV is subjective, which is why Coppertwig is allowing us to go through each section and provide rationale for disputes. You should take part in that if interested, instead of preoccupying yourself with article statistics. I know you have valuable experience to offer, and I wish you would utilize it in an collaborative, non combative way. (3) If you believe that POV exists ... then by all means share with us, so we can address which statements you feel are POV. You have yet do it, yet continue to espouse the POV accusation. (4) Please refrain from subtle insults or insinuations of my intention. I have nothing to be gained by the article losing its FA status. However the FA status is not the end all for the article. The rationale for wikipedia is to create the best most accurate article possible, and if the powers that be decide it meets FA status, then that is a different story. (5) An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) (6) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved final product … and please refrain from a combative tone, which is not constructive. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the reference to the article links at the bottom was made when the bottom of the article featured 4 sections of around 40 external links. That is not the case now. As it has been reduced by probably 80 %. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Feature article status for Che Guevara

On the Feature Article Review page there is the following statement:

The featured article director, User:Raul654, or his delegates User:Marskell and User:Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

User:Marskell has made the following comment on the Che Guevara FAR. Marskell's last directions regarding the article were the following:

---FARC commentary---
Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreu, since you are running things here, you should be the one to answer Marskell on the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. All editors can give ideas on the article talk page, but FAR prefers, for the sake of clarity, that only one editor take on the role of responding to their comments and suggestions and the comments and suggestions other reviewers make on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider myself "running anything" as all I want to be is an equal collaborative partner ... but I did address several issues and make a request for current critiques on the FA review Page. Hopefully this will let us all know where we stand. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Well someone has to do it. That is how the FAR collaboration works. Right now the consensus on FAR is that the article has massive problems and no one has responded to User talk:Marskell's suggestions. He is the one who makes the decision. You have commented on the FAR review page, but you have posted nothing that has addressed their concerns. Just disagreeing with them is not enough. You have to actively show that you are addressing their concerns by listing what you are doing to address them. If no one responds the article will be automatically lose its Wikipedia:Feature Article status as it is no longer one of Wikipedia's best articles. If there is some response and the consensus is that the article is salvageable, the decision would more likely be to move on to Stage Two where there will be additional time, and hopefully some willing editors, to help the article fix its problems and retain it's Star (right hand corner) designating it as a Feature Article, one of Wikipedia's best. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Someone needs to respond. You are the only editor left. What do you suggest? Just lose the star that User:Zleitzen and User:Polaris999 worked so hard to receive? Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stats placed aside - moved here from my talk page to article talk page

(copied from my talk page) Article discussion should not be posted on a user's talk pages.

Coppertwig is willing to provide a process for all editors to go through each section and provide their suggestions, rationale for dispute, etc. If you wish to be a part of that, then please participate and allow (the valuable experience I know you have) to be utilized. An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved article. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make article comments on my talk page. Anything that pertains to this article should be posted here. Therefore, I am moving comments here where they belong.
---My response---
Perhaps you could ask Coppertwig to explain to me where I should putting the comments that nothing is considered "dealt with" until it is posted on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. For an example of how a FAR review on a contentious issues proceed, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature, or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season or look through Wikipedia:Featured article review now Wikipedia:Featured article now being reviewed through FAR. Whether a specific complaint has been remedied is decided on the FAR comment pages primarily by consensus. The article talk pages are for editors to discuss whatever they want, for example, considerations too trivial to post on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. If enough Support comments are not made there, the article will fail.
I reposted the stats because until FAR says the complaints are dealt with, this talk page should be furthering the goal of getting a favorable response on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. Until their is a consensus there that the problem is fixed, the problem should not be consider as fixed. Redthoreau, your opinion that a problem is fixed is not enough to consider it fixed.

Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My request from the FA review page

To the myriad of editors who have commented on this page, and who have made suggestions, I am sending out a request to have you all view the newest version of the article (as of March 27 - One month after the FAR review into effect) ... and please update your critiques, suggestions, criticisms, etc. The article has had considerable modifications, been drastically reduced in size, gone through extensive grammatical and word editing, and had a good deal of "excess" content removed, etc over the last month (thanks to the hard work of several editors). When comparing the two versions, the improvement I believe is clear from when the review went into effect. To view the difference ...March 27th 08 version ----vs---- Feb 23, 08 Version = when the Review was ordered. For comparison also see the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006. It would be my contention that the current version at least exceeds the quality of the original FA version, but it is the collective view that matters here. So please make your opinion known as it is appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Placed to update critiques as of March 27 (one month later)

Since the article has been altered so drastically since the original review ... I am creating this new section to voice those concerns about the current March 27th version of the article. Thank you and please feel free to make any and all suggestions. Also specifics are appreciated as they will allow editors a chance to rectify your specific concern. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Justify continuation of Neutrality and Cleanup tags here

Since considerable edits and alterations have been made to the article in the past month since the institution of both of these tags, I feel it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article. If you are an editor who does, and thus feel the tags should remain, please state so below and justify your reasoning. Also if you believe so, make suggestions on how your specific concerns could be alleviated. Note that an absence of further concerns after some time … can justifiably be viewed as the non-existence of further concerns in relation to these issues. Thank you. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case, that "it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article", then respond to FAR and see what the consensus is. They are the one's who wanted the tags. If you do nothing, the tags will remain. Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope both of you won't mind if I try to restate your messages in my own words. Part of the reason for doing this is to discover any misunderstandings, so if I get it wrong, then it means it's good that I said something because then there's a chance to explain again and try to get the message understood correctly. I apologize in advance for any offense I might cause by getting something wrong, though. If I understand right, Redthoreau believes that the article may have already been improved enough to justify removing the neutrality and cleanup tags; and Redthoreau is asking that anyone who still believes there are POV or cleanup issues to say specifically what they are and exactly what would need to be done to fix them.
If I understand right, Mattisse believes that it's not good enough to ask here about the POV and cleanup concerns, but that someone needs to bring up these questions at the FAR page or else the tags will stay. Redthoreau has posted on the FAR page some invitations for discussion, and if I understand right Mattisse believes that the question about tags would also have to be posted at the FAR in order to be able to possibly remove the tags. If I understand right, Mattisse opposes removing the tags based on discussion on this page only but believes the FAR needs to be consulted about it. Please correct me if I have anything wrong. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the same question on tags, slightly edited, to the FAR page as well. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to Coppertwig. No, you misunderstand me. I have no feelings one way or the other. I just want proper procedure to be followed. User:Zleitzen and User:Polaris999 were my wikipedia editing buddies before they left and I would hate to see the Star removed because no response was give to FAR. I do have some interest in good writing, that is, I am a writer/editor, but that is as far as it goes. You are making assumptions about me. I wish you would stop. Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse ... You have no opinion ? Hasn't your primary contention, you keep repeating, been that the article in your estimation is POV and needs correction? Is that not an opinion? Do you not believe that the article is POV ? Have I misunderstood you ? In your personal opinion, does the article violate NPOV or not ? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) Please stop attacking me. Please comment on article content and not on editors. I have edited not the article since User:Coppertwig threatened me a week ago. I wish you both stop taking everything the wrong way. You and Coppertwig have received what you wanted. This article seems to be between you and Coppertwig now. He made some threatening remarks above about what he would if he did not like an edit. I reiterate. My last edit was over a week ago, and I certainly would not risk editing again. Are you and Coppertwig saying I cannot post on the article talk page also? Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, my intention was not to "attack you" and I apologize if you misinterpreted me asking you for clarification as an "attack." Also I am not aware of how my above statement qualifies as an attack on you ... but I suppose in your perception it is, which I regret. I simply am confused over your stance. At present ... do you find the article to be neutral? In its present state, do you find the article to be NPOV? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify. Good writing means being accurate (to me). I agreed with all the other opinions on the FAR page that the article had massive POV problems. Are you saying that because I want the article to be NPOV, that makes me POV? If I don't agree with everything you write in the article, that makes me POV? Does it work the other way around also? Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree and want accuracy as well. I do not wish for any inaccurate material to be in the article. Are you aware of any ? If you are please let us know so we can change them immediately. As for POV ... wouldn’t you finding the article to be POV be your own Point Of View ? As for POV or Neutrality ... I also want the article to be neutral and NPOV as well. That is why I have asked and will ask again, for you to point out any instances where you believe either is present, so we can discuss them and fix them. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear, I seem to have messed up again. I'm sorry, Mattisse. I'll try harder not to make any assumptions about you. I really hope that you will continue to participate in discussion on this talk page and in editing the article. I certainly don't want to appear to be so threatening that I discourage you from editing the article at all -- that would be a big loss. I said that I might do re-reverts if people do reverts without first discussing or giving reasons (or at least, that's what I meant). But I restrict myself to 1RR, so I hope that's not much of a threat! I hope to see you making suggestions on this talk page for some specific changes and explaining why you think those changes would be good. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that you have very clearly taken a side by condoning Redthoreau's continuing person attacks on me, without remonstration. (Comment on the content not on the editor -- all his comments to me have ignored this rule.) Even on your talk page he has done so with no reproach (other than one very mild one) from you. Perhaps you started off on the wrong foot by threatening me in the very beginning of your entrance on the scene, treating me very differently than Redthoreau. Further, you seemed to have a preconceived notion about me from the start. You have made several assumptions about me and acted on them. I do not know how or why you you have developed your picture of me. I have not edited since you have entered into this. I will not edit this article again until all editors are allowed to participate without threats, personal attacks and fear of arbitrary reversion. Also, I am just tired of the personal attacks and the ugly atmosphere than now pervades. Nothing I have suggested has even been received neutrally by Redthoreau. All my attempts to help have been received negatively. There is no assumption of good faith Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've replied in a comment addressed partly to Mattisse and partly to both Mattisse and Redthoreau in this section of my talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for story?

The article now has a recent addition which states: "Che's next plan to hit an enemy garrison did not go as planned and Che, in fear and about to flee, almost shot one of his own sentries. Although the garrison eventually surrendered, Che had already run away." Is there a citation for this account? Mattisse, I believe you added it, can you provide me the citation for the story? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is imperative that a source be provided for this "very specific" account, for it to remain included in the article. I have tried to find it, but have been unsuccessful. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is imperative that the whole article be sourced, not only this specific statement. And I do not think a period piece from Time (1960) will do because it is very clear that Castro and Guevara impression-managed the international media. According to Jon Anderson, by 1957 "the international press was beating a path to Fidel's door." {See numerous references in Anderson, including p. 301 plus the book The Man Who Invented Fidel by Anthony dePalma) Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So does this mean you don't have a source for this story? I specifically asked about this account not a red herring on Time Magazine. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete it. Who cares? We should start deleting unsourced statements. Lets have at it. Getting rid of unsourced statements would be a good place to start, as LingNut has been pointing out. Mattisse (Talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A: I care, and you should too. So did you just make this story up when you recently added it? If so then that itself is a separate problem. As for other unsourced material ... I feel that those statements which appear dubious should be researched, and then if they can't be located, mentioned on the talk page, and then if others can't ascertain their origin ... deleted. Just like this one will now be. :o) Redthoreau (talk TR 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, (my persona opinion only) is that it was a waste of time for you to worry about that one statement when there so many more important sourced statements that are of more important to the article. Would you like me to put citations needed on those states, to direct your attention elsewhere? Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) I don't find it insignificant that you included a play by play account of a "skirmish" that apparently never occurred, in where you attempted to paint Guevara as a fleeing coward who almost shot his own soldier. The motivations for such possible “vandalism” to me are unclear (other than to besmirch his role as a Guerrilla fighter), but I believe worthy of correction. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I just added four references for the play by play "skirmish", as you call it. Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened??? - restoring to yesterday

When I went to bed last night the article was 79 K bytes ... and this morning it is 138 K bytes. And has apparently been reverted back to a version before weeks of edits during FA by numerous editors (Polaris, Mattisse, Myself etc). ??? All with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. As a result I am going to restore the article back to the version yesterday on March 27 ... and editors can feel free to contribute from that point. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The one which has lost a great deal of content and is full of POV and other issues and tags? Is the version you reverted back to really a substantial improvement than before other than being condensed? I'm afraid to see a great article eroded when clearly a lot of time and effort has fgone into it -too much in my view which is why it currnetly has issues; I believe it has been over edited. Much respect to the editors who have worked on it, but why has it suddenly been tagged over the last week or two? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags were added a while back, the general consensus seems to be that the version that was taken to FAR was uncommonly large for a FA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should size constitute a problem? It was promoted as 138 K bytes, so why should now somebody question its size? The problem was the number of additions made, all of which are POV and crap. With all due respect to Polaris, Mattisse and Redthoreau, all of whom are apparently great editors, comprehensiveness is far more important than size. Guevara's illustrious life should be written comprehensively, regardless of how long it would be. Only after this new, short version was established, and as you call it, "weeks of edits", the tags were added in. Isn't it a shame that such an amazing article is being demoted in front of your face? Not weeks, months and even years of work have gone into that. And when one editor wants to help and restore the well written, well referenced, comprehensive version, it's being reverted? Look at the FAR, the remove votes are coming now because of that. I'm shocked! Shahid • Talk2me 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Shahid, A few things as facts are important to prevent misunderstanding: (1) The article was not promoted at 138 K --- the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006 which was probably around 60 K or so. (2) The 138 K was the version that was reported for a FA review ---> Feb 23, 08 Version. (3) Compare that with the current version WHICH HAS gone through extensive edits over the past month March 28, 08. I would contend the current version is of BETTER quality than the March 10, 2006 version which recieved FA status. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Blofeld of SPECTRE and Shahid, thanks for your comments. It would be helpful if you would state specifically which words and sentences are problematic in your opinion, and why. For the lead, I've set up a section of this talk page where I've shown in detail how various versions of this article differ. It would be helpful if you would put comments in that section under each numbered point, as for example Redthoreau has done for points 4, 10 and 11. I'd like to see as many people as possible commenting on each specific difference between the versions. The same goes for other sections of the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag removed without discussion

Have I missed the discussion somewhere? Have the POV problems been taken care of to everyone's satisfaction? Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a single purpose account making that one edit to remove the POV so I reverted it. Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT and Castro's rise

The crucial role played by the Western (American) press, esp. the NYT and esp. Herbert Matthews is vastly underplayed here. Herbert Matthews really did make both Castro and Guevara, who were well aware of this, and manipulated his writing. See for example in the New York Times, 4 Jan. 1959 (p. 7):

  • 'Che' Guevara states: "I have never been a communist. Dictators always say that their enemies are communist..." [Conde, Yvonne M. (1999). Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14048 Cuban Children. New York: Routledge. Pages 5-7. My access to the LexisNexis news datbase only goes to 1969; may need to look at microfiche to verify this].
  • Matthews writes, "One thing must be said. This is an acknowledgement to an extraordinary young man, Fidel Castro. The American people wish him good fortune.."
  • New York Times Havana-based correspondent Ruby Hart Phillips wrote of the impact of Matthews' stories of 1957: "From that time on youths flocked to join the ranks of Castro's insurgents." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • LingNut, I understand that Matthews and the New York Times has become a convenient revisionist, and straw man “scapegoat” (especially amongst the current day far-right) for the failings of the US state department to prevent the rise of Castro and ultimately nuclear missiles 90 miles from Florida ... but the reality is not that simple. First to address your specific points:
  • That statement by Che is historically accurate (see Arbenz, Mosaddeq, later Allende and even Mandela etc). --- Also it is accurate in the sense that he never did refer to himself as a “communist”, and had never joined an official communist party. Guevara viewed himself as a “Marxist”, as he told Time Magazine when they did their Aug 8 1960 cover story on him (where he dawned the cover).

Then he explained the Cuban revolution with uncompromising clarity. "What is its ideology? If I were asked whether our revolution is Communist, I would define it as Marxist. Hear me well, I said Marxist. Our revolution has discovered by its methods the paths that Marx pointed out." "Castro's Brain", Aug 8 1960, Cover Story for Time Magazine

  • One needn't be a "flaming commie" to describe the actions of Fidel Castro during that time as "extraordinary". Landing on an island with less than 20 men alive against a force of 20,000 soldiers, and 3 years later coming out on top ... is by most accounts an "extraordinary" feat. History shows that many revolutionaries have attempted it ... but Fidel is one of the select few who has ever been successful doing it. Of note Ed Sullivan and former President Harry Truman also viewed Castro as the "George Washington of Cuba".
  • So is Phillips contending that scores of young Cubans decided to join Castro's and Che's guerrilla group after reading the NY times? Also this is an example of possible "correlation" but not necessarily "causation". "Yes she gave birth when it rained, but they necessarily are not connected". Just because young Cuban youth flocked to join the revolution at a time when Matthews was also writing positive press for the NYT, doesn't mean the two are connected. If all that was necessary was positive publicity in the NY Times to engender desire to join the military, I am sure the US military would have tried it a long time ago. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with LingNut. I wrote elsewhere on this talkpage about this and gave references. I cannot find that entry of mine any longer (this talkpage is so huge and complicated) but I provided multiple sources from Jon Anderson, Anthony dePalma and others. That is why a contemporaneous article from Time (1960) is not a good source for facts at the time. I believe that it is accepted wisdom now the Castro was a master manipulator of the media and Che was an important component of this, rather like the earth is round. The BBC News agrees with this view, as does even the New York Times now and Matthews career suffered subsequently for his role in it. Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, If you are having trouble finding past statements try (Ctrl + F) and then type in a key word. As for contemporaneous articles I disagree, and find them extremely valuable, for an understanding of the situation at the time --- and not the politically motivated revisionism that occurs later. Of note as well, the lead merely mentions that Che was viewed as "Castro's Brain" during the revolution, which at the time was true. Moreover, please provide a link or source to where the BBC and New York Times now recognize Castro as a "master manipulator" of the media. Most inquiries to such views turn up FrontPageMag, WorldNet daily, or LewRockwell.com --- hardly bastions of objective and credible journalism. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Modifying statements without noting it on talkpage so that is clear to readers that the response was to another statement

Rethoreau, I can not find the place where Coppertwig noted that you modified your statement I responded to substantially, in fact incorporating a large part of the text Coppertwig left on your talkpage into you own statement, thus making his words seem like your original statement and my post below yours a strange reaction from me. I just saw it on the watchlist only. It is not fair to the poster or the reader, in my opinion, to modify the post being responded to, without notifying the talk page reader that is the case.

Further, do you not think that if Coppertwig is going to supply text, essentially, he should supply it directly rather then via your talk page so it seems like your own? You have deleted his statement on your talk page now, so it is difficult to follow why this happened this way.[1]

Per Coppertwig, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments should be followed, in my opinion Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page summary that I modified my statement for more civility ... and the version you replied to was the modified version, not the original one. My minor edit came at ---> 16:58, 30 March 2008 Redthoreau m (97,527 bytes) (→first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions): minor word alterations of my own comment for more civility) ----- and your response came 32 minutes later: 17:30, 30 March 2008 Mattisse (98,328 bytes). This was in reference to a suggestion from Coppertwig to be more civil in my word choice. Coppertwig was LATER under the impression that your response occurred in reference to my original version, and thus added the mention of it, when in reality you responded to my modified version. Thus there was no need for the stipulation that my earlier words were changed, because those words which you responded to were the ones already there. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The section being discussed here is Talk:Che Guevara#first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions), near the bottom of that section but above a few other posts such as the quote from Cormier I posted. I find it quickly by using control-f on my browser to search for "propaganda machine". here I post a note stating that the message had been modified. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Redthoreau, please remember that the vast majority of the readers do not see the edit summaries, or is my browser set up wrong or something? Is there a place where I am not looking as I read a page where the edit summariess how up for each posting are shown? The only way I know it to hunt through the history, which few readers are motivated to do. Please advise, as there are many things I do not know about. I would like to see edit summaries as I read down the page. Mattisse (Talk) 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to Mattisse at User talk:Coppertwig#Your post to Redthoreau. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here I've used a computer program to analyse the wikilinks in this article (version of 05:34, 30 March 2008), to help with responding to Ling.Nut's comment about easter egg links.

In the first section of that sandbox page, it lists the piped links, showing where they go. (On the left is what the reader sees; on the right is the page the reader ends up at.)

In the next section, it shows a count of how many times this article links to each page. For a guideline, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. For example, we have 5 links to Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro is a closely related subject, so 1 link is probably not enough, especially if Castro is mentioned in several sections of the article. Maybe 3 links would be better than 5, though. For most things, 1 link is enough.

In the third section, it lists links with colons in them, most of which are images, categories and interwikis, though there are a few other things in there. (We may not need this information for anything, but my program printed out all the links, so there they are.)

Re one of the piped links: Ling.Nut pointed out in the FAR that "capitalism" links to "anti-capitalism". I suggest that it might (possibly) be better to move the square brackets so as to include the whole phrase "insidious result of capitalism" within the square brackets if the link goes to "anti-capitalism". --Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made shorter lists at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7. The first list is a list of piped links, showing only the ones I thought some people might think were problematic. I deleted ones I thought looked obviously correct. Some people might disagree about that and may prefer to look at the complete list at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox6. The second list on the Sandbox7 page shows how many links there are to each page. In Sandbox7 I've deleted dates from this list, and I've deleted pages with only one link.
I looked through all the links (even the ones with only one link) and almost all of them (other than dates) look relevant to me. I suggest that we may not need links to French language, Kibibyte, Merchandising, interjection and Popular culture, and possibly not to icon. We may want a link to dysentery, however, which we don't have currently. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind about French language and Kibibyte; in context, I think those links are fine. French language is linked in the image caption where Guevara is talking to Sartre. Kibibyte is linked in one of the footnotes or references sections where it tells the file size of a file to be downloaded, I think.
  • I suggest that the links to "anti-capitalism", "anti-imperialism", "proletarian internationalism" and "Che Guevara in popular culture" be left out of the article, or else placed in a "see also" section at the bottom of the page, since there is probably no phrase in the article close enough to the meaning of each of those to attach a link to.
  • I suggest that this link be removed: coup d'état backed by the Central Intelligence Agency ---> Operation PBSUCCESS since it's a link to a redirect to a page that's already linked to elsewhere in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7#Counts of wikilinks I've added a right-hand column with a suggested new approximate number of links to aim for, for example reducing Fidel Castro from 5 links down to about 3. Each page should perhaps only be linked at most once in a section (see the MOS link in my first post in this thread), and we need to think about how relevant the links are to this topic; Fidel Castro is closely connected to the topic of Che Guevara, but Paris is not so should probably only have 1 link. Comments on these numbers of links are welcome. If there are no comments in a day or two I'll go ahead and reduce the numbers of links in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request permission to edit article

The lead used of the word "would" is not encyclopedic in my opinion. Examples:

  • Guevara would embark
  • his belief would lead him
  • Guerava would serve in may prominent

MoS says to avoid extra wording. The "would" such as in the contexts describe above is just longer way of saying the same thing. I guess, according to the rules established above there needs to be a consensus, for any edits, so please list votes here. Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - This not a content change, but a writing style change, per MoS. Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a content issue. I'm taking essentially a neutral position on all changes, including "other" changes such as grammar, MOS etc. as well as content issues. For the "other" changes, I may deviate from neutrality just far enough to make suggestions and to edit, but plan to let others decide if anyone expresses an opinion about those "other" changes. I may start taking a non-neutral position on things at some time in the future.
    RobertG has edited the article to remove many instances of "would". The remaining uses of "would" in the article may be justifiable from the context, e.g. stating something that Guevara believed was going to happen. Is the article OK now in its use of the word "would" in your opinion, Mattisse? (Can you use your browser search function to search for the word "would"? If you want, I'll post here a list of the remaining sentences containing that word.) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Morph, icon, alpha-numeric

In this edit, Ling Nut changed "His ubiquitous image would also later morph into a countercultural alpha-numeric icon, utilized by youth and leftist-inspired-movements throughout the world." (the last sentence of the first paragraph) to "His portrait would later become a cultural icon representing youth and leftist-inspired counterculture sentiment around the world.", with edit summary "reword: "sentiment" not "movement"; "become" for "morph"; what's alpha-numeric about it? Why is ubiquitous wikilinked? Etc."

In this edit, Redthoreau restored the original sentence (except that "ubiquitous" is no longer wikilinked, and "image" is,) with edit summary "Restoring previous last sentence in paragraph1, "Image > Photo" & "Symbol" > "Icon" - the symbol itself is iconic, but not an icon".

Although I'm not taking a position as to which version is better, I'd like to see discussion on this talk page of the wording of this sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Lingnut's is much much better. I know that sentence would never get though the FAR process. However, that wording has been changed by me previously and Redthoreau returned his wording. I doubt he will let a change through now. I am responding to Coppertwig's post of 11:36, 31 March 2008 which is right above this post. Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) Rationale for current wording:

Showing the image's ubiquitous nature, the Maryland Institute College of Art called it

"the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century." Online at BBC News

The V&A Museum also proclaimed it

"the most reproduced image in the history of photography."

V&A: The story of an image

Jonathan Green director of the UCR Museum of Photography has stated:

"Korda’s image has worked its way into languages around the world. It has become an alpha-numeric symbol, a hieroglyph, an instant symbol." Che as revolutionary and icon, by Corinna Lotz

Comment: Thus I believe that the correct wording is 'image' over 'photo', and 'symbol' over 'icon'. Che himself is referred to as an 'icon', and his image is 'iconic', but not an 'icon' in itself. Also the reason I think this sentence is important at the start of the lead, is to off the bat separate the "man" Che Guevara ... from his now "iconic" image which can be found everywhere, and almost operates separate from the man himself. mentioned here Redthoreau (talk TR 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Redthoreau, for expressing reasons for the revert of this sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute reference to p. 628 in Anderson

The reference cited for this statement is Anderson p. 628: "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British newspaper Daily Worker some weeks later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities." Anderson actually says on p. 628 that Fidel "suggested" to Che that he leave Cuba immediately and return to Africa. Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure who added that, and can't remember locating it in Anderson. I would say that if it can not be found or verified ... then remove it. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute "Castro's brain" reference

The Time magazine article is a puff piece written at a time the Cuba revolution was fashionable, while Herbert Matthews was busy romanticizing the revolution.(See The Man Who Invented Fidel by Anthony dePalma as well as statements in Anderson.) To quote from that article: " [Che] is the most fascinating, and the most dangerous, member of the triumvirate [of Fidel, Raul, and Che).]" Do we really think that today? If so, find some current references for the statement that Guevara was Castro's brain and the most dangerous of the three. Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect your opinion of it as a "puff piece" is irrelevant. Also Herbert Matthews did not write for Time Magazine, and should not be used as the convenient scapegoat for the positive coverage Fidel received overall. Yes DePalma (a fellow NYT reporter) wrote a book on that ... very well ... but what makes him qualified to make those assertions ? (What sources does he rely on?). There are a plethora of books that say all sorts of "fawning" things about Guevara, but I doubt that you would recognize their mere existence, as definitive proof of their internal message. There are a myriad of reasons why Guevara could rightfully have been viewed as the most dangerous of the 3. He was the most "Marxist" (in some ways the only one), the least pragmatic, the most committed to overall "world revolution" and exporting guerrilla warfare, the most outspoken to the world community (see UN speech in 1964) etc. The burden of proof is on you, to display that the material in the Time piece is inaccurate, not the other way. There are mountains of corroborating evidence to suggest that the article is accurate and an important glimpse into the contemporary thinking of the day ... before the revisionists got their hands on things, for political manipulation (on both sides). Redthoreau (talk TR 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is you should find a current reference if you are saying that is the current thinking. Taking something written almost 50 years ago to portray the current state of knowledge and beliefs in wrong, especially in the lead. The lead should not present the thinking of 50 years ago as if it is the present. Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Where do I state that is the current thinking ? The current thinking is all over the map, depending on ones ideological stance. But the FACT is that at the time ... Che was viewed/perceived as “Castro’s Brain”. You can add “Perceived at the time” to the sentence if you like. Nowadays ... he is viewed as everything from a revolutionary saint, to a Stalinist killer. And the most common attack against him of recent, by those aggrieved by the resurgence in his popularity, is to revise and attack Che’s “competence” and “overall effect” in the Cuban revolution. Seeing that the “butcher” epithet has really only caught wave in the Cuban exile community, the newest charge for Guevara’s detractors is to attack his overall influence, military skill etc. However, I have yet to find any objective/non-partisan research backing up such claims. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I will add something to the lead that makes it clear that 50 years ago it was thought that.....etc. Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The sarcastic & immature tone you added has been reverted. I am willing to be flexible with the wording, but you should resist temptation to throw a "tantrum" and add wording that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. He is still perceived today as playing a pivotal role and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on content and not on editors. O.K. you can revert and put the incorrect material back in the article but you cannot remove a tag unilaterally and arbitrarily. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fact correction ... YOU removed the tag in your previous edit ... all I did was revert. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good faith is easier to trust when the other editor is not rude and contemptuous towards disputes. "Incorrect" now that's comical. I have yet to see any information from you showing it to be so. You mentioned the title to a book … very good, will that be all? Everything there is "factually" correct actually ... according to the provided reference. Now an argument can be made over whether an contemporary or "revised" outlook from say 30 years later should be used ... but there is no doubt that at the time ... he was viewed as "Castro's Brain", and hence it is included there in quotes (displaying that as the reference's opinion). Redthoreau (talk TR 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the rules for editing this article?

Why is Redthoreau the only editor who reverts what others contribute to the article? What is the point of FAR if this article is not to be improved? Why is inaccurate information allowed to remain? Somebody please explain to me what the rules are regarding this article. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) Here we go again. I figured it would only be a matter of time. I am not the only editor who has reverted ... many have ... especially with vandalism - (which is what your last sarcastic tantrum in the lead was). You have yet to provide any contradictory information to the provided reference. NONE. Once you provide that, we can discuss the accuracy of Time Magazine's hypothesis and weigh the evidence. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, this article is being improved every day (see page history). However, your sole editorial opinion, is not the end all source of "improvement." Redthoreau (talk TR 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, feel free to provide a Time (Retraction) for any of the material, as that is how "inaccurate" information is dealt with. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again I am asking you to comment on content and not on editors. What you have written above is a personal attack. You are not assuming good faith. Please stop. Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Stating the facts is not a personal attack, nor is responding to your libelous claim that I am propagating inaccurate information. You have a long track record of attacking me and then trying to paint my responses to your attacks as "attacks" themselves. I WANT to only discuss Content. SHOW me some contradictory content for your assertions ... or STOP impugning my Wikipedic integrity by calling my information inaccurate. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying I am making a "libelous claim" is a personal attack. Please comment on content and not on the editor. Please stop making personal attacks. Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Adj Libelous - (1) a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression (2): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt.

(outdent) I disagree. I don't view that as a personal attack, but a defense of myself against one. Accusing someone repeatedly of deliberately providing inaccurate information, I believe is an attack on someone's integrity. When you do it without providing corroborating proof, to me it becomes libelous. "Inaccurate" means "un-true" = Nothing I have posted is untrue, and it being 48 years old, also doesn't make it so. History leaves me skeptical, but it will continually be my hope, that in the future we can focus on editing and content, and not each other. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please withdraw that or I will template you again for personal attack. That is directly against personal attack policy. Thank you. Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw what ? There are no personal attacks there. It is not enough to simply label everything "an attack" (although I realize that anyone sticking up for themselves against your barrage of baseless accusations, constitutes an 'attack') ... = they actually have to be one. I will match any template with my own, (as you have already been warned about false templating by admins). Redthoreau (talk TR 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
* * * * *

Non-Controversial/Content TO DO list

There are several tasks which the article needs that are non-controversial and basic.

(1) All the books in the Source Notes and References need to have ISBN #'s (most do, but a few don't) ISBN Finder

(2) Format all the dates uniformly by Month/Date/Year using the "Middle endian format" - i.e. (March 5, 1965) (note: no 0 before the 5)+(month name spelled out) = rationale for this format being it is an English version of the article, and this is the accepted dating format for the U.S. (the largest English speaking country).

If any other editors have basic article tasks which are not controversial or content based, please post them below, and if you are an editor who wishes to volunteer to take up one of these tasks ... please let others know, so we don't have editors working on the same thing. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting is done I think, except inside templates and links. When years appear by themselves I've linked them; not sure if I should have. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to do some work on citation formatting, but haven't yet figured out what to do. I need to re-read the FAR, read WP:Citation, and look at some other featured articles. If anyone does know what to do and is willing to explain it to me I would appreciate it, though maybe it's already explained in the FAR somewhere.
I think maybe the notes using ref tags ("Source notes") are supposed to have only very brief information, (page number, author name and year only, perhaps) and full bibliographic info with ISBN for the same publications is supposed to be listed in the other references section ("References"). I've been meaning to check into this but haven't had time yet. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
American versus British spelling: That's funny -- I thought I had seen a comment somewhere that an early version of the article used American spelling, but now I can't find it. Anyway, I suggest we use American spelling, because the U.S. is mentioned a number of times (e.g. the CIA is mentioned), and because the U.S. is geographically close to the countries involved. It's OK with me to use middle-endian dates, too. (Nifty term, "middle-endian" -- I'm not sure I'd heard it before.) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - work on having a policy of no personal attacks allowed on editors working on this article. You will be much more likely to get other editors to help. Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion, hopefully it is followed by all. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Spelling: I went through the article with my browser which underlines misspelled words. I believe it follows the U.S. spelling convention (anyway, it underlines "honour" but not "honor"). I may have missed seeing some, and I ignored underlined Spanish words, names etc., but the only things I found were "guerillas" spelled with one r, and "advisors". I changed "guerrillas" to two r's in two place to match the way the word is spelled in the rest of the article (two r's also seem to be preferred by my browser and by Wiktionary). I don't know why it underlines "advisors"; Wiktionary says that's the usual U.S. spelling, with "advisers" having a different connotation. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I did miss something! "Argentinean". Actually, this seems to be correct. Another spelling is "Argentinian", and another variant is "Argentine". I've checked several dictionaries and done Google searches and have not found a definitive answer. "Argentinian" has about three times as many Google hits as "Argentinean" on a number of different types of searches. However, "Argentinean" may be an American spelling, based on these Google News searches: '"New York" "Argentinean"' 44 hits. '"New York" "Argentinian"' 34 hits. '"London" "Argentinean"' 27 hits. '"London" "Argentinian"' 90 hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone has just changed "Argentinean" in the lead to "Argentine". I don't know which is better. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well in Spanish its written Argentino, so "Argentine" its probably closer to this root. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and comment. At least if it's "Argentine", maybe people will be less likely to come along and change "Argentinean" to "Argentinian". We'll see. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Car HQ, and believe that is probably the reason why the new Che Guevara film starring Benicio Del Toro is titled: The Argentine Redthoreau (talk TR 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clarifyme"

In case anyone is interested: In this edit, a "clarifyme" tag is removed from the sentence "Guevara remains a controversial and significant historical figure.". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The "clarify me" tag I believe was added in relation to the term "respected", which LingNut changed to "influential" and which I then edited to the synonym "significant" ... since the word "influential is mentioned 2 sentences later. If editors still need “clarification” on that sentence, they can re-add the tag, and I we could talk about it further. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for the openness to further discussion. I didn't know what the tag was referring to; it sounds as if it's not needed any more. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressing BuddingJournalist's comments from FAR

Re BuddingJournalist's comments at the FAR. Note that, as Redthoreau pointed out, many of these comments may be based on an older version of the article that was temporarily reverted to; e.g. perhaps the state of the article at 17:21 28 March 2008 (UTC). Here I'm condensing/paraphrasing/commenting on some of BuddingJournalist's comments. If/when you believe an item on this list has been corrected, I encourage you to mark it in this list as done. When I sign a "done" it may mean I did it myself or that I've verified that it's been done.

Extended content

in the older version of the article it said:

"In Guatemala", he wrote, "I will perfect myself and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary."<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico." This statement in a letter written in Costa Rica on 10 December 1953 is important because it proves that, whereas many authors have asserted that Guevara became a revolutionary as a result of witnessing the US-sponsored coup against Arbenz, he had in fact already made the decision to become a revolutionary before arriving in Guatemala and indeed went there for that express purpose.</ref>

Current version:

Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to perfect himself[clarification needed] and do what was necessary to become a true revolutionary.<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26.</ref>

I suggest something between these two versions: Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to "perfect [him]self and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary".<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico."</ref>

I implemented it as I had suggested above. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

End of list of BuddingJournalists' comments as condensed/paraphrased and commented on by me. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Gleijeses book?

BuddingJournalist seems insistent that the Cuba section should use this book as a reference: Piero Gleijeses' Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Does anyone have it? If not, I might order it through a second-hand bookstore. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy of this book. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
i searched for it in india its not available--UD (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Ling.Nut's comments from FAR

Here's a list of Ling.Nut's comments, condensed, paraphrased and commented on by me. The original comments by Ling.Nut are at 14:44, 24 February 2008 plus many comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara between 13:28 29 March 2008 (UTC) and 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC). I encourage people to mark things in this list as done if/when they are. When I sign things as done, I may have either done them myself or verified that they've been done.

  • Lead needs to be a summary of the article
  • Lead needs to mention controversy
  • Remove hagiographic tone of article to conform with NPOV
  • Give increased prominence to mention of controversy; reader should not be able to tell what POV writers have
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) "Easter egg" wikilinks (I believe I've fixed these; see discussion in Analysis of wikilinks section of this talk page.)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) should perhaps say "neo-colonialism" rather than "colonialism".
  • "The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime." NPOV problem. Now says "Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[23] Serving in the post as "supreme prosecutor" on the appellate bench, Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal. The justification for the executions was the hope of preventing the people themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened during the chaos of the anti-Machado rebellion"
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)) ".in Guatemala so as to perfect himself." questions use of the phrase "perfect himself." This may be addressed by my suggestion in the section above, presenting it as a quote.
  • redundancy in lead: "author", photo each mentioned twice, maybe other things. Can be condensed.
  • "disciplined brutality" oxymoron and NPOV problem
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) "as everything from a 'saint'to a 'butcher'" No longer in article.
  • broken link: online at stockholm spectator; also check for other broken links
  • "It is also said that he memorized..." citation needed.
  • '"became known for his radical perspective even as a boy, idolizing Francisco Pizarro..." Poor word choice, since "radical" implies "political".. was Pizarro radical? Had Pizarro read Saul Alinksy, perhaps?' (This is exact quote of Ling.Nut's comment.)
  • Check different sources for account of last words, e.g. Mallin, Jay (1968) as cited in comment by Ling.Nut
  • Check FrontPage re several thousand executions
  • Verify or disprove several claims by FrontPage magazine
  • More on role of Herbert Matthews and American press

End of list of Ling.Nut's comments from FAR as condensed/paraphrased/commented on by me. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Here's the reformatting of references I'm planning to do. Let me know if there are any objections.

Currently we have "Content notes", "Source notes" and "References" sections. This plan involves the second two of these.

Plan: Make the "Source notes" section into a list of short references (just author, year and page number, unless more info is needed to distinguish two similar sources), and list complete bibliographic information in the "References" section. Remove the tag at the top of the "Source notes" section which asks for ISBN numbers; perhaps move it to the "References" section or just delete it. Make links from the notes in the Source notes to the items in References as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references.

Therefore, within the text of the article, material within <ref></ref> tags will be just author, year, and page number (unlsss...), along with a code for linking it. People adding new references should then follow this format (making sure the full info on the reference is in the References section.)

I believe this plan is consistent with SandyGeorgia's message of Feb. 27, and with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15#Cite.php. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

e.g. "Miller 2005, p.23." (From Shortened notes link.) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, when the author's name is spelled with accents, I spell the cite id without accents, e.g. "<cite id=refPena2004>Peña, Emilio Herasme ..." --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

About there being two types of footnotes: There were also two types of footnotes when the article was originally approved as a featured article. I would be open to discussing changing the footnote style, but I would like to point out that there are advantages to having two types of footnotes. I've seen at least one book with more than one type of superscript-indicated note used for different purposes.

With the use of cref and shortened ref notes, the wikitext remains uncluttered. The ref notes have the advantages that the superscript is small and unobtrusive and that there is a wikilink not only down into the footnote but also back up into the text, which can be useful for various purposes: one might start from the footnote and try to find where in the text it's used. Having two different types of footnotes serves the reader by letting the reader know what type of information is to be obtained. If the reader wants to know the reference for verification, the reader can click on the numbered footnotes, and if the reader wants additional information, the reader can click on the named footnotes. It saves the reader time and frustration to know before clicking which type of information will be seen.

SandyGeorgia, in reply to your edit summary "one of the messiest articles I've seen on Wiki, don't small the refs twice, they become illegible, something should be done about these notes": Note that I'm in the process of reformatting the references as described in this section. I haven't gotten very far yet -- I only started approximately a day ago. I'm open to specific suggestions about how to do it. I'd appreciate it if you would specify what you mean by "messy" in your edit summary so that we can do something to address the problem. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that citations be formatted as follows. It's similar to the way most are already formatted, but requires moving the year to immediately after the author's name, where I think it's easier to find, and also changing the use of italics (and bold for the volume number, and possibly other details) in the case of articles. Currently, the year is usually given near the end, just before the ISBN number. Also, adding a period after the ISBN number. These examples are from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style; the first is for a book, the second for a journal article (or chapter of a book etc. would be similar).

  • Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.
  • Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire". Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10(2), 234–351.

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although yes the article needs common formatting, in my opinion it is clearly not the "messiest" article on wikipedia as SandyGeorgia contends ... and to declare it that, I would contend is exaggeratory hyperbole and non constructive negativity ... especially when given in a "drive by" fashion without suggestions for correction.       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that when references are given within the content notes, that they be formatted like this: ([[#refGuevaraLynch2000|Guevara Lynch 2000]], p. 26.) (For an example, see the source note I just created called "perfeccionaré".) This is so that the reference will jump immediately down into the References section. If <ref> tags are used, then once the wikilinks into References are added, the reader would have to make 3 jumps, through all 3 footnote sections, to find out what the source is; I think that's too much.

I furthermore propose that the Content Notes be put into alphabetical order. Currently they seem to be approximately in the order they appear in the text. I think it would be much easier to maintain them in a correct order if they were alphabetical. It may also (arguably) be easier for the reader to find a given note in the list if they're alphabetical.

I would appreciate comments on the above proposals. In particular, if anyone objects to any of the format changes I suggest above, please say so. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust your judgment on formatting matters and think it sounds good.       Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Extended content

(speaking of the time when he met Hilda and was introduced to a number of people including a number of Cubans) "Au Mexique, on fait précéder le nom des Argentins de Che. Ernesto n'a pas failli à la règle : il est devenu el Che Guevara. Quand Nico López, les Roa et les autres Cubains commencèrent à le fréquenter, il répondait déjà à ce sobriquet. Pour simplifier, il devint Che. Cette syllabe ... commence ou ponctue les phrases. De fait, Ernesto se démarquait de ses amis latino-américains en servant du che à tout bout de phrase." (ellipsis mine. Translation: In Mexico, they put "Che" in front of the names of Argentineans. Ernesto was no exception to this rule: he became el Che Guevara. When Nico López, the Roas and the other Cubans began associating with him, he already answered to the nickname. For simplicity, he became Che. This syllable ... begins or punctuates sentences. In fact, Ernesto distinguished himself from his Latin-American friends by using che at the end of every sentence.)

--Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) The name "Castro" appears 3 times in this sentence. (Not that I'm not the one responsible for that! :-) I suggest deleting "with Castro" (i.e. the 2nd occurrence of the name). "With the group withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether Castro was alive or dead until the famous Herbert Matthews interview with Castro appeared in the New York Times in early 1957, presenting a lasting, almost mythical image for Castro."
  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) Figure out how to format "(July 15 - 27)". Link? Spaces around hyphen?
    I didn't find day ranges in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but they do year ranges with an n-dash and no spaces, so I guess the day range is the same. I guess I won't link it: autoformatting probably wouldn't work in this case. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) Figure out correct grammar for "United States who was"--Coppertwig (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Question: Re date of death, it says something happened on Oct. 7, then it says "the next day," seeming to perhaps imply he was executed on Oct. 8, but the infobox says Oct. 9. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I verified it in Anderson (pp. 732–733) and modified the wording to make the dates of capture and execution clear. Not easy, because it's not clear on which date the action of "encircling" occurred. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • is OK as-is(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) "Argentine police": why is "Argentine" used here, but "Argentinean" in the first sentence of the article? Maybe there's a subtle difference in meaning, since the police are not an individual, and the -ean or -ian ending tends to imply an individual. May be OK. Approx Google hits: "Argentine police" 8000, "Argentinean police" 1000, "Argentinian police" 1400.
  • is OK as-is(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) "It also records the rift between Guevara and the Bolivian Communist Party that resulted in Guevara having significantly fewer soldiers than originally expected and shows that Guevara had a great deal of difficulty recruiting from the local populace, due in part to the fact that the guerrilla group had learned Quechua, unaware that the local language was actually Tupí-Guaraní." —can be reworked to— "It also explains Guevara having significantly fewer soldiers than originally expected because of a rift between Guevara and the Bolivian Communist Party and because of great difficulty recruiting from the local populace, due in part to the fact that the guerrilla group had learned Quechua, unaware that the local language was actually Tupí-Guaraní." Not sure which is better. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) "by youth and leftist inspired movements throughout the world" is ambiguous. Depending on meaning, change to either "by youth and by leftist-inspired movements throughout the world" or "by youth- and leftist-inspired movements throughout the world" or "by leftist-inspired and youth movements throughout the world". (3 possible meanings: by youth, or by youth-inspired movements or by youth movements. I suggest youth movements, i.e. the 3rd suggested wording.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) These words no longer appear in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Who is Ernesto Guevara Lynch? Same person as Che or different? There's a publication by this person in the references list. Is it actually used in the article? --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Che's Father Redthoreau (talk TR 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer; but it's still a little confusing. That's the reference for the quote where he says he'll "perfect [him]self". I guess his father quotes him? That needs to be made more clear. I'll try to do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "perfect" himself, was written in a letter from Guevara to his parents (which was probably republished in the fathers book). Throughout his life Che was a prolific letter writer, and a great deal of information about him, comes from letters written from him to his parents/family. Most are contained in the book "Self Portrait" listed in his authored works (which is a great book of insight to his personal thought).       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, for now I have it saying "Che's father quotes him, ..." which I think is good enough but if someone finds a reference (or checks the reference listed) we may be able to word it a little more specifically. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 16#Analysis of wikilinks.

  • I decided to leave all the links to Castro after all. Same for Bolivia. They're in logical places, no more than one in a section etc. (except maybe we don't need a link to Bolivia from both the lead and the infobox).
  • Cuba: there had been no link to Cuba from the Cuba section! I fixed that, and removed two links to Cuba from the Congo section.
  • 26th of July movement: I suggest either using the abbreviation every time except the first occurrence, or not using the abbreviation at all. When this change is made, I suggest removing one more wikilink so the Cuba section has only one wikilink to this movement. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    I suggest that it be referred to as "26th of July movement" throughout, in order to be consistent with the Wikipedia article 26th of July movement, and arguably supported by Wikipedia:Manual of style#Acronyms and abbreviations "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" section. Anderson uses "July 26 Movement". Approximate Google hits: "M-26-7" 90,000; "26th of July movement" 20,000; "July 26 movement" 4000; "July 26th movement" 3500; "26 of July movement" 900. However, some of the "M-26-7" hits don't seem to be directly relevant, e.g. the abbreviation being used as (part or all of) a username.
  • Actually, 4 links to Alberto Korda look OK.
  • I removed one of 2 links from the lead to Che Guevara (photo), and removed the link from "symbol".
  • Sierra is a disambiguation page. I removed the link. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through the multiple links listed at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7 (2nd section) and reduced the number of links of those I thought needed to be reduced. Mostly I didn't reduce them as far as the numbers I'd originally suggested; seeing their context in the article I decided to leave many in. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on Timeline?

What are other editor’s opinions on the inclusion of the Timeline picture? I remember User:Polaris999 had told me that he created it for the article in hopes it would improve its FA status, but I have yet to see Timelines in very many articles of featured historical figures. I believe that the amount of space it takes up, might not equate to it's informational value, but would be hesitant to remove it without consulting other editors, and because of the fact that User:Polaris999 (an editor I have great respect for) included it. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the timeline is in a collapsible box, but with default of not-collapsed. How about just making the default collapsed? Then it would hardly take up any space and people would only see it if they clicked "show".
Is there any way to make the font larger in the timeline? I can hardly read it. It would be nice to be able to control the font size. I can control the font size of the text of the article using my browser, but the font of the timeline stays the same. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that idea of the collapse. Unfortunately I think the image is set as is in size. There is always the option as well of an updated Timeline, which I would be willing to create. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.[2] I consulted Wikipedia:NavFrame to figure out how. It says NavFrame has been deprecated in favour of collapsible tables. I don't know how to convert to collapsible tables (I tried; it didn't work) or whether it's possible to do that for a timeline. I can't find documentation on how to do the timeline. The wording itself can be easily edited, but I don't know how to change the font size. Don't worry too much about the font size -- I suppose maybe it's OK for most people, and I can manage. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

--Coppertwig (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I'm removing this broken link from the Moynihan reference. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

List of to-do lists

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Turning out very nicely

Just wanted to add my contention, that the article is coming out very nicely, and becoming vastly improved from even a shirt time ago, mostly thanks to the organizational skill and direction from Coppertwig. Let's keep it up. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but don't underrate the contribution from yourself, who are vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than I. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Neutrality still in dispute?, viability of Tag

When the Neutrality tag was placed on the article, it was 3 months ago, when the article was twice the size, and before thousands of edits (by numerous collaborating editors). Also the neutrality tag was NOT part of the FAR process, but separate and came later. Do editors still have doubts about the article's neutrality in its current state as of APRIL 6, 2008? If so, what are they? (And please be specific, so we can address them). If not ... then I believe the tag could be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, I'm not taking a position as to whether the tag should or should not be there. I may change my position at some point. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Wiki template tag policy,

Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Being that no editors have mentioned further neutrality concerns, I am going to remove the POV tag. IF an editor believes that it should be reinstated, then feel free to do so, and include a list of concerns to address, as the aforementioned policy guideline suggests. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References removed from article

I removed the following reference(s) from the article:

The following references don't seem to appear in the current version of the article, though they were there earlier:

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

The following reference was added April 1. The same publication is already listed in the References section, with no web link. I see no reason to think the website is not violating copyright, in which case we should not link to it.

--Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I took it out, maybe a day or two ago. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken this one out for similar reasons, Online at Sozialistische Klassiker (was given as link for English translation of Guevara's Algiers speech); possibly copyvio, plus the link goes to some sort of home page and it's not immediately obvious to me how to find the desired text. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This link has been deleted from Wikisource as a copyvio, so I'm removing the link here: English translation of complete text: Che Guevara's Farewell Letter at Wikisource. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this link is a copyvio, so I'm removing the link. (Diario del Che en Bolivia.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Ok, just to explain why I removed the Cuban flag from the infobox, while Che was a dual-citizen he had no other direct relation to Cuba, that being linked by birth or ethnicity, the tendency troughout Wikipedia has been completely removing flags from the infobox, but for now I am following the one we had prior to that with dual-citizens wich was to only use the one from the nation of birth or in some cases the ethinicity when the person was born in a country by a matter of chance. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concede to your rationale, and appreciate your explanation. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Font Size for References?

As it stands now: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7

As I think it should be: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7

However, SandyGeorgia has stated that the latter is "too small" to read. I have looked for information on official wikipedia font sizing ... but have been unsuccessful. Can anyone provide me with that? Or do other editors have an opinion on the reference font size? To me the smaller is preferable and still legible, but I am willing to be swayed / and willing to relent to concensus.       Redthoreau (talk TR 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Information: I sometimes use control-shift-+ on my browser, repeated once or twice, to make the font larger so that I can read it easily. This is particularly useful when proofreading: very large letters make it easier to see spelling mistakes, punctuation, etc., IME. This is not an endorsement of any particular font size in the references. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of (proposed) changes to citation style

Changes already in progress, based on consensus:

Further proposed changes; comments welcome:

  • Format references according to examples for books and articles in Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style:
    • Put year in parentheses immediately after author
    • Article title in plain text in quotation marks; journal title in italics
    • Bold type for journal volume
    • Period at the end (usually after ISBN #)
    • Possibly other details of punctuation etc.
  • Put Content notes into alphabetical order
  • References within content notes: format them as links directly to References section, as is done within the shortened notes

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Redthoreau had already indicated acceptance of the above suggestions. Further suggestion:

  • After I've finished converting the Source notes into shortened notes, I suggest that the code for the Source notes be changed to from {{reflist|2}} to {{reflist|colwidth=20em}}. The latter allows the number of columns to be set on-the-fly depending on the width of the window in which the page is displayed. See Template:reflist.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated to-do list

This is not a replacement for List of to-do lists. This is for collecting the few items not done out of some other to-do lists, so that the original to-do lists can be archived.

--Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Che Guevara#Wanna help?. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are going to need to address the forced image sizes in this article. They are generally frowned upon, according to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Skomorokh 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Object to removal of POV tag

The objections listed in the open FAR have not been addressed. They are not crossed off as done. This article is still in Featured Article Review and the main overwhelming complaint was POV issues. I do not see that they have been taken care of. No one is paying attention in FAR as the impression is that others are not allowed to edit this article. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. (1) FAR was notified and asked if there were further objections in relation to Neutrality ? They weighed in with their silence. (2) The POV tag was not part of the FAR process and was applied separately. Also POV tags are not part of FAR review. At the time of the POV concerns 3 months ago, the article was more that twice the size it is now, and hundreds if not thousands of edits have taken place since (including dozens if not hundreds by yourself). (3) As I state above ... if an editor has future POV concerns ... there is a process of going about that. Any editor can list their "specific" neutrality concerns and suggestions of how they would like them addressed. If those go unaddressed ... then any editor can include a tag disputing neutrality. (4) This article is constantly being improved every day and the concerns of FAR are being addressed specifically (see the numerous lists) which Coppertwig has painstakingly ordered). Any editor is free to assist, including you, as there are still issues that need to be completed. (5) If you want to be a part of the editing process, then I encourage you to stick around. It is not productive to announce your complete departure numerous times and then reappear and make requests or have doubts about edits which have taken place. Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Che Guevara article, Mattisse. I'm delighted to see you posting here.
It would be helpful if you would list some specific POV concerns, the way you listed specific concerns at Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries; or else if you would tell us where exactly to find specific concerns that have been listed by others (or that have been listed earlier by yourself) that you feel are a reason to have the POV tag on the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not allowed to edit this article as you well know. You can tell by the tone of the article's editor above (as well as his behavior when I edited another on of his articles) that nothing has changed. I suggest you cross off the complaints on the FAR page, one by one, and list them as done there. That is the usual procedure. Then each editor who listed an objection can weight in and be given a chance to change his vote from Oppose to Support. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I am going to request that you desist from the constant accusation that I am "not letting" you edit the article. You left the article on your own free will, and upon Coppertwig requesting you to return you told him "NO". I have no power to ban you or keep you from editing. We are all Equal ... and I resent your constant aspersion that I am preventing you from editing ... which I am not. The only times I have even edited any of your contributions have been on occasions when you become angry and tendentiously Disrupt to make a point. I know that you have many talents to offer this article and others ... and I know that you have the ability to be a very productive editor as I have seen on other articles ... It is and will continue to be my hope that you will apply those talents in a productive & collaborative effort on this article if you so choose.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You're free to edit the article, Mattisse, and you're also free to suggest changes on the talk page. I will try to help protect your freedom to edit on an equal standing with other editors and without being attacked. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for FAR

  • The procedure for FAR is that you are supposed to cross off each objection on the FAR page as it is fixed. The reviewer is directed to look now and then at FAR and see if his objections have been addressed so that he may change his Oppose vote to Support. I do not see that procedure being followed. The reviewers are probably unaware of any changes. Editors are busy. No one is going to look through the article to see if his points have been addressed there. Silence from FAR, in my experience, derives from a lack of interest. Unless each Oppose is withdrawn, or unless there are an overwhelming number of Supports this article is on the track of losing its star. And the author's opinion does not count in FAR, unless he can refute point by point the objections and his refutations are accepted.
In the spirit of humor ...
The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been." Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider.
Shortcuts
   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


  • The original nomination for FAR did not contain a complaint about POV. That was originally brought up by SandyGeorgia and echoed by other editors. When SandyGeorgia backed out of the proposed revert, she said to just place a POV and cleanup tag on the article and let it go. As far as I know, she has not modified her view. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Tags are not meant to be "placed to then let them go". They are supposed to be accompanied with a list of concerns related to the tag. As of late she has not responded to any of my questions and I think that you should let her speak for herself. Also updates have been noted on the FAR page ... every editor who is on the FAR list would have received notification of me posting a request related to neutrality ... if they did not bother to read it there ... then what makes you think they would bother to read Coppertwigs updates? Right now this article is larger than just "the star" ... it is about creating the best article possible ... and I believe Coppertwig, myself, and hopefully others (even yourself if committed) will continue to do that.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the reviewers at FAR has withdrawn their oppose vote. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a great development ! and gives me motivation to continue. Keep up your great work Coppertwig.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Too similar to wording of source

This section is taken almost word-for-word from the source and, if kept, needs to be rewritten or presented as a quote: " He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of material incentives. He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth and that all that was needed was will. To display this, Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane, as did Castro." Source given is [3]; see the part of that source under the section heading "Popular but ineffective". --☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult to switch up some of the wording or use quotes. Would you like to do that or should I ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would do it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I like how you took quotes from other sources. I've edited the punctuation, including indicating that the last few words about sugar cane are still a quote. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All citation needed tags taken care of

Today I took care of the 4 remaining citation needed tags. None of them remain at this time.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay!!! Well done! That took extensive knowledge as well as time and effort. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse had asked for a ref for him getting his nickname. I just put in Cormier for that. (See quote in "Suggested changes" section above.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse had also asked for a ref for most of the 82 being killed. I changed the text and put in Anderson p. 213 as a ref. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Still need a more complete ref for Ley de la Sierra. (It just says "Ley penal de Cuba en armas, 1959".) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I added it into the main body of the text.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but if the Treto reference supports what's said inside the Content note, then I think it would be more useful to put the reference in the Content note. I can format it if you confirm that it would be an appropriate location for it. Otherwise, the material within the Content note is still not really fully referenced. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, feel free to change that. I have also downloaded the full academic journal article (which requires access to JSTOR, which I have) and can email it to you, if you wish.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality sources

These ones were commented out in the wikitext. I'm removing them. (About.com and geocities: not reliable sources.)

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, not appropriate for the article.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this, and agree that it is not very reliable, especially for the quoted line attributed to Guevara's father. I'll remove it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous re references

I'm not sure of the correct spelling of the author's name here: it was given in this article as "Aleksandr Alexeiev in Cuba después del triunfo de la revolución ("Cuba after the triumph of the revolution")". I did some Google searches and found another publication referencing it, spelling the name as "Alekseev". I've changed it to the latter spelling. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Heikal's account of Guevara's conversations with Nasser in February and March of 1965 lends further credence to this interpretation. See Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein. The Cairo Documents, pp 347-357." was added by Polaris999 on 17:58, 3 October 2006. So it seems to still be in correct context: it appears to be referring to Che believing that Africa was imperialism's weak link. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says, "After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine consulate, where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to Mexico." Maybe I'm confusing events of different places and time periods, but I think Cormier says that Che was in prison during this time period. On p. 110, it recounts 30 men including Che being taken prisoner. Fidel was there and called to the men to surrender peacefully: "C'est à Cuba que nous nous battrons, pas ici." ("It's in Cuba that we will fight with each other, not here.") Che was then interrogated, with an anglophone in the background whom Che supposed was an agent of the FBI or CIA.

In an earlier version of this article, it said that Che turned down a free plane ticket to Argentina, and someone complained that the article should explain why Che did that. I think I found the reason. I think (but am not completely sure) that this refers to the same event. Cormier p. 111: they're talking about how to get Che out of prison, and Fidel argues that Che as an Argentine is not really involved, but Che is quoted as saying "Je suis lié au destin des Cubains, je reste avec eux." ("I'm bound to the fate of the Cubans; I stay with them.")

Some other bits of information that there might not necessarily be room for in this article: The Granma was only designed to hold about 25 people, and they were 82, so they had to leave behind a lot of supplies. (Cormier, p. 121.) On board the Granma, Che suddenly clapped his hands to his forehead; he had forgotten his asthma medicine: it was on the quay with the supplies which had been deemed inessential. (p. 122.) On Dec. 5, 1956, when they were attacked, Che's firearm was not one of the best. He had felt himself physically diminished by an asthma attack on the voyage, and had thought that the best firearms should go to the men who were fit. (p. 126.) Nico López had been the first member of the group to call Che "Che" (p. 128). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wikilinking some author names in the references list that have Wikipedia pages. For these ones, I've wikilinked but I'm not sure whether I have the right person: Ariel Dorfman, Edmundo Murray. For these ones, I haven't wikilinked because I don't think it's the right person: Ahmed Ben Bella, Edward George, Will Grant, Joseph Hart(wrong century), Michael Moynihan (journalist)(see others by that name at Michael Moynihan) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re being in prison: I'm also reading "Second Voyage" by Che Guevara, (French translation), and (on p. 98) it agrees with the version in this article, that he was in the consulate, not with what I thought Cormier said. I'm still wondering whether Cormier is talking about a different time period or whether he's contradicting other sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Drive by Vandalism

Has really been on the rise the last few days. I wanted to add semi-protection (as it was before) but am unable to and thus can't stop the tide of IP accounts. It's a shame that someone can besmirch an encyclopedia with vulgar sexual language ... but the idiocy on the "internets" never ceases to amaze. However I have a question for other editors ??? How do you report a repeat vandal or have them blocked ? (There should be a "Report" button or something). Thanks and remember to help out by placing the page on your watch list and if free ... check it a once a day for the vandals.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin gave the page semi-protection today till June 1. Great News.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name

Che Guevara's born document. Legal name written in the left margin: "Guevara, Ernesto"

Dear colegues: My name is Roblespepe, and I am the main editor of the Che Guevara article in the w:es. I want to tell you that the name writen in this article ("Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch") is wrong:

  • In Argentina people only receive the last name of their fathers. The last name of the mothers is optional, and the Che's parents didn't use that option. So his legal name didn't include "de la Serna" (his mother's last name).
  • "Lynch" was the second last name of his father, and it didn't make part of the Che Guevara's full name.
  • The legal name of Che Guevara was: "Ernesto Guevara", without any other addition.

You can verify what I'm saying in the official born document of Che Guevara (legal name is written in the left margin). Kind regards, w:es:Usuario:Roblespepe.17-04-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblespepe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. If nobody objects in the next while, I'll change it to "Ernesto Guevara". That's how the name is given as the author of some books, anyway. These biographies always seem to leave out the essentials: I don't think Anderson actually states what his name is! Not in the first few pages, anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Coppterwig. In most of the Wikipedias his name is wrongly written. There are several reasons for this, and one is the confussion that come out from the fact that in Argentina people don't use the mother's last name (opossing the rest of Latin America practice), but Che's father had two last names (Guevara Lynch), as most of Argentinean high class people. So, mixing these two peculiarities, you have one main cause of error. Kind regards,--Roblespepe (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the change, however I think that somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that his Father's last name was Lynch and Mother's de la Serna to prevent people from constantly adding it back in.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the name usage.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, wait a second. While explaining the nickname "Fuser," it says "his second surname Serna". This is at least inconsistent, and possibly evidence that he did have such a second surname. I don't see any footnote attached to that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig. As I said above, "De la Serna" (not "Serna"), is the last name of Che's mother. In Argentina the use of the mother's last name following the father is not prohibited, but that's not the legal name. People don't have many legal names, but only one. There cannot be any doubt about the legal name of Che Guevara, because above is the only document where the legal name is legally stated, the born document: "Guevara, Ernesto". If you want to check other official documents, you can see the university certificate (see), or in his doctor's title (see). In both, the legal name is "Ernesto Guevara". "Fuser" was a joke-nickname put to him by his friends in Cordoba, when he was a teenager, because Ernesto used to shout during rugby games: "Furibundo Serna al ataque" (Furious Serna attacking = Fu-Ser). You can see that it's only a joke, where Che was playing with his mother's last name ("De la Serna"). In some ocassions Che add to his last name, part of the last name of his mother (De la Serna), and presented himself as "Ernesto Guevara Serna"; he did this when he made the advertisment for Micron (see), and also when he worked as a reporter for Prensa Latina (see). Of course, these last ones where not his legal last names, but it showed a will of identification of Che Guevara and his mother. Probably to avoid any confussion is better change the phrase "his second surname Serna", by "taken from his mother's last name, "De la Serna"". What do you think? Kind regards, and once more thanks for your attention,--Roblespepe (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
How about something like, "From his mother's last name, which he sometimes used as part of his name according to Latin American custom"? (except that this confuses whether the "De la" part is in there). Does "Serna" have a meaning besides just being his mother's last name, that made him want to mention it during soccer rather than one of his other names? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara en Español

For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious on Felix/CIA heading up search?

Ling Nut, since you added the Dubious tag on the statement ... can you please provide your rationale, so we can address and alleviate it if possible? Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • First found in Ryan, Henry Butterfield (1998). The Fall of Che Guevara: A Story of Soldiers, Spies, and Diplomats. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511879-0. page 134. I'm sure this is intended to reflect the contents of SalmÓn, Gary Prado (1990 ). The Defeat of Che Guevara: Military Response to Guerrilla Challenge in Bolivia.Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275932117. Odd that the latter book isn't included in the article; was written by the captain commanding the unit that captured Guevara. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly is disputed ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"...The hunt for Guevara in Bolivia was headed by [[Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency)|Félix Rodríguez]..." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) How do you believe it should read ? (2) What is your source for your preferred wording? (3) What is your source for finding the current statement to be incorrect and what exactly does it state ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

undent) What I want, of course, is for someone to read the book by Prado for significant variations from the article's current version, and incorporate them, citing as necessary. the source is given above (Ryan 1998, p. 134). Quote follows:

Varying accounts of Guevara's execution reflect various personal interests. Rodriguez, extrovert, soldier of fortune, and above all Cuban exile and bay of pigs veteran, gives a highly dramatic account of his own involvement with Guevara on October 9...[ellide]...Rodriguez even affirms that he was considered to be in command of the Bolivian contingent when Guevara was executed; no one else has substantiated this claim... prado will have none of it. he states that although he himself had returned to the ravine, Zenteno as at La Higuera and in command atthe time of the execution. Rodriguez, prado says, identified Guevara, took pictures of him, and photographed his diary, nothing more, just as the CIA had little to do with the campaign in general. he says Rodriguez returned to vallegrande after a few hours, which if true would mean that he could not have been involved in the execution the way he says he was...This is more than a historical quibble. In Prado's view, R. is grandstanding, claiming undue credit not only for himself but also by extension for the CIA and the United States...

Here we see the roles of Rodriguez and the CIA explicitly minimized by a firsthand accound; in the article, the lead sentence explicitly states Rodriguez led the capture, and could easily be read to imply that the CIA in fact led the entire operation. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finessed this by making explicit the fact that it is Rodriguez himself claiming to be the one in charge of the hunt for Che. As such, I think, done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

To me the most important policy of wikipedia ... especially in reference to POV disputes.

Undue weight ---

NPOV 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 will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

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. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point do firsthand accounts become undue weight? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Great question, without an exact answer. The same people who will usually charge that we can not take Fidel's personal accounts of Che's actions (since he was an ally) - will usually have no problem taking the personal account of the men who captured and executed Che (who were obviously a foe). Both sides have an embedded self interest to "skew" the truth to either make Guevara look "good" or "bad". For example, it is the interest of those who captured Guevara to state that he said "Don't shoot, I'm worth more to you alive" - as to make him appear that at the moment of capture he quibbled and became cowardly. I doubt that if he had actually been captured emptying his clip and shouting "You'll never take me alive" - that they would want to portray the more "defiant" account ... do you? Contrarily, you can usually trust something if it goes against one's self interest ... for instance if the man who captures/kills Guevara states something "positive" about him ... then you can usually assume he is not making that up, as it would be against his embedded self interest to make him appear a sympathetic character. Felix Rodriguez fits this bill, as he gives a fairly positive account of his final conversation with Guevara, and humanizes him, to the point of saying that he felt sorry for him, and had respect for him while embracing him etc. It is always interesting that we trust the account of the man to murder Guevara for his last words? Likewise would we trust other more prominent murderers on the last words of their victims? My point being that all of this is "vague" and inexact. Nobody for sure really knows what "actually" happened in any of these cases. As historians or academics it is our duty to take all of the conflicting narratives and try to weave them into an overall storyline ... taking into account the historical context, credibility, and possible motives of each "storyteller". Another good way to judge the veracity of a claim is by “dissemination” and the amount of people who have already made this same calculus I describe above, and deemed a certain tale of events, to be closest to the truth. Thus yes, sometimes the “conventional wisdom” is sometimes the best we have … and other minority views may violate undue weight.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

References without inline citations

Listed in references section, but not used in inline citations. Should we remove these? Do we have any idea which, if any, of the ideas in the text are supported by these?

  • Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel ("Benigno") (2002). Memorias de un Soldado Cubano: Vida y Muerte de la Revolución. Barcelona: Tusquets Editores S.A. ISBN 84-8310-014-2.
  • Bravo, Marcos (2005). La Otra Cara Del Che. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial Solar.
  • Feldman, Allen (2003). "Political Terror and the Technologies of Memory: Excuse, Sacrifice, Commodification, and Actuarial Moralities". Radical History Review 85, 58–73.
  • Escobar, Froilán and Félix Guerra (1988). Che: Sierra adentro ("Che: Deep in the Sierra"). Havana: Editora Política.
  • Fuentes, Norberto (2004). La Autobiografía De Fidel Castro ("The Autobiography of Fidel Castro"). Mexico D.F: Editorial Planeta. ISBN 84-233-3604-2, ISBN 970-749-001-2.
  • George, Edward (2005). The Cuban Intervention In Angola, 1965–1991: From Che Guevara To Cuito Cuanavale. London & Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass Publishers. ISBN 0-415-35015-8.
  • Gleijeses, Piero (Spring 1996). "Cuba's First Venture in Africa: Algeria, 1961–1965", Journal of Latin American Studies No. 28. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Granado, Alberto (2004). Travelling with Che Guevara – The Making of a Revolutionary. New York: Newmarket Press. ISBN 1-55704-640-9 (hardcover), ISBN 1-55704-639-5 (pbk.)
  • Guevara, Ernesto "Che" (2006). The Great Debate on Political Economy. New York: Ocean Press. ISBN-10: 1876175540, ISBN-13: 978-1876175542.
  • Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein (1973). The Cairo Documents. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-385-06447-0.
  • Holland, Max (Fall 2005). "Private Sources of U.S. Foreign Policy William Pawley and the 1954 Coup d'État in Guatemala". Journal of Cold War Studies 7(4), 36–73.
  • James, Daniel (1969). Che Guevara: A Biography. New York: Stein and Day. ISBN 0812813480.
  • James, Daniel (2001). Che Guevara. New York: Cooper Square Press. ISBN 0-8154-1144-8.
  • Kahn, David (1967). The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0684831309.
  • Matos, Huber (2002). Como llegó la Noche ("As night arrived"). Barcelona: Tusquet Editores, SA. ISBN 84-8310-944-1.
  • Miná, Gianni (1991). An Encounter with Fidel. Melbourne: Ocean Press. ISBN 1-875284-22-2.
  • Morán Arce, Lucas (1980). La revolución cubana, 1953–1959: Una versión rebelde ("The Cuban Revolution, 1953–1959: a rebel version"). Ponce, Puerto Rico: Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica. ISBN B0000EDAW9.
  • Peña, Emilio Herasme (June 14, 2004). La Expedición Armada de junio de 1959. Listín Diario, (Dominican Republic).
  • Peredo-Leigue, Guido "Inti" (1979). Mi campaña junto al Che. México: Ed. Siglo XXI. "PDF version" (PDF). (637 KiB).
  • Rojo del Río, Manuel (1981). La Historia Cambió En La Sierra ("History changed in the Sierra"). 2a Ed. Aumentada (Augmented second edition). San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Texto.
  • Ros, Enrique (2003). Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus Años Universitarios (Colección Cuba y Sus Jueces). Miami: Ediciones Universal. ISBN 1-59388-006-5.
  • Thomas, Hugh (April 1998). Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (Updated edition). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80827-7.
  • Villegas, Harry "Pombo" (1996). Pombo : un hombre de la guerrilla del Che: diario y testimonio inéditos, 1966–1968. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue S.R.L. ISBN 950-581-667-7.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"fomenting"

I suggest that the words "fomenting" and "inciting" as in "fomenting revolution" are POV and need to be replaced with neutral words.

foment: "to encourage or instigate (trouble, discord, etc.), stir up." (The Collins English Dictionary. 1979, 1986, 1988. ISBN 0 00 433134-6. William Collins & Co. Ltd. Great Britain.)

Here are some possible alternative words (with the help of a thesaurus and a family member). I've classified them into positive, negative and neutral. Some are borderline or arguable. A good test: Can you imagine Che Guevara saying with a straight face, "I think I'll go and start fomenting revolution now"? Can you imagine Che's detractors saying, "I don't like the man -- all he does is give birth to revolution"? A neutral term should be able to fit naturallly into both these sentences.

  • Positive: foster, advance, launch, arouse, evoke, enkindle, give birth to.
  • Negative: foment, incite, inflame, ferment.
  • Neutral: sow, initiate, cultivate, bring about, cause, engineer, induce, precipitate, elicit, advance, encourage, stimulate, spur, whip up, promote, trigger, generate, incubate.

I particularly like "initiate", "stimulate" and "promote", but many of the others in the neutral list are OK too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would vote for engineer or elicit.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Those are fine. I think there are about 3 places in the article such words are used, so we could use 3 different words for variety. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Coppertwig

  • "embarked on a journey" is OK but somewhat grand-sounding. "embarked" also tends to imply by boat. Did he actually travel much by boat? Actually, it's a bit of an oxymoron, since "journey" seems to me to imply travel by land. I would replace the phrase with the more concise "traveled". (with one l in American spelling, I think.)
I've done this. Also I should add that there was a rather misleading wikilink there. I've eliminated this (and similar ones in the lead). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "these trips": All that has been mentioned so far is "a journey" (singular). (Can a single journey comprise more than one trip?) Is this meant to include his "Second Voyage (1953-56)?" Using "traveled" as mentioned above would solve this.
Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "meeting important leaders": the word "important" sounds odd, and possibly POV, here. I'm not sure what to replace it with. "meeting heads of state" doesn't mean exactly the same. "meeting prominent people" . "meeting international leaders".
  • "Along with traveling around the world meeting important leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism, he was a prolific writer of an assortment of books," The first half of the sentence, and the earlier part of the paragraph, are talking about a particular time period when he was in Cuba after the revolution. (1957-65). The second half of the sentence seems to refer to a larger segment of his life -- or did he write most of his books during that period? Anyway, I find the jump to the second half of the sentence disorienting.
  • Style of cref notes: I guess I wasn't paying attention for a while. Somebody modified the text so that the little superscript words which are links to the content notes actually form parts of the sentences. I oppose this usage because the font is small so it looks funny. Superscripts should be in addition to the text, the way the little superscript numbers are with the ref tags, not instead of part of the text. There may be another way to do these, using links that look something like these ones: [[#refAnderson1997|Anderson 1997]], if it's desired to have the links as part of the text -- although then they would look like regular wikilinks and there would be nothing to clue the reader that it's a link within the page rather than to another page. Are there any other examples of usage of this template on other pages? Note that we're famous: the Template:cref page lists this page as an example of usage! (So we'd better get it right!!) I suggest that the Content note links be renamed to "a", "b" "c" etc. instead of "birth", "Basque" etc. (except that that will make it hard to add new ones!) or else that they simply be put back the way they were, i.e. as extra words in superscript appended to full sentences in normal font.
These cref notes are utterly unhelpful, in my view: they are idiosyncratic and very hard to edit. I say they should go. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I restored the square brackets around "him" in the quote "perfect himself". I believe the original says "perfect myself", so it would be misquoting to simply quote it as "perfect himself". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations needed: re "weekly shirt" and "chancho" nickname; and re Irish descent. We had a ref for the Irish descent earlier but it wasn't a very good one.
  • Adolescence: I find there are too many lists of authors he read. The last two sentences are good, because they mention several authors without being merely lists; they give interesting information. Maybe something similar could be done with the earlier lists of authors: reducing slightly the number of authors mentioned and adding a few words about what type of author they were or what he got out of them. This reminds me of stuff I read in Cormier when they were in the Sierra Maestra, that Che was reading a lot, and also writing, and received a shipment of books.
  • "Guevara wrote that it was during this bloody confrontation that he laid down his medical supplies and picked up a box of ammunition dropped by a fleeing comrade, finalizing his symbolic transition from physician to combatant." I thought I had commented on this but can't find my comment. Cormier quotes Guevara re this incident, and it seems to me that he doesn't lay down medical supplies but makes a choice as to which to pick up, and that the symbolic significance is slightly overstated here as compared to what Guevara actually said. I suggest "It was during this bloody confrontation that Guevara, unable to carry both, faced the dilemma of picking up a box of medical supplies or one of ammunition: to be a physician or a revolutionary; he chose the ammunition."
  • "It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time": I suggest changing this to "Several hundred executions under Guevara's orders are documented during this time; it has been claimed that Guevara was responsible for the deaths of thousands." with footnote to Grant 2007 to support the "thousands". (However, it would probably be better to get information from Daniel James.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's Documentary

Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style, redux

As per Sandy's FAR comments, can we standardize the nonstandard citation style in this article? I've disliked it since the first second I laid eyes on it, and that would be true regardless of the article's topic... but I have been operating under the assumption that it reflected some sort of special consensus arrived at earlier... Is that the case..? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I was about to change it, but decided to come over to the talk page first. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I welcome suggestions about citation style. I'd appreciate a chance to discuss any changes in citation style before they're implemented. See also sections above: Talk:Che Guevara#Citation style, Talk:Che Guevara#Summary of (proposed) changes to citation style, and the 5th point ("Style of cref notes") in Talk:Che Guevara#Comments from Coppertwig. I'm glad to see more people getting involved in editing this article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As I note, I already made the change as it seemed to have achieved consensus. The "content notes" were a mess in any case: many of them were orphaned; others had little or nothing to do with the matter at hand; at least one was pure plagiarism. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't all that fond of the content notes, though I did express at least one reason for keeping them in the sections I mentioned above. (I'm accustomed to ref tags and citation templates as at Circumcision.) For future reference when working with other articles, note that the WP:MOS indicates that no one citation style is standard on Wikipedia and that citation styles should not be changed without good reason etc. Also, please wait at least 24 hours (or more) for me to comment before assuming something on this page has consensus. If the change sticks, please edit the documentation of Template:cref, which points to this article as an example of usage of that template, which it no longer does. However, I hope this comment from me doesn't discourage you from continuing to edit the article! Welcome. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recognize that there are a variety of citation styles on Wikipedia. There did seem, however, to be almost universal dislike for the style employed here. Which seemed reason enough to go and change it. You should also feel free to edit Template:cref. I've made a bunch of other changes, as you can see, and commented on some of them on this talk page. I think they either go with consensus already established here, or are uncontroversial. If you or any other of the editors of this article feel otherwise, then I would be happy to discuss them at further length here. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I guess you were probably right that there was consensus for the change in citation format!! (Including me agreeing with it!) Maybe we just needed somebody bold enough to actually make the change. I certainly don't want to discourage you from editing. I'm just starting to look at your changes and everything looks fine so far. If I do disagree with some, I still hope you'll continue to participate! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've done a lot of work! It all looks fine to me. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would sure hope it looks fine. My edits have been very (small c) conservative. But thanks for the thumbs-up! As I've just mentioned at FAR, as well as on the talk page here, I really don't see much in the way of POV issues here. But even so, this article still needs an awful lot of work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Very many of the works listed under "References" are in fact unreferenced in the article itself. I propose deleting them forthwith. We could copy them over here, to the talk page, if people wanted some kind of record. And it's true that some of these references should be used--most obviously, in my view, the Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see above that this has already been suggested (apparently more than once). So let's do it... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on a somewhat different point: Why on earth does the list of Guevara's own writings consist only in translations? This is very misleading. It would make more sense to have a list of this own publications, with dates (and in chronological order), in Spanish, with information on translations as and where available. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not POV

I've spent some time with this article now, and made a bunch of edits, with further comments in the edit summaries. I should say that as far as I can see, POV is really the least of its concerns. (Which is not to say there are no POV problems, just that they are overshadowed by other issues.) This may well be a credit to the editors who have recently worked on it. But now there is still much to do in terms of producing a coherent and well-referenced article. At present it is mostly just badly written and insufficiently referenced. I probably do not have much time, but am willing to lend a hand from time to time. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Jbmurray

You have greatly improved the article, and I agree with 100 % of your recent and numerous edits. I hope that you will find more time to continue your outstanding contributions.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I don't have much time, but am prepared to help as and when I can. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

adolescent intellectual pursuits

Regarding these edits. I would argue that they are un-necessary. They provide a lot of detail regarding what Redthoreau rightly calls CG's "adolescent intellectual pursuits." I'd suggest that we don't need such detail: it's enough to know he was a voracious reader as a youth, across a wide literary and philosophical range. NB I was on the verge earlier also of deleting the fact that he played chess. In the article's current, reduced, size, do we need to know that?

I say this especially given that the article at present has very little (practically nothing) about his mature political and philosophical beliefs. If anything needs expansion, it's here.

But rather than reverting the above edits, I thought I'd raise the issue here first. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I can see your points, but I believe that his love for Chess is relevant - because he would later encourage that the game be taught to Cuban children, believed the skills required were analogous to “warfare” in a strategic way, and he himself would hold tournaments, and even played the famed Bobby Fisher by telephone. As for his intellectual pursuits ... I believe they are extremely relevant in the sense that what he was reading at age 13-18 ... helped form the foundation for why his Motorcycle trip was so influential and transformational to his thought process when he was 21, and why he believed the way he did when he was 25-27 and decided to take up arms for the first time as a Guerrilla. I believe that the article should represent that he was not the "stereotypical" armed insurgent ... in that his origins was as a well educated and poetic intellectual ... which may go against a laymen’s conventional wisdom when researching him at the start. Moreover, he later meets and is complimented by Sartre as the "most complete human being of our age" when just 15 years earlier ... he was reading Sartre as a student. His wide range of knowledge helps explain why he could easily win over such intellectual heavyweights, as Sartre, Beauvoir, Debray, etc. It also formed the genesis of why he believed it was possible to create a “New Man”, driven by “moral” than material incentives. But what are your thoughts on this ??? … as I obviously have expressed my high regard for your efforts and judgment.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think mentioning chess is important, because it shows intellectual development that can factor into planning battle strategy as an adult. Other intellectual pursuits also important to mention, but I'm not sure how much detail is needed. Rather than a long list of authors he read, I'd rather see sentences that say a few interesting words about each of a few authors, to make it more interesting and more meaningful for people who may not be familiar with those authors. I.e. I like the current last 2 sentences more than some of the earller sentences that list a number of authors. In the Sierra Maestra, he is described as having spent a lot of time reading and writing, and received at least one shipment of books. (I thought I had posted a message like this many days ago but don't see it so maybe I forgot to click Save page.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  
* * * * *


Sources

OK, one last note before I belatedly go to bed...

I've repeatedly expressed my surprise at the sources used here. I'd have thought the three main biographies were Anderson, Castañeda, and Taibo. I've been under the illusion that Taibo's is not translated, but have just realized I'm wrong about that. NB that these are all more or less center-to-left-leaning authors, but far to the right of (and in a fundamental sense unsympathetic to) Che. Anderson's basically a liberal (in the classical sense of the term). Castañeda's a former leftie who's spent the past decade or so moving rapidly to the right. Taibo II is probably the furthest left of the three, and indeed he co-wrote a book with Subcomandante Marcos.

I'd suggest that it would be good to add into the mix at least one source that is both scholarly and (basically) sympathetic. I remember seeing Jean Franco present a magnificent critique of all three of the above biographies, but I don't think it's ever been published. (I do have a draft copy myself.) Otherwise, there's Mike Gonzalez's Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution (2004). I haven't read this, but Gonzalez is both a member of the SWP and a sound scholar.

Meanwhile, Hugh Thomas's Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom is also, as I understand it, a pretty basic source that should be used. Other writers on Cuba that are worth reading include Lou Perez, Toni Kapcia, and Román de la Campa, but I'm not sure off the top of my head whether they've written anything on Guevara. For the exile position, i.e. quite squarely anti-Castro but from a scholarly point of view, there'd be Roberto González Echevarría or Gustavo Pérez Firmat, but I'm likewise fairly sure they've written little if anything on Guevara.

NB, as should be obvious, I'm much more familiar with literary and cultural critics than with historians. And NB also that Cuba is not my particular area. (Which is probably a good thing.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as I mentioned in an edit summary... I'm surprised there's no mention of Régis Debray for the Bolivian section. He has had volume two of his autobiography just published, if I remember right... I saw a review in the LRB. And he was probably the most significant of the European champions of Guevarism. -- jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

JbMurray I agree with your contention that the 3 primary credible biographers are (1) Jon Lee Anderson, (2) Jorge G. Castaneda, and (3) Paco Ignacio Taibo. I have all 3 of their books ~ (1) Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (2) Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, and (3) Guevara, Also Known as Che. For a complete list of books related directly to Che Guevara see This list. I have nearly all of these and would be more than happy to look up specific citations. What do you believe would be the best way to incorporate these 3 texts in unison with one another ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Regarding those three biographies (and I would probably throw in the Gonzalez, as well as any manifestly anti-Che source that is also reliable--none comes immediately to mind), I'd have thought the most important thing is to cross-check them when it comes to controversial or potentially controversial aspects of Che's life. I've dug up the Franco talk I mentioned and here, for what it's worth, is her brief account of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major three:

Paco Taibo sticks closest to Che’s own words, citing copiously from his letters and writings and claiming that Che is “this story’s second narrator, the one who matters.” However since Che own words alone represent the voice of truth, the narrative breaks down whenever Che is without words.. Referring to his last hours, Taibo writes, “Now, for the first time the biographer will have to rely only on unfriendly witnesses, many of whom had axes to grind and a vested interests in distorting events and constructing a false account.” In this version, the biographer is unable to contemplate ambiguity,or contradiction and uses selected citation to monumentalize the past.

Anderson who had the advantage of having read Che’s private diaries, follows the well worn rules of U.S. journalism in which everything must pass through the sieve of personality. “What had compelled this son of an aristocratic Argentine family, a medical school graduate, to try and change the world?” . In his search for Che, the man, Anderson does not shun the superfluous ; on the contrary it is essential to his narrative - Che losing his temper and smacking his baby’s bottom, his favorite television programs, the name of his dog. He concludes that “along with his mistakes what is most remembered about Che is his personal example, embodying faith, willpower and sacrifice.“ The continuing significance of Guevara is that the revolutionary values of “self-sacrifice, honesty and dedication to a cause” “have transcended time and ideology to nurture and inspire new generations of fighters and dreamers.” Certain values while embodied in Che can be abstracted from their specificity to become a kind of gold standard for the individual.

Castañeda ‘s biography is a political biography that focuses on y the politics of cold war confrontation and while not shunning personal detail (did Tania sleep with Che?), he is above all interested in the political intricacies of Cuban-Soviet relations, and Cuban- U.S. relations and the exacerbation of the cold war that they implied. Che’s story is told as one of political disillusionment. That is perhaps why Castañeda polishes off the campaign in the Sierra Madre and Escambray in a mere twenty three pages, in contrast to Paco Taibo and Anderson both of whom devote nearly two hundred pages to the revolutionary campaign.

Hope this too-rapid comment is of some help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

i have a website hey-che.com what deals about the impact of Che.. Could this be a usefull link for the che wikipedia section.. cheers heycheHeyche (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think it would be critical to provide balance to this article to use sources that would be critical of Che and importantly right wing as opposed to left wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryhunter7 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's Documentary

Recently the History Channel released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara en Español

For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuban flag?

I remember there being both a Cuban & Argentinean flag in Che's infobox. Why is it no longer there? He did have Cuban citizenship right? ʄ!•¿talk? 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that both flags were included. I agreed that they should be since he held citizenship in both nations. However at the time I believe another editor disagreed and thus removed the Cuban one. Do any other editors have a view on this?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a view on this and I don't think the Cuban flag should appear in the info box, just because someone has dual citizenship doesn't make them of that nationality, i have citizenship in multiple countries but I am still a New Zealander, so the last editor was correct in removing the flag as it does not really apply in this sense. Taifarious1 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think questions of nationality are pretty irrelevant as they mean different things to different people, the important thing was it alerted the reader to a country that he was affiliated with. I mean it's only two flags, not six or something. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it more, I retract my earlier statement, I think it would be best to add the Cuba Flag to the info box, the bulk of his revolutionary work took place there and he is also buried there, so I think its entirely suitable to have it in there. ;) Taifarious1 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Noted and seeing no objection I will add it back.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Question

This is really getting the best of me. In the third paragraph of the introduction, it currently reads: 

 As a result of his death, romantic visage, invocation to armed class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives [2], he

Is it one "his", a colon after his, or something else? It just doesn't seem right to me.

Thanks in advance for all the help!

Jmole (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The line's fine. I'd even omit the comma thank you very much. Please oh please do not worry about abstract highly subjective things like "flow" - that's where all too many articles here become candidates for the trash heap. Stick to grammar. The sentence is 100% grammatically correct and what's more: it's nigh on inconceivable to reword more efficiently. Dr Roots (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thats really uncanny, as I was reading through the article, that exact line stumped me as well, im currently trawling for grammar and spelling issues and adding refs under cite tags, but I was trying to figure this one out, but I haven't been able to, ill have a look into it, but i think its easier to look into it in context so im reading through the ref given to understand it more, if i figure it out ill let you know. Taifarious1 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? There are so many typos and grammatical errors and gaffes in word usage, incomplete sentences, comma separated sentences - who could choose where to begin? And your commenting on grammar, citing you're looking for grammar and spelling issues - this is a joke, right? I surely hope if this is the extent of your mastery of the language you don't go changing too much! It's always the right thing to write correctly on all occasions. To someone with a proper education this cannot ever be a burden. This is self evident. Thus the suspicion you're joking - and you are, right? Dr Roots (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The stated source is in reference to the last 2 parts of the sentence not the full thing (which is still ok as you don't want a plethora of sources in the lead). Jmole, is your question whether the grammar is correct?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah, it's a grammar question. It just doesn't flow. Jmole (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I did some minor adjusting ... let me know what you think.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that is much easier to understand, certainly for me anyway, I have fixed a few minor grammar mistakes in the article myself that seemed quite esoteric so to the average viewer I think the change will make much clearer. Taifarious1 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work, guys! Jmole (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a typo here- a common one that can be really irritating: See 4th paragraph "... Alberto Korda photograph of him entitled Guerrillero Heroico (shown), was declared "the most famous photograph in the world."[4] You meant to us the word "titled". The word entitled actually refers to when one has a right to something... an entitlement. Somehow this word has been absorbed into the American lexicon to appear synonymous with the word "titled". Surely the words titled/entitled cannot mean the same thing.

en·ti·tle

Function: transitive verb 1 : to give a title to : designate link. "entitled" is the correct term.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that by the Maryland Institute of Art should be added to was declared "the most famous photograph in the world."[4], to make things clearer. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Che's Date of Birth

Che Guevara was born on the 14th of June, not May as the article suggests. This fact is found throughout printed texts on Che Guevara and Cuba. As for online sources, en.wikiquote.org indicates that Guevara's birth certificate says he was born on June 14. The correct date is also given within Wikipedia in the 2007 Schools section at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/c/Che_Guevara.htm. I hope that the glaring error from this entry can be corrected and remain correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.193.195 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Biographer Jon Lee Anderson interviewed Che's mother discovered (in the late 90's) that he was in fact born on May 14 a month earlier - and his Mother had the birth certificate falsified so as to make it appear that her and her husband, Che's father were married before consummating. This was because Che's mother was 3 months pregnant when she married and thus they moved his birth up one month, and told family members he was born 2 months premature.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Bravo Redthoreau! That is some fine investigation, mainly by Jon Lee Anderson, but your explanation was superb. Taifarious1 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is "superb" the appropriate word here? Might not "absurd" be more applicable given the fact that Jon Lee Anderson could not possibly have
"interviewed Che's mother (in the late 90's) and found out that he was in fact born on May 14 a month earlier - and she had the birth certificate falsified so as to make it appear that her and her husband, Che's father were married before consummating. This was because Che's mother was 3 months pregnant when she married and thus they moved his birth up one month, and told family members he was born 2 months premature.'" ?
The reason that Jon Lee Anderson could not possibly have conducted such an interview with Che's mother, Celia de la Serna, in the late 1990's is a simple one: She died on 18 May 1965!!  (And, just for the record, Jon Lee Anderson never conducted any interview with her at any other time either, nor does he pretend to have done so.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I meant to write that Jon Lee Anderson through conducting interviews found out such a fact (that Che's mother admitted to falsifying his birth certificate). The fact is still correct that he was born on May 14 ... not June 14 ... although yes I miswrote that JLA spoke to his Mother to find this out. Polaris do you dispute that he was born on May 14 or that JLA found this out (see pg 5 of his book if curious) ? Either way nice to see you out of hibernation ... even though you only did so to insult me. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean page 5? What edition of the book are you using? My edition, ISBN 0802116000, has no such statement by Anderson on that page. Could you check the page number? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have the printed edition (which you must have) it would be page 3 while it seems that the online version link has it on page 5. My apologies for not noting the discrepancy.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how do you know it is true? Jon Anderson indicates in his rather novelistic opening to his biography of Guevara that this is true, but because someone he interviewed said that, does that make it true? It may be "family lore", for example. Or the astrologer mentioned likes to tell the story, his moment of glory. Is there other evidence? (Not that this is that important one way or the other.) –Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't "know" for sure that it is true as I wasn’t there (this applies to almost everything I read in a book) ... all I can do is weigh the evidence and credibility of the author (Jon Lee Anderson) and the fact that he spent 5 years researching Guevara all across the globe (Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia, Congo, U.S.) --- was given rare access to Che's wife & family, Che's personal diaries, and sealed Cuban documents --- spent several months living amongst Che's family in Argentina --- and thus compiled an 800 page book with 50 pages of footnotes and accompanying sources. It is because of this, that I estimate and trust that Jon Lee Anderson (an investigative journalist by trade) would want to make certain that he was 100 % sure of such a fact - that he clearly states in the opening pages of his biography. In addition, I believe that JLA would most likely have had to of received several corroborating sources in placing his credibility on the line by making this ‘historical correction’, which in some ways could even be viewed as being "offensive" to Che's family.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It is really not in the same category as a statement that has multiple, reliable, unbiased sources, it it? Then you could know with more confidence. As User:Jbmurray says somewhere, Anderson is one of those biographers who wants to interject the psychodynamics of his subject into the history (Jbmurray didn't use those exact words), but what is the point of that "fact" supposed to be? What is the conclusion the reader is supposed to draw? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Since JLA's book was published in 1997, I would imagine that any corroborating sources would have had to of been published after that date - and I am not sure how I would decipher whether those sources were "echoing" JLA's account, or their own. If this is actually a fact that you or other editors question the validity of ... I would be more than willing to seek out further supporting evidence. Are you stating that you personally dispute his findings or have you found evidence/motive to call it into question? Also are you aware of anyone from Che's family, other biographers, or the Che Guevara Institute disputing this claim ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it plays into the personalization through depicting incidents that then may leave the reader with a conclusion that User:Jbmurray was describing in Anderson that Jbmurray does not like. And it is the "echoing" process that you describe above that enables and proliferates pseudo facts. There is his birth certificate that gives a date. The birth certificated is substantiated. Do you have any reliable, unbiased, third-party evidence that substantiates Anderson's claim that could have been derived from "family lore" or an interview with the astrologer feeding into his role in the myth of the story? (Do we know where Anderson got that, other than conjure?) –Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) According to JLA the 'substantiated' birth certificate was "falsified" by a "doctor friend" to "avoid scandal." JLA also states that the family moved away to Misiones during the pregnancy and didn't allow family to see Che until he was already a month old. With regards to comments made by User:Jbmurray I don't believe it is clear that Jbmurray questions the validity of JLA, although yes he may have critiqued his style of delivery. If JbMurray (a poster's whose intellect I highly respect) does question this birth date, then I would of course cede to his judgment on the matter (however I am unaware that he actually does) and would be uncomfortable speaking for him. Moreover, am I to impugn from your comments that you question the use of May 14 as his date of birth?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

JbMurray objects to the use of personal tidbits in a biography in an attempt to define character by this method. Anderson opens the biography as if he were writing a novel with this uncited biographical tidbit. The point of citations is to remove the necessity of having to take an author's word that his information is correct by allowing readers to evaluation the source for themselves. By opening the biography with this, Anderson gives this tidbit undue emphasis. What is the relevance of this information to the biography? Does it convey information that cannot be conveyed in any other way, e.g. by a cited source? (And please do not change the wording of posts here.) –Mattisse (Talk) 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that this point made by Jon Lee Anderson lacks sufficient credence for inclusion/correction then I would suggest you remove it. I feel there is a necessary level of credibility for inclusion ... but understand if you do not.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it impossible to participate in this discussion, or any other in which RedThoreau is involved on this Talk Page, because he habitually changes the entries he has previously made on this discussion page whenever it suits his interest. Isn't there a wikipedia policy against this? If so, WHY is it never enforced on this particular Talk Page?
Here is the latest example. After I had pointed out he was in incorrect when he asserted that Jon Lee Anderson had interviewed Che's mother, he then went back and edited his previous entry on the Talk Page, i.e. the one about which I had commented (and which he had made in response to User: 70.241.193.195), in an indexterous attempt to conceal the gravity of his error. You can observe what he did here: Diffs -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Polaris. I do not agree with your accusation of "habitually" altering my 'own words'. In this single instance, after you pointed out my instance of misspeaking, I simply corrected my error seeing that you had already quoted me in italics (which I did not edit). I thus figured that it would be obvious to any observer that you quoted me in italics and that I then went and slightly edited out the 3-4 words of mine that were in error. All of this is part of the record (as you display by pointing to the diff). To call my error one of "gravity", I find not only puzzling but disingenuous. The overall premise of my answer was in fact correct - That Jon Lee Anderson reported he was born on May 14 in the late 90's after interviews etc. The only mistake was my typo attributing this to a discussion with his mother - which I obviously know is false as I have read 20 + books on Che Guevara and am well aware of when his Mother died. Furthermore, I am unaware of any official policy governing one’s own words on talk pages (but if in fact there is one you can show me, I apologize for violating it, and will be glad to follow it in the future). I am unsure of why you have picked this opportunity to come out of hibernation, when in fact I have implored your valuable commitment to the article for several weeks (if not months). Anyone who does any investigation in our past correspondence will find that I have always been nothing but respectful, courteous, and overly complimentary of you and your editing capability. I even several times offered to edit while essentially “under your command” and following all of your suggestions. ----- I will continue to be respectful of you - as I value you as an editor, appreciate your past work on the Che article, and consider you a fair person --- regardless of how many times you insult me or impugn my integrity/capability/good faith. I have no interest in confrontation with you and hope that you will find it in yourself to place aside what I deem to be unprovoked hostility towards me.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Per your request, I am posting here a verbatim excerpt from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section labelled "Own Comments" :

"It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

"Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

  • Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
  • use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
    • Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.
    • A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
    • Please do not apply strike-through to other editors' comments without permission."

Source: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

-- Polaris999 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Polaris, I appreciate you pointing that out and will in the future do my best to abide by their "suggestion" (I believe I am correct in interpreting that as being the “generally accepted standard” with allowed “exceptions”, and not official declarative policy) --- but nonetheless I understand the inherent implicit rationale of such a standard and if I could redo my actions, I would have inserted a [correction template]. My apologies for not abiding by this 'courtesy' and I hope that in the future you will assume good faith with regards to my actions ... as I always have with yours.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Polaris, note that I have added back in the words and struck them out. Hope this helps.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, RedThoreau: restoring the text to what you had originally written and then striking it out is a definite improvement over simply removing the words that were being discussed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth, continued

You could do as JbMurray suggested above and cross-referenced the citation, especially since you use it as your opening piece, just like Anderson. Anderson has an agenda, as JbMurray points out. Also, you have the wrong page number in the article reference citation. Even if you use the Amazon.com reference, which you apparently are, it is still page 5. If you look carefully at the amazon.com selection you will see this is true. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article reference uses page 3 which is the correct page # for the printed version (in my mind the better of the two to use). As for cross referencing Jorge Castaneda's "Companero" (published the same year as JLA's book in 1997) uses June 14 as the date of birth. (pg 3 as well). Thus I am unsure of how to proceed as it appears that JLA "discovered" this anecdote through his own investigation.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a difficult problem. If we had a source that mentioned Anderson's claim and still claimed that the date was June, we could quote the two as sources that disagree with each other. As far as I know we don't have such a source. It's not so difficult to word it in the text: we can state that the birth certificate says one thing and that Anderson says something else. The infobox and the first sentence of the article are the problem, because there isn't really a lot of room there to put big explanations. How about stating the date of birth as "Spring 1928" with a footnote to an explanation? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The printed version uses page 5. Please, just look at your book if you are in doubt. It starts with the first sentence of Chapter One. Very high profile. You can't miss it. Anderson is the sole source of this. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My printed version right in front of me has this on page 3. First page of the book under the heading "A Mate Plantation in Misiones". We must have different editions (although I wasn;t aware that there were). The ISBN 10 on the back of my book is 0-8021-3558-7   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)As far as Anderson's own investigation, did no one in the family, relatives, best friends, cohorts, know of this previously? Frankly I can't trust the story telling of an old astrologer, especially as there is no particular point to the information. It only causes arguments, as some new editor periodically comes and changes it because there is so much evidence to the contrary. Is there some purpose service by relying solely on Anderson in this regard? –Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You are right regarding the page number. I got confused by your Amazon.com reference. I apologize. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider this source to be of any import? : MAJOR ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA DE LA SERNA
It was definitely written after the publication of the JLA book and by historians who are fully aware of the content of that book. In other words, despite what JLA has written about the version supposedly received from the astrologer, the official Cuban historians state in 2008 that Ernesto "Che" Guevara was born on "June 14, 1928". -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Polaris I am not familiar with that source. But if you trust it ... then I trust your judgment. Maybe we could use June 14 ... but make a footnote of JLA claiming May 14.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is another source to which I personally assign great importance: the "Chronology" of Che's life prepared by his widow, Aleida March. It states:

14 de junio de 1928

Ernesto Guevara de la Serna nace en Rosario, provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina.

Source URL is: Centro Che
I would like to know, please, what weight you would give to this source? -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would assign a good deal of weight to that source. It is also noteworthy that the Cuban state honors/celebrates Che's birthday on June 14 and not May 14 (now this may be a result of not wanting to point out the "sultry" detail of his Mother having the birth certificate falsified to conceal premarital sex, but nevertheless). In addition, an article from today's Sun Sentinel For his 80th birthday, Che gets a website also there is a celebration tomorrow in Argentina Argentina to Fete 80th Che Birthday. I believe that it would be most prudent to use June 14 with a footnote acknowledging JLA's findings.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In an unconnected possible irony ... I just realized that tomorrow (June 14) would have been Che's 80th birthday.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is! Perhaps we can make our best effort to figure out how to handle his birthdate in this article before that day is done. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter which day he was born, anyway? Polaris999's arguments sound good: perhaps it could just say "June 14" with a footnote to the May 14 explanation. (Or would we get a lot of driveby edits from people who have just read Anderson?) By the way, I have it on page 3 in Anderson's book; and it sounds to me as if likely Che himself didn't know his own birthdate, at least not until he was 30, so perhaps his widow didn't know either.
Perhaps (except to astrologers) the actual date is less important than whether he was born prematurely or not, since one might want to speculate whether a premature birth would have affected his health or brain development. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig -- I personally am with you in thinking that the exact date isn't of any particular importance, but as you intuit, when we tried putting in the June 14 date without any reference to the fact that JLA says it may have been May 14, the amount of driveby edits was beyond belief. Finally, we had to add an explanatory note, and I have just found it in an older version and include it in case it may be helpful if a new note is going to be written:

1. ^ a b The date of birth recorded on his birth certificate was 14 June 1928, although one tertiary source (Julia Constenla, quoted by Jon Lee Anderson) asserts that he was actually born on 14 May of that year. (Constenla alleges that she was told by an unidentified astrologer that his mother, Celia de la Serna, was already pregnant when she and Ernesto Guevara Lynch were married and that the birth date of their son was forged a month later than the actual date to avoid scandal.) Source: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, pp. 3 and 769.

Source: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&oldid=191434286     -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Polaris I think it would be fitting if you went ahead and changed it and included the footnote. Maybe it could be a nice "symbolic" way (hopefully') to begin your resurgence in the article again.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, RedThoreau, for allowing me this honor. I hope that I have followed the proper format, but if not will count on you to make the necessary corrections. ¡Feliz cumpleaños del Comandante de la América Nuestra! -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hurray! ¡Feliz consensus-building! And Che's 80th birthday and all that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for discussion

In paragraph #8 of the section "After the revolution", these sentences appear:

An integral part of fostering a sense of “unity between the individual and the mass”, Guevara believed, was volunteer work and will. To display this, Guevara "led by example", working "endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane" on his day off, as did Castro.[58]

I take exception to the statement, "as did Castro". Fidel Castro performed volunteer work only on rare occasions, and always with extensive press coverage. With extremely rare exceptions, Castro's "participation" amounted to little more than brief photo ops and was in no way comparable to the strenuous efforts of Guevara who spent every Sunday morning from 6 AM to noon either cutting sugarcane, working in a textile factory (Textilera Ariguanabo), or unloading freighters at the docks. He did this even when he was so stricken with asthma that he could hardly breathe.

Furthermore, the citation [58] given for the above sentences re volunteer work is "PBS: Che Guevara, Popular but Ineffective" which reads verbatim as follows:

Popular But Ineffective
Lacking any managerial training, Ché was nevertheless named head of Cuba's central bank. Later, he became Minister of Industries. He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of what he called material incentives. Volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth. All that was needed was will. Ché led by example. He worked endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane. His good looks, acerbic humor and willingness to point out the revolution's shortcomings earned him the affection of many Cubans. But by 1963, as characterized by a CIA classified report, "Guevara... had brought... the economy to its lowest point since Castro came to power."

As is apparent, there is no reference in the PBS text to Fidel Castro having performed any volunteer work whatsoever. I therefore propose that the words "as did Castro" be expunged from the aforementioned sentence in paragraph #8 of the section "After the revolution",

I look forward to hearing the views of other editors. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless another reference can be found to support the Castro statement, but as it stands now, i think it may have to be removed. Taifarious1 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree Polaris and would say it should be removed. Nice work and good eye to catch that. It's nice to have you back. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Taifarious1 and RedThoreau — I shall remove it at once. :-)   -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Argentina pays belated homage to 'Che' Guevara'

I have just read an artical from 'Reuters' entiled "Argentina pays belated homage to 'Che' Guevara". It states that "A bronze statue of Ernesto "Che" Guevara was unveiled on Saturday [14 June 2008] in the Argentine city where he was born exactly 80 years ago, the first such monument to the revolutionary in his homeland."

I think this is information should be added to the main artical on 'Che' Guevara. This event is an important mile-stone in the legacy of Guevara as in his birth place, Argentina, he is still controversial.

The site which I read the artical from is: [4]

Thanks, --TorresE (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request Torrese and I went ahead and added that for you with both the Reuters source and a BBC article from today. Let me know if my addition satisfies your suggestion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 11:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It would also be fitting to place a photograph of this statue on the Legacy of Che Guevara page, don't you think? Perhaps if someone happens to come across a public domain image of it, or takes one for this purpose, he/she will kindly bring it to our attention on this Talk page. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Great: this helps confirm that the birthdate is considered by reliable sources to be June 14 (if we can go with the "page last updated" date). I fixed up the formatting of the birthdate footnote(s). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Lacuna

Esteemed Co-Editors:

Please take a look at this article, Che Guevara's Final Verdict on the Soviet Economy, and let's discuss how we can incorporate the salient points of Guevara's prescient critique of the Soviet system into this article, or perhaps create a "child" article to address the issue. I believe that the failure of any of the English-language WP articles on Guevara to adequately treat this subject — and his economic thought in general — is one of the most grievous shortcomings of our efforts to date.

Please let me know if you agree or disagree. And, in the case of those who may agree, is anyone willing to volunteer to assume responsibility for spearheading such a project?

-- Polaris999 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. I would also add that after Guevara's February 24 1965 Speech delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, it became clear that he not only questioned the economic policies of the Soviet Union, but also their internationalist stances. As time went on, Che certainly began to favor the Chinese Maoist model of development over the Soviet system - and some scholars believe that it was this "critique" of the Soviet Union (as essentially being a complicit accomplice for capitalist imperialism) that may have led to Fidel essentially being told by the Soviet Union that Guevara was no longer 'welcome' on the Soviet/Cuban political landscape.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
RedThoreau, to the best of my knowledge, your assessment is 100% correct. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

This is obviously a biased article. In the "After the Revolution" section it states, "It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time.[48]" which is not only misleading, as the sentenced persons stood trial before their executions (which had the support of 93% of the Cuban people) they were not "ordered" to be executed they were convicted and sentenced, but it is in contradiction to its own citation, "Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Anderson (1997) gives the number specifically at La Cabaña prison as fifty-five (p. 387.) while also stating that as a whole "several hundred people were officially tried and executed across Cuba" (p. 387.). This is supported by Lago who gives the figure as 216 documented executions across Cuba in two years." Guevara would only have been overseeing the ones at La Cabaña, not all 216. Even if he was overseeing those 216 that is not "several hundred" as several means more than 2.

Also the article states, "Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal." Without a doubt Che was in favor of the summary trials, but the tales woven by Cuban exiles, in which he was the "Butcher of La Cabaña," presiding over most of the shootings in Habana, are flights of fantasy. Revolutionary Tribunals No.1 and No.2 did sit at La Cabaña, the first trying policemen and soldiers, the second (which did not pass death sentences) trying civilians. RT1, presided over by Miguel Ángel Duque de Estrada, did pass the death sentence in some cases, at least two dozen of which were in January. Che did not sit on either tribunal, but did review appeals in his capacity as commander. He could have had not doubts as he ratified the sentences; he believed in the justice of what he was doing and over the previous years had become tough-minded about such situations. (Lenerd (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Lenerd. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject and I would encourage you to take part in editing the article. Everything included must have a reliable source, so once you have a credible source to substantiate the above claims - then by all means please include them. Also any editor is free to "improve" the wording of the article as it relates to already existing sources, so by all means feel free to assist in that effort as well. I believe that all current editors want to present as “fair” and NPOV article as possible, but remember as well that sometimes there will be disagreement (hopefully respectful) on how best to do that (realizing their will be conflicting sources). I hope you will devote your efforts in this endeavor.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly POV the other way. Che murdered innocent people. The killing of Che was a good thing, because he was a filthy thug who spread much evil in the world. Thankfully he is dead and in hell, but the article makes him out to be a hero. Only to other villains. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TheLoaves, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion that Che "murdered innocents", was a "filthy thug", "evil", and "is now in hell". However, none of these views belong in an Encyclopedic entry, and if this is what you were expecting to read about Che in the article, then yes you will be dissapointed and view it as hero worship. As editors we do not make judgements on good and evil, and the possible "damnation" of historical figures. Moreover, an articles talk page is not the place to vent one's views WP:SOAP, it is for discussion of editing the article.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A few problems with this paragraph ...

Following is the first paragraph of the section Cuba, which in my opinion needs some re-working:

Guevara arrived in Mexico City in early September 1954, and renewed his friendship with the other Cuban exiles whom he had known in Guatemala. In June 1955, López introduced him to Raúl Castro who later introduced him to his older brother, Fidel Castro, the revolutionary leader who had formed the 26th of July Movement and was now plotting to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in what became the Cuban Revolution. Guevara recognized at once that Castro was the cause for which he had been searching.[2]

Here are the problems I have noticed in this paragraph, sentence by sentence:

• 1. "Guevara arrived in Mexico City in early September 1954, and renewed his friendship with the other Cuban exiles whom he had known in Guatemala."

Comment: Guevara was not a Cuban exile, therefore he could not have renewed his friendship with "the other" Cuban exiles.

• 2. "In June 1955, López introduced him to Raúl Castro who later introduced him to his older brother, Fidel Castro, the revolutionary leader who had formed the 26th of July Movement and was now plotting to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in what became the Cuban Revolution."

Comment: tenses are mixed — "had formed ... was plotting ... became"

• 3. "Guevara recognized at once that Castro was the cause for which he had been searching.[3]"

Comment: Two issues here: First, last time I noticed, Fidel Castro was an individual, not a "cause". Second, the source given (Spartacus School Net: Che Guevara) is not the best one available — since the fact that CG joined Castro's movement immediately after meeting him is documented in hundreds of published sources, we should be able to find a better one to use as a reference here. (And how about choosing one that is not JLA, just for the sake of variety?)

Following is a new version of the paragraph in question, incorporating the changes I would like to make:

Guevara arrived in Mexico City in early September 1954, and renewed his friendship with Ñico López and the other Cuban exiles whom he had met in Guatemala. In June 1955, López introduced him to Raúl Castro who subsequently introduced him to his older brother, Fidel Castro, the revolutionary leader who had formed the 26th of July Movement and was now plotting to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. During a lengthy conversation with Castro on the night of their first meeting, Guevara concluded that the Cuban's cause was the one for which he had been searching and before daybreak he had signed up as a member of the 26J Movement.[4]

Please enter your comments, corrections, enhancements, etc. here: Thank you! -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
  • I like your new paragraph and think that it takes care of the problems in wording that you brought up. As far as another reference for when he had the recognition that he identified with Castro's cause, I believe the wording that now exists in the article is very close to Anderson. "After several hours more, Fidel Castro had invited Ernesto to join his guerrilla movement. Ernesto had accepted on the spot. ...It was the early days—Fidel was a long way from putting together his ambitious scheme—but it was the cause Ernesto had been searching for." (p. 175 Anderson) I agree that references/views other than Anderson's would improve the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments, Mattisse. I have found another source for sentence #3, ie, Che Guevara: A biography by Daniel James, page 83. As you know, almost all bios of CG tell basically the same story re the first meeting, and CG himself gives some details about it in his "Farewell Letter". I am just reluctant to cite JLA here since his work is already referenced so frequently in the current iteration of the CG article — to an extent which IMHO gives the impression that he is almost the sole source for the article — and his description of the first meeting does not reflect any new discoveries about it by him. What are your thoughts about this, please? -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur and agree with both Polaris' edits and the above comments. Nice work.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article seems to present Anderson's point of view. I agree with User:jbmurray that Anderson takes a very personal, psychodynamic view of his subject which (in my mind) compromises his objectivity. The novelistic style of writing (as in his opening regarding the fortune teller and birth date) are part of this as well as his calling Guevara "Ernesto" in the beginning of the book and switching to "Che" later on. To me this is unprofessional for a historian. The inclusion of more skeptical sources, as jbmurray suggested, would benefit the article, in my opinion. Even the article opening, "Guevara remains an admired, controversial, and significant historical figure..." seems out of place. Certainly if he was admired, he was also hated. Further, does this reflect the present, 2008? It is a very 20th century view, but is it a 21th century one? These are the thoughts I have about the article. The article would be more interesting to me if it included more of a neutral evaluation of his political thinking in the context of the times rather than concentrating on such a pro-Guevara stance regarding his legacy which now sounds so 1960s to me. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that more could be done to include the other 2 primary biographers of Che Guevara - Jorge G. Castaneda, and Paco Ignacio Taibo II. I have both of their books – Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, and Guevara, Also Known as Che and would be willing to work with other editors to try and incorporate their perspectives as well (hopefully Jbmurray would be willing to assist us as I feel he could be a considerable asset). Furthermore, it is my view that the article at present does an acceptable job at remaining neutral - as both sides could find faults with it lining up with their reality (see above comments from Lenerd who finds it to be unfairly critical of Che’s actions in relation to the revolutionary tribunals). Of note as well ... Jon Lee Anderson is often seen as the "middle ground" biographer on Che with Castaneda being slightly to the right and Taibo II slightly to the left (JbMurray made note of this as well). All 3 are extremely credible in my mind though - and should be viewed as the consummate expert sources on information with relation to Guevara. -------- With regards to him being "beloved" and "hated" and it's present day relevance, I would actually make the case that Che was much more controversial when he was alive and after his death, than today. His worldwide fame and status as an icon has only grown since his death and is probably greater today than at anytime in history. Now yes most of his "iconic" status may not be based on Che the man - but Che the "idea" ... but still he has a significant following of admirers, while his detractors are mostly limited to older Cuban exiles and Conservative-leaning Americans ... a small portion in the overall worldwide view. In addition, Che’s “status” will probably only be enhanced by the soon to be released films “Guerrilla (film)” and “The Argentine (film)” which I would predict will create a resurgence of interest in his life story.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • (outdening also) I wish I had know previously you had such a high opinion of Lenerd. I reverted the following edit Lenerd made and you may want to add it back—I copied Polaris999's tables— Please do since you feel as you do about Lenerd. (I am quoting generally from an old edit, so some of this may be the writing of you and others. I only reverted Lenerd edits, nothing else.)
To implement this plan, Castro named Guevara commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, for a five-month tenure (January 2 through June 12, 1959).[5] Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[6] The shootings were the reply to "barbarians who had gouges out eyes, castrated, burned flesh or ripped of testicles and fingernails, shoved iron into women's vaginas, burned feet, cut off fingers- whose actions, in short, made for a frightening picture."[7] Serving in the post as "supreme appellate" over the revolutionary tribunals and executions of convicted war criminals from the previous regime, although he presided over none of the tribunals. Only one of which issued death sentences to policemen and military officials. Paúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.[8] A private nationwide survey showed 93 percent in favor of the trials and shootings. Che reprimanded a group of militiamen who wanted to teach a lesson to some informants who were still on the loose.

... While Che was in favor of Revolutionary Tribunals No.1 and No.2 which were held at La Cabaña, the first trying policemen and soldiers, the second (which did not pass death sentences) trying civilians, he did not sit on either tribunal only reviewed the appeals. No.1 was, in truth, was presided over by Miguel Ángel Duque de Estrada, it did pass death sentences in some cases, at least two dozen that January. [9][10]

I am not so wrapped up in the "legacy" and am far more interested in the history of political thinking than making anyone into a hero. In other words, I am more interested in people than their "legacies", particularly when their "legacy" is not actively influencing any of the world's many active issues today, say like J.F.K.'s legacy is. I am speaking for the United States so your part of the world may be different. Please restore the above impulsive reversions I made. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do I state that I have a "high opinion" of Lenerd? I was simply using his comments to illustrate that both sides on the hero/villain spectrum could find fault with the article - thus making it in my mind - pretty fair. I also have no desire to make a "hero" out of Che, but simply to compile a fair account of his life and let the reader decide for themselves if those actions are in fact "heroic." However, I do find it imperative that as editors we guard against the "smearing" of historical and politically controversial figures. Nevertheless, I personally wasn't taking any opinion on the edits that you reverted of Lenerd’s - and feel that the best way to judge their merit would probably be to have Polaris look them over and decide if they warrant inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the expression of confidence, RedThoreau. I will be glad to work with you and the other editors to try to sort this matter out together. Hopefully, Lenerd will return to clarify certain points, provide sources, etc. One suggestion I would make right now is that we remove the "supreme prosecutor" label because I consider it incorrect and unjustified — what are your thoughts about this? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be ok with removing that title. How do you think it should read instead?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
RedThoreau, I would greatly prefer that you would write that sentence as seems best to you. -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have done my best to remove that from the lead and thus reword the paragraph. If you are unhappy with the result, please revert.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
RedThoreau, I think that the sentence you have written is outstanding. I also appreciate the fact that you moved the part about the tribunals into the proper chronological order. Cheers, Polaris999 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a minute, please ... Let's take a careful look at what User:Lenerd wrote before we do a full restore. While I think some of his points are valid (I personally strongly disagree with JLA's characterization of CG as the "Supreme Prosecutor"), the issue remains that he has not adequately sourced his statements. The reference he gives, ie "<ref>''Revolución''</ref>" certainly does not suffice. Also, there are grammatical and orthographical problems with what he has written. Don't you think we should wait to see if he returns and corrects these problems here on the Talk page and then decide whether to include part or all of what he has written in the article itself? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that User:Lenerd may be scared off by my behavior. Redthoreau generously told him/her to feel free to edit (above), and I too quickly reverted. I should not have done that. Lenerd may not feel welcome here anymore. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, sad to say but I would conjecture that if User:Lenerd is so easily scared off, he/she probably isn't well suited for editing this particular article in any case. I don't think that you should feel badly about what you did -- if you hadn't reverted it, I would have! -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, to be clear - I never believed that your reverts of Lenerd were wrong to begin with and am not sure how you would have gotten that impression out of my above comments. Some of his additions were improperly sourced and poorly worded. His intended meaning may have merit, but was not carried out properly - hence why I messaged him about the issue in hopes that he would work within the confines of npov and attribute properly. As for you possibly "scaring him off" I can't say, and will leave that to you and him/her to possibly work out.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I have looked at the diffs on http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=220425844&oldid=219865172 and it seems to me that the quote you are referring to was part of what Lenerd wrote. Would you plese take another look and bring it back into the "text box" if it was? (BTW I agree that your rollback was the right call.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) Do you mean this quote?

Neither you nor anyone else can take matters into his own hands. There are revolutionary tribunals. If anyone acts on his own behalf, I'll order him to be locked up and tried by a revolutionary tribunal, too.

— Che Guevara, January 1959 [11]

I am not the best person to look at diffs, so if you see it as part of the editing by Lenerd, then it probably was. When I look at this diff http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=prev&oldid=220425844, which was Lenerd's first I think, it seems like the quote was already there (if it was part of the three edits of his in a row that I reverted). What do you think? –Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I am just now understanding that, until now, I have always thought that the wording in red represented the changed text. But I see that you are looking at the same diff. Therefore, I must be wrong. The red text only represents some of the text added? So the cquote was added along with the text in red? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That is my interpretation of the situation ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I wish you would indulge me here and explain about the diffs. How does one tell from a diff what is different if the red text does not tell the whole story, since text may just be moved down, for example, but still be old text? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I would be so pleased to explain the matter of Diffs to you if I understood it myself! Everything seems to make sense on http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=prev&oldid=219865172 where I changed a few words, ie so that the sentence morphed from "One of his most prominent published works includes a manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare." to "One of his most influential works is a manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare." But when we move forward to http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=next&oldid=219865172, things get confusing. It looks to me as if the text in green on the right (Revision as of 20:16, 19 June 2008) indicates which paragraphs Lenerd has modified and what he has added or changed in these paragraphs is shown in red. However, since the quote he adds is a new paragraph that he creates, there is no red lettering in it. That is my best guess -- please share any insights you may have about the Diffs with me as I, too, find them very perplexing at times. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) As far as an editor being scared off as Lenerd may have been, I have been scared off and have not edited the article since before the FACR in April or whenever it was, except for this revert, which now I am very sorry about. So I fully understand how an editor could be scared off. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could write a message to User:Lenerd explaining that you think you perhaps over-reacted and hope he/she will return to continue editing? -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid to edit here myself so I am not going to encourage another editor to do what I am unwilling to do. I do not agree with the tenor of the article. For that reason I was prevented from editing the article in the past. I do not see the atmosphere becoming more inclusive here. So I will leave my opinion out from now on. I regret I have expressed what I have so far. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the matter of the paragraph we are going to replace --

Am I correct in concluding that we have reached consensus re the paragraph discussed in the preceding topic about CG meeting FCR, etc.? If so, which source should we use as a reference? I have the impression that there is a preference for Taibo; is this perception correct? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe so.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, RedThoreau. I will now make that change. Also, I will have to add the 2003 edition of the Taibo book to the "References" section as it is the one I am citing. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the Che Guevara off my watchlist. You two can do as you like. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, Castaneda, & Taibo II

Polaris (& any other interested editors) do you own/have access to all 3 of these books as I do ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, for me -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I have pretty much every book in print on Guevara (20 +) but these 3 would be a good place to start (I believe) on attempting to blend the 3 narratives of his life story - and possibly alleviate the "Anderson-centric" perspective that exists at present.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have Castaneda or Taibo. I have Anderson, Cormier and Gleijeses. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

the New variant of part After the revolution

The present version is based on those books whom Fontova fairly names hagiographes. All messages, adverse to the character, thus are unequivocally rejected as proceeding from enemies whereas the messages proceeding from it and its friends, are accepted non-critically. Taibo frankly expresses the despair to that for the description of last hours Che it has only testimony of its enemies, but it is quite happy, when it has only own diaries Che and stories of its adherents - differently, it recognizes, that wishes to write the book " Guevara eyes Guevara and its friends " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrandzi (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the existing text prominent aspects of work of Guevara on Cuba are not shown. I offer such variant. If in three days I shall not meet its given reason criticism, I insert it into an article. My inserts are allocated by a fat font. Also I would be grateful to the one who will correct my English, rather imperfect:

During the rebellion against Batista's dictatorship, the general command of the rebel army, led by Fidel Castro, "introduced into the liberated territories the 19th-century penal law commonly known as the Ley de la Sierra".[12] "This law included the death penalty for extremely serious crimes, whether perpetrated by the dictatorship or by supporters of the revolution. In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution. This latter extension, supported by the majority of the population, followed the same procedure as that seen in" the Nuremberg Trials held by the Allies after World War II.[13] However organized, Castro courts have been characterized by eyewitnesses as "sickening" parody having nothing in common with justice[14][15]Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)..[16] To implement this plan, Castro named Guevara commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, for a five-month tenure (January 2 through June 12, 1959).[17] Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[18] Serving in the post as "supreme prosecutor" on the appellate bench, Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal. Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.[19]

According to testimony by José Vilasuso, one of the participants of the tribunal, Guevara instructed judges:

Don't delay these trials. This is a revolution, the proofs are secondary. We have to proceed by conviction. They are a gang of criminals and murderers. Besides, remember that there is an Appeals Tribunals.[16]

An Appeals Tribunal supervised by Che, which did not cancel any verdict.[16]

Doctor Armando M. Lago has made the list 216 person, executed Che Gevara in 1957-1959, of them 164 in prison La Cabana; however he considers this list not exhaustive.[20] It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time.[21] [22][16] [23]

Exist recurring charges by those who claim to have witnessed Guevara's cruelty at La Cabaña. As on an example of such charges, Samuel Farber specifies memoirs of Pierre San Martin. San Martin accuses, that Guevara personally participated in executions, doing final shot in a head. He also declared, that Guevara on his eyes has with own hand executed approximately 14-year-old boy, whose fault consisted of trying to protect his father[21][24] Javier Arzuaga, the Basque chaplain in La Cabana, also mentions young boy Ariel Lima, 16 year-old. Che Guevara has refused to pardon it. In the same night the boy has been shot.[22] [25][26] On meeting with Romanian journalist Stephan Bacie, Guevara has kindly invited he to admire a show of execution; the shaken Romanian has written a poem: "I No Longer Sing of Che." .[27]

Meeting with French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in March 1960. Guevara was also fluent in French. [28]

On June 12, 1959, as soon as Guevara returned to Havana, Castro sent him out on a three-month tour of fourteen countries, most of them Bandung Pact members in Africa and Asia.

(...)

Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British Communist newspaper The Daily Worker a few weeks after the crisis, Guevara still fuming, stated that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off.[29] Sam Russell, the British correspondent who spoke to Guevara at the time came away with "mixed feelings", calling him "a warm character" and "clearly a man of great intelligence", but "crackers from the way he went on about the missiles."[30]

In 1960, Guevara founded the organization of concentration camp Guanahacabibes, which became the first concentration camp of the UMAP system (Cuban GULAG). To this camp were banished those who had not commited particular crimes, but nevertheless were considered «delinquent»: homosexuals, Jehovahs Witnesses, practitioners of secret Afro-Cuban religions such as Abakua, non-political rebels and other "elements, potentially dangerous to a society", which "were re-educated" by means of labor and the militarized discipline. Che Guevara said:

[We] only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail. (...) people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals, to a greater or lesser degree, along with simultaneous sanctions like being deprived of their posts, and in other cases not those sanctions, but rather to be reeducated through labor. It is hard labor, not brute labor, rather the working conditions are harsh but they are not brutal...

[15][22] [21]

As the head of National bank and minister of the industry, Guevara has not reached any obvious successes. Guevara’s deputy in the National Bank, Ernesto Betancourt, so has characterized a level of his competence of economy: “[He] was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.”[22] Guevara, being consecutive stalinist, was the supporter of extremely centralized, scheduled, state economy. He criticized Lenin for introduction of the New Economic policy supposing private manufacture and trade. He tried to eliminate absolutely mechanisms of the market from the Cuban economy. His idea consisted in industrialization of Cuba on the Soviet sample though Cuba had no neither raw material, nor financial resources for creation of the large-scale industry. For years when it supervised the industry of Cuba, the country saw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing[21].[22]

Sfrandzi (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ [example]
  2. ^ Spartacus School Net: Che Guevara
  3. ^ Spartacus School Net: Che Guevara
  4. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 93.
  5. ^ Anderson 1997, pp. 372, 425.
  6. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 376.
  7. ^ Revolución
  8. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 116).
  9. ^ Guevara also known as Che pg. 267
  10. ^ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00304.htm
  11. ^ Guevara also known as Che pg. 267 Revolución
  12. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 115. "The Penal Law of the War of Independence (July 28, 1896) was reinforced by Rule 1 of the Penal Regulations of the Rebel Army, approved in the Sierra Maestra February 21, 1958, and published in the army's official bulletin (Ley penal de Cuba en armas, 1959)" (Gómez Treto 1991, p. 123).
  13. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, pp. 115–116).
  14. ^ Humberto Fontova Castro, Not Pinochet, Is the Real Villain
  15. ^ a b The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Part 5, chapter 1 (Russian translation)
  16. ^ a b c d Executions at «La Cabaña» fortress under Ernesto «Ché» Guevara// Document written by José Vilasuso, a lawyer who worked under «Ché» in the preparation of indictments that often resulted in the death sentence during the first months of the Communist government in 1959. Montclair State University. College of Humanities and Social Scienties
  17. ^ Anderson 1997, pp. 372, 425.
  18. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 376.
  19. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 116).
  20. ^ Laro, Armando M (September 2005). ""216 Documented Victims of Che Guevara in Cuba: 1957 to 1959" (PDF). (24.8 KB)". Cuba: the Human Cost of Social Revolution. (Manuscript pending publication.) Summit, NJ: Free Society Project.
  21. ^ a b c d Samuel Farber The Resurrection of Che Guevara Cite error: The named reference "Farber" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  22. ^ a b c d e Alvaro Vargas Llosa. The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand// The New Republic July 11, 2005]
  23. ^ Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Anderson (1997) gives the number specifically at La Cabaña prison as fifty-five (p. 387.) while also stating that as a whole "several hundred people were officially tried and executed across Cuba" (p. 387.). This is supported by Lago who gives the figure as 216 documented executions across Cuba in two years.
  24. ^ see: Pierre San Martin. Letter to the Editor //El Nuevo Herald, 28.12.1997.
  25. ^ Transcripcion del Programa radial Magazine Cubano realizado el domingo 17 de diciembre de 2006 en el cual se entrevista a Javier Arzuaga, ex Sacerdote Franciscano y Capellan de la Prision La Cabaña durante la decada del sesenta, en La Habana, Cuba.
  26. ^ In list Armando F.Lago N78: Ariel Lima Lago (Minor) (Executed) 8-1-59.
  27. ^ Mario Lazo. Daga En El Corazon, Cuba Traicionada. Minerva, Madrid, 1972, p. 254
  28. ^ Dumur 1964 shows Che Guevara speaking French.
  29. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 545.
  30. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 545.

Comments

Thank you for putting your suggested edit on the talk page. I'll try to find time to comment on it as soon as I can. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Humberto Fontova is not an acceptable reliable source for this article per WP:RELIABLE (and yes I read his full book where he denounces anyone who admires Che as a "useful idiot" - he also misattributes this to Stalin ... always nice to see factual inaccuracies even in the title). This debate was already held and decided on. His work borders comedic and is replete with factual errors WP:NONSENSE, scurrilous unsourced accusations (sometimes he comically cites himself), and he is a ultra partisan editorialist.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally here is a past discussion we had on an obvious error with relation to Fontova's "research" Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 14#Humberto Fontova and Che not needing proof to execute it is but one of many (I am sure that Polaris and I could literally go page by page and display the poor scholarship of Fontova if need be.) Moreover, all of the biographies used in the article have gone through a peer review process by scholars in related fields. I can give you access to the academic journal articles for a particular book if interested. Fontova's "Exposing the Real Che and the useful idiots who idolize him" has never gone through such a vetting process (not surprising given that it would be laughed at by anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the subject at hand.)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Another issue is that there are literally 60 + books on Che Guevara that disagree with Humberto Fontova's "interpretation of reality". Nearly all of his more baseless and controversial proclamations have no other verifiable reference or source and his blog essays which make the rounds on Right-wing websites also are usually accompanied with very few sources (if any). Another tactic he shamelessly employs is to take an accepted fact about Guevara, and then lace it with a barrage of sophomoric insults and innuendo - unbecoming of anyone who would be utilized as a encyclopedic reference. He is literally the “textbook” epitome of violating WP:POV and is not considered one of the "main scholars and specialists on the issue." per wiki policy.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Redthoreau, would you please comment on the other sources Sfrandzi has introduced? I believe Sfrandzi is using five sources to support the new material: Llosa, which is already used as a reference in the article; Fontova, which you've commented on; and three other new ones: Farber, Cuellas and Vilasuso.
I've corrected English grammar in the above suggested text. I hope I didn't change the meaning. I will have comments on it later. I was not able to correct the grammar in these parts because I didn't understand them: "with own hand making coup de grace in a head" and "Any of these factorys and has started to work". Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Coppertwig, It appears that Sfrandzi has now attempted to switch the Humberto Fontova references to other sources. For those he has switched, I would need to be given web access to verify if in fact they do reside there, or if he/she is now merely claiming an alternative (difficult to locate) origin after the fact. To your question regarding the other sources ----- On the surface I would posit that Llosa (although far from objective in my opinion) would be an acceptable source as long as his claims have corroboration from a reliable second source (and no an article entitled: "Killing Machine" would not be acceptable, I would recommend using his book 'The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty' if anything). As for José Vilasuso my feelings are mixed. He is not mentioned at all by Anderson, Catsaneda, or Taibo the 3 primary biographers. I will have to conduct some research into where the verifiability of his proximity to the tribunals even comes from. Although I believe that a potentially disgruntled dissident's claims (which is what he appears to be) would be more than acceptable, I feel there would need to at least be some corroborating evidence to back up his claims which directly contradict the mountain of already existing evidence WP:UNDUE. Samuel Farber I would suggest is an acceptable source, although all he is being used to do in the above is to further corroborate the already accepted fact that a few hundred people were killed in the revolutionary tribunals. As for Jesus Hernandez Cuellas article for a small non established Cuban exile publication "Contacto Magazine" - those claims I would say need to be verified within established published sources/media.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ОК if Fontova causes objections (though in my opinion he is no more biassed, than many authors accepted by you) - we shall do without Fontova. I any more do not speak about such impartial and neutral academic source, as "Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice". Further. Farber - the unconditional authority, and Farber describes Guevara as consecutive stalinist, whose principle: «one has to constantly think on behalf of masses and not on behalf of individuals... It's criminal to think of individuals because the needs of the individual become completely weakened in the face of the needs of the human conglomeration."(I would advise to learn this phrase by heart to lovely young anarchists who imagine, that freedom for which struggled Che is freedom to smoke marihuana and to make love!). If it so it is necessary to recognize, that informed for example Vilasuso data are not something new both surprising and demanding special acknowledgement. On the contrary, they are natural and at all do not discredit Guevara from the point of view of his values. For ruthlessness to enemies and contempt for bourgeois prejudices, including in the field of justice - not defect, and virtue and absolutely necessary quality of the revolutionary - from the point of view of stalinists, natural. Sfrandzi (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sfrandzi, what is your native language? I ask because it is fairly difficult to understand what your trying to say much of the time (One option could also be for you to work on the Che Wikipedia article in your first language, as it would afford you the chance to clearly state your desired points). In reference to some of the sources which you have just added (it appears that every time I address your faulty sources, you add new ones, which unfortunately are just as bad) --- First to this college essay by Allison Aldrich I would hope that you would realize this is not an encyclopedia source. She cites nothing whatsoever! If I was her professor she would get an F. Also the "Collegiate Times" is not an established news source. I understand you are "itching" to have this "tale" of Che shooting a 14 year old boy included in the article (because it appears from your discombobulated "anarchist/pot/love" screed above, that I guess you believe he is in the incarnation of Stalin), but I have yet to see such a "story" contained in any reputable source, or by any scholar with any esteem or knowledge of the issue. Now one explanation for why this event is missing from the other 58 books written about Che Guevara, is because it never actually happened ... but then again from your previous comments I assume you would claim that Fidel has somehow tricked 95 % of the publishing world into only telling his account of events (sometimes I think Fidel detractors give him far too much credit).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
About 14-years boy. Primary source is specified: Pierre San Martin. Letter to the Editor // El Nuevo Herald, 28.12.1997. It – testimony by former prisoner of La-Cabana. Farber is in earnest to this document when writes: «This is an area which requires additional investigation, particularly in the light of recurring charges by those who claim to have witnessed Guevara's cruelty at La Cabaña. (a footnote: See, for example, the letter to the Editor of Pierre San Martin in El Nuevo Herald (Miami)», Further, indirect acknowledgement at Llosa. There as the testimony on execution of "the young boy " is resulted and even its name is named. It can be re-formulated as the not proved fact, as allegation and charges - in that case I trust you the corresponding formulation. Sfrandzi (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Sfrandzi, A Dec 28, 1997 Letter to the Editor at the El Nuevo Herald is not an encyclopedic source for the "story" of the killed 14 year old boy. This as you note seems to be the primary source for the claim, which was then echoed by others (including a college student in an uncited copy and paste essay). This does not meet the criteria for inclusion according to wiki policy WP:RELIABLE.
---> Note the policy that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:VERIFY

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
  • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
    Also see WP:SOURCE & WP:FRINGE

  Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Personally for me Che - the character from Dostoevsky's "Demons". In general the people similar Che Guevara, I have studied personally and I know very well. They can really seem interesting about charming. Until then while they will not come to authority and will not send you in concentration camp. And Stalin - only a special case of the general rule.Sfrandzi (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sfrandzi, Although your "self diagnosis" of Che as a character portrait out of Dostoevsky's "Demons" is interesting (In your words: "a charmer who will throw you in a concentration camp"), Wikipedia does not publish original research WP:OR.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK:

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
  • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.

See authoritative sources:

"His honesty (well, partial honesty) meant that he left written testimony of his cruelties, including the really ugly, though not the ugliest, stuff Guevara might have been enamored of his own death, but he was much more enamored of other people’s deaths. In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his “Message to the Tricontinental”: “hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.” His earlier writings are also peppered with this rhetorical and ideological violence. Although his former girlfriend Chichina Ferreyra doubts that the original version of the diaries of his motorcycle trip contains the observation that “I feel my nostrils dilate savoring the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy,” Guevara did share with Granado at that very young age this exclamation: “Revolution without firing a shot? You’re crazy.” At other times the young bohemian seemed unable to distinguish between the levity of death as a spectacle and the tragedy of a revolution’s victims. Guevara’s disposition when he traveled with Castro from Mexico to Cuba aboard the Granma is captured in a phrase in a letter to his wife that he penned on January 28, 1957, not long after disembarking, which was published in her book Ernesto: A Memoir of Che Guevara in Sierra Maestra: “Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty.” This mentality had been reinforced by his conviction that Arbenz had lost power because he had failed to execute his potential enemies. An earlier letter to his former girlfriend Tita Infante had observed that “if there had been some executions, the government would have maintained the capacity to return the blows.” It is hardly a surprise that during the armed struggle against Batista, and then after the triumphant entry into Havana, Guevara murdered or oversaw the executions in summary trials of scores of people—proven enemies, suspected enemies, and those who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.(...)At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture. But the “cold-blooded killing machine” did not show the full extent of his rigor until, immediately after the collapse of the Batista regime, Castro put him in charge of La Cabaña prison. (Castro had a clinically good eye for picking the right person to guard the revolution against infection.) (...)In a manner chillingly reminiscent of Lavrenti Beria, Guevara presided during the first half of 1959 over one of the darkest periods of the revolution. (...)We called him “the butcher” because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot. I pleaded many times with Che on behalf of prisoners. I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge."

"While much of the Left associates Stalinism with its Popular Front period, Guevara's Stalinism was of a different kind, much closer to the more aggressive, collectivizing variety of the late 20s and early 30s.(...) Guevara was personally responsible for supervising many of these repressive activities. (...)This is an area which requires additional investigation, particularly in the light of recurring charges by those who claim to have witnessed Guevara's cruelty at La Cabaña. (See, for example, the letter to the Editor of Pierre San Martin in El Nuevo Herald (Miami), December 28, 1997." – Sic!!!!! The authoritative source speaks: see this letter by San Martin, as Guevara has killed the 14-years-old boy!!!!! Sfrandzi)

"Era un monstruo de crueldad, absolutamente despiadado y desprovisto del mas minimo apice de compasion. En todo momento rechazo con indiferencia nuestras suplicas y exhortaciones en favor de muchas victimas inocentes de los infames "tribunales" revolucionarios. (...)Cuando el escritor rumano Stefan Bacie visito La Habana, el Che Guevara lo invito a presenciar un fusilamiento. Baciu se ha referido algunas veces a ese macabro invite, la ultima vez en su poema (...):me invito, mordiendo el puro entre los labios, como se invita a alguien a tomar un trado en la cantina, a acompañarlo para ver como se fusila en el paredon de La Cabaña."

  • Where surprising? Where the contradiction? On the contrary, very naturally and logically. The Killing Machine in operation. And there is a direct reference on a document which contains this history in an authoritative source. Which takes it seriously and considers necessary to investigate. Sfrandzi (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ОК, has made the basic reference on Farber Sfrandzi (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sfrandzi -- I apologize for the length, but his barrage of claims requires a lengthy refute.

Per Llosa ... he shows very poor scholarship right off the bat by quoting out of context Che's message to the Tricontinental. Above as you pasted he states:

"In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his “Message to the Tricontinental”: 'hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.'”

The actual quote by Guevara is - I am bolding the very next sentence that Llosa leaves out:

"Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy." "Message to the Tricontinental" by Che Guevara, Sent by Che Guevara from his jungle camp in Bolivia, to the Tricontinental solidarity organisation in Havana in the Spring of 1967, Published: April 16 1967.

Guevara here is clearly identifying that the enemy in his mind (The Imperialist United States) themselves are a brutal enemy, and thus the only way to repel such brutality is in fact to imitate it.
This is clear in the preceding paragraph before the famous "hatred statement" in the same letter. The paragraph before by Che Guevara is necessary to give the statement full context, it is as follows:

"It is absolutely just to avoid all useless sacrifices. Therefore, it is so important to clear up the real possibilities that dependent America may have of liberating itself through pacific means. For us, the solution to this question is quite clear: the present moment may or may not be the proper one for starting the struggle, but we cannot harbor any illusions, and we have no right to do so, that freedom can be obtained without fighting. And these battles shall not be mere street fights with stones against tear-gas bombs, or of pacific general strikes; neither shall it be the battle of a furious people destroying in two or three days the repressive scaffolds of the ruling oligarchies; the struggle shall be long, harsh, and its front shall be in the guerrilla's refuge, in the cities, in the homes of the fighters - where the repressive forces shall go seeking easy victims among their families — in the massacred rural population, in the villages or cities destroyed by the bombardments of the enemy.

They are pushing us into this struggle; there is no alternative: we must prepare it and we must decide to undertake it.

The beginnings will not be easy; they shall be extremely difficult. All the oligarchies' powers of repression, all their capacity for brutality and demagoguery will be placed at the service of their cause. Our mission, in the first hour, shall be to survive; later, we shall follow the perennial example of the guerrilla, carrying out armed propaganda (in the Vietnamese sense, that is, the bullets of propaganda, of the battles won or lost — but fought — against the enemy). The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

"Message to the Tricontinental" by Che Guevara, Sent by Che Guevara from his jungle camp in Bolivia, to the Tricontinental solidarity organisation in Havana in the Spring of 1967, Published: April 16 1967.

A few paragraphs before Guevara addresses why this “hatred” is necessary and to whom he is referring (in this context the U.S. soldiers occupying South Vietnam):

"We must not underrate our adversary; the U.S. soldier has technical capacity and is backed by weapons and resources of such magnitude that render him frightful. He lacks the essential ideological motivation which his bitterest enemies of today — the Vietnamese soldiers — have in the highest degree. We will only be able to overcome that army by undermining their morale — and this is accomplished by defeating it and causing it repeated sufferings.” "Message to the Tricontinental" by Che Guevara, Sent by Che Guevara from his jungle camp in Bolivia, to the Tricontinental solidarity organisation in Havana in the Spring of 1967, Published: April 16 1967.

Thus it is clearly evident here that what Llosa is doing for ideological (propaganda) purposes, is giving the quote removed from its context to imply that Guevara was merely preaching "unbending hatred" ... failing to mention that in fact in the letter, he is stating that peaceful resolution to in his eyes "the brutality of U.S. led imperialism" would be preferable, but that his side is being given no choice (he also references the Bay of Pigs invasion, U.S. violence in the Dominican Republic and Panama etc in the letter). Thus Guevara believes the only way to counteract the fact that his side in the struggle will be outmanned, outgunned, and outnumbered ... is to display the same sort of "brutality" that his enemy will also show. Very big difference in the grand scheme of things than Llosa points out.
And I could do this with most of Llosa’s partisan statements, which lack both context and historical placement in their relevance. Llosa clearly has no intention of studying Guevara to understand his actions and life through an objective lens, he clearly is only interested in declaring Guevara “homicidal” while conveniently ignoring the contextual violence and invasion of South Vietnam, which would by the end of the conflict lead to over 2,000,000 million civilian deaths in which Guevara is speaking. That was the context (whether you agree with it or not) that Guevara was speaking within ... not a random plea for hatred as Llosa so shamelessly displays it.
In the very next sentences he provides no context for Guevara’s statement in a letter of being “Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty.”
What Llosa conveniently fails to mention is the context of such a statement. At this time in January of 1957, Guevara and the others have landed in Cuba and had nearly all of their 82 initial fighters had been killed or executed. (Batista had an order of taking no prisoners, and those who surrendered were killed on the spot). He is speaking at this time after having been wounded himself, and after having watched 65 or so of his original 82 comrades killed either in battle or execution after capture. His letter is also in the context that he joined the expedition with hopes of being a doctor, but quickly saw that in order to survive he would need to switch to the role of a soldier. Thus yes he is honestly expressing that in a letter he is “alive and blood thirsty” and seeking revenge against those now trying to hunt him down and kill him (Batista’s troops). This is hardly the impression Llosa shamelessly paints in his writing, as it is devoid of all context of the situation the quote is referring to.
And this is just me addressing the first few sentences of the Llosa portion you mention. I could do this with all of the statements Llosa makes, which display a shockingly poor intellectual knowledge of the overall environment and historical context with which he purportedly pretends to speak with authority on.
As for a letter to the editor I have already pointed out how that will not be allowed on Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope, I have shown, that reliable sources accuse Che of cruelty and name Killing Mashin. In the rest I remind your words: Wikipedia does not publish original research WP:OR. As for a letter to the editor I have also already pointed, that I cite San Martin's letter not in itself, but that is why, that to this letter sends an reliable source - Farber, I cite in Farber's context. Thus, memoirs of the witness of events in any case are an reliable primary source of information:

Primary sources - writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic - may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose.

Sfrandzi (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No Sfrandzi, you have not shown reliable citation of this accused incident. There is no mention of it in the 3 primary biographies of Che Guevara (Anderson, Castaneda, and Taibo) nor is there mention of it the other 20 or so prominent books by respected biographers on Guevara. It is an accusation that's origin is a letter to the editor and that is unacceptable. Even Farber himself can not substantiate his accusations with a reliable source. Moreover, it's inclusion would also violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sfrandzi, I would also add that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "Original Research." Simply reading the already existing research and actual source for a quote, to judge pov, context, or undue weight IS necessary. Original Research would be if I went out and interviewed men who fought with Che and wanted to include my own unpublished transcript as a source. In order to accurately judge WP:WEIGHT one must understand the full body of literature on the subject, to do this one must "research" which is pivotal, but they are not allowed to include their own personal findings without matching them to an already existing credible source.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

Thank you for contributing suggestions, Sfrandzi. This article should talk about both good and bad things about Che Guevara. The balance of good and bad should be in the same proportions as in the reliable sources. Each part of this article needs to be very short because it talks about his whole life. There are many books about Che Guevara, and there is not enough room in this article for all the information. Some things that don't go in this article might go in another article. There are already many articles about Che Guevara at Wikipedia, for example Foco theory, and more can be written. I might write an article about Cuban aid to Africa. Each article should be from a neutral point of view. Some things might not be appropriate in any Wikipedia article.
I'm sorry, but I oppose most (22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)) your suggested edits. I think it's possible that adding a few, short bad things about Che Guevara may improve this article, if they're well-verified and notable.
You said that you agree with Fontova that certain books are "hagiographies". I don't agree. Gleijeses in his book "Conflicting Missions", a thoroughly researched book with 103 pages of footnotes, says "...American journalist Jon Lee Anderson and Mexican professor Jorge Castañeda, whose recent biographies of Guevara, based on extensive research, are the new standards." (p. 102) [1]The books say many things about Che: some good, some bad, many neutral. If we put in bad things, we have to put in good things too. Cormier mentions things like Che hugging lepers, giving free medical care during the Cuban guerrilla war to peasants who were impressed that they had been treated by Che himself, inspiring his soldiers, etc.[2] The proportion of good and bad things should be similar to what's in the reliable sources.
You say that these things are prominent. I think there are things that are more prominent. We mention the number of executions; I don't think we need to give details of individual executions. Many leaders of countries are involved directly or indirectly in a number of deaths, for example starting wars or declining to give pardons in cases of capital punishment; we don't usually go into detail about these when describing their lives. Instead, we can talk about things like Guevara's speeches at international meetings where, for example, he denounced the Soviet Union's policies; we can talk about Che's involvement in Cuba's giving medical and military aid to Africa.
I'm willing to accept Redthoreau's position that Fontova's book is not a reliable source to establish facts. I'm undecided about whether the book can still be used to establish the fact that this type of material is being written about Guevara; it depends partly on how notable the book is.
Re this sentence: "However organized, Castro courts have been characterized by eyewitnesses as "sickening" parody having nothing in common with justice." I'm not sure whether I understand "However organized". The first reference is Fontova, which we've decided not to use. The second is written in a language I can't read. You could give a quote from it and also translate the quote into English; but I don't know whether it's a reliable source, anyway – I don't know anything about it. The third and fourth references (Cuellas and Vilasuso) apparently don't contain the word "sickening". Therefore I would say that this sentence is unverified and can't be used – sorry.
Re this sentence: "According to testimony by José Vilasuso, one of the participants of the tribunal, Guevara instructed judges..." The source says nothing about instructing judges. It says that Vilasuso is a lawyer and that Guevara chastised "us all". I don't see anything very special about that quote. Che said many things, and there are many that it would be interesting to quote here, but there is only room for a very small number of quotes on this page. Maybe some quotes can go on other pages in Wikipedia, or at Wikiquote.
Re the sentence "Doctor Armando M. Lago has made the list 216 person, executed Che Gevara in 1957-1959, of them 164 in prison La Cabana; however he considers this list not exhaustive." I don't see that this adds anything important; the information is already contained as a summary in the next sentence, "It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time."
Re the 14-year-old boy: I don't see anywhere in the Farber reference where it says anything about that. Could you tell me which paragraph it's in or provide a short quote that I can search for? I think Redthoreau is right: a letter to the editor is not a reliable enough source for something like this, and if the other sources only cite the letter to the editor, then they don't add reliability to it, so this article should not state the information as fact. If a large number of sources discuss it, then this article can report it as something that is talked about (not necessarily as something that is true). However, I don't think it's notable enough to mention in this article.
Re the 16-year-old Ariel Lima: if this can be verified, then maybe the article could say "It is estimated that several hundred people, including a 16-year-old, were executed on Guevara's orders during this time." It's difficult to write this, because we don't know whether there were other 16-year-olds or younger people also executed; we can't say that there were and we can't say there weren't, so it's hard to find the right words. I think it's not very notable that a 16-year-old was executed. If it were a 10-year-old it would be more interesting. We would also have to verify it better. The first source is Llosa, whom Redthoreau says is biassed. The second source is in Spanish, which I can't read. The third source says " In list Armando F.Lago N78: Ariel Lima Lago (Minor) (Executed) 8-1-59." This doesn't look like a complete reference. Where was it published? I think we haven't verified the story about Ariel Lima.
I think we should probably mention the estimates of much larger numbers of executions (thousands), at least in a footnote.
Re "On meeting with Romanian journalist Stephan Bacie, Guevara has kindly invited he to admire a show of execution; the shaken Romanian has written a poem: "I No Longer Sing of Che."" The reference is in Spanish, which I can't read. You could provide a quote from the reference and translate it into English. But, I think this is not notable. Probably many people spoke with Che and wrote of how they reacted: I don't see why this one should be chosen to be quoted here. However, on the topic of Che allegedly enjoying killing: didn't someone say that Che wrote a letter to his father in which he said he enjoyed killing? (I forget where I saw that. Likely somewhere on these talk pages.) If that could be verified, I think that would be better evidence of Che enjoying killing than other people observing him, and that maybe we could quote that in this article.
Re Guanahacabibes: Anderson calls it a "rehabilitation camp" and says it was "voluntary", with the incentive of not losing your job after having done something wrong. If we mention it, perhaps we could present more than one point of view about it. However, we would need a good reliable source for the concentration camp point of view. The first source is in Russian; Redthoreau says Llosa is biassed; and Farber does not use the phrase "concentration camp" and doesn't seem to me to actually contradict Anderson's interpretation.
I think it would be interesting to include information about what happened to the Cuban economy while Guevara was minister of industry, but we would need better references. Farber doesn't mention "sugar" or "ration", and Llosa may be biassed.
Re Redthoreau's argument mentioning Vietnam: This quote from the CIA "Weekly Cuban Summary" as quoted by Gleijeses suggests why Vietnam is relevant: "The US air strikes in North Vietnam are particularly relevant to Cuba. The Cubans recognize that they themselves could well be subject to such US action..." (Mar. 3, 1965)
I hope you are not too discouraged by these comments. This article has had a couple of years of editing and a lot of discussion on the talk pages. People have already looked at it carefully many times. Any new edits have to be looked at carefully. Maybe there are reasons why that information isn't already in the article. Maybe after some discussion we can still make some small changes in the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis Coppertwig, which I agree with 100 %.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this edit for reasons I stated above. Sfrandzi, would you please revert your edit and discuss the things I said?☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and also strongly opposed what I deem to be irresponsible edits and thus have reverted them. They violate so many Wikipedia policies (not to mention the factual record) that I am not even sure where to begin. Sfrandzi's desired edits in my opinion violate WP:UNDUE (As you mention there are mountains of "positive" almost "messianic" personal stories from those who interacted with Che which would also need to be chronicled), WP:RELIABLE (none of his desired edits derive from any of the accepted scholarly works on Guevara, they all derive from blogs, or unpublished political internet essays), + WP:SOURCE, WP:FRINGE (The idea that Che went around blowing the head off of teenage boys is not an accepted view of any scholar that has researched his life and published about him (short of Fontova and his comedic sophomoric insult-laden screed), + WP:VERIFY.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Redthoreau, thank you for reverting Sfrandzi's edits. What do you think of this suggestion: "It is estimated that several hundred people, including a 16-year-old, were executed on Guevara's orders during this time." (or "including a minor"). What do you think of these references that Sfrandzi provided:[3] [4].[5] I don't really read Spanish, but I can understand it a bit and the Spanish one does seem to say that Ariel Lima was 16 years old. But, is it a reliable source? What do you think, Redthoreau? What about the list of people executed: is it a reliable source? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I believe that the original sentence is sufficient without mention of age. Several of the boys in Che's own units during the revolution were 15-16 years old - and at the time those ages were not culturally in that context seen as "minors" like under today's standards. I have seen several documentaries that interview many of the (now men) who fought under Che, who speak about how many teenagers from the cities flocked to join the revolution and were incorporated into July 26 as Guerrillas. Is it plausible that those under 18 years old were executed? Sure. Especially considering the fact that teens under 18 fought on both sides of the conflict. However, I do disagree with the impression Sfrandzi is trying to paint, by impugning the context of "killing children" - as even a 16 year old during this time in the late 1950’s, would have been and was seen as a man for all intents and purposes. Furthermore, I don’t find it relevant to go into undue weighted detail about each execution without full knowledge of the incident from reputable scholars. For instance, Che in his own diaries speaks about how he believed those soldiers of his that abused their power and raped peasants for instance, should be executed. I do believe that Che would have had no issue with the execution of teen rapists regardless of age (as that belief would have been consistent with his personal philosophy, and belief in the necessity of corporal punishment against those he deemed “war criminals” during a revolution.) As for the list that is hard to say as it isn’t clear whether these men died by Che’s hand personally (shot by him i.e. Eutimo Guerra, a traitor sentenced to death by Fidel during the war, that Che himself executed), executed on his orders (had a subordinate shoot them), executed after a tribunal where he handled the appeals (Anderson speaks of 55 of these instances at La Cabana), executed by a group of his soldiers (whom he was Comandante for) etc. I believe the actual list is hard to gage, but find the 180 or so number plausible and not that different from the 3 main biographers, hence why I have never objected to it's inclusion. However, this attempt by Sfrandzi to insert massive unreliable pov, I do object to.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, Redthoreau. The list indicates Ariel Lima as a "Minor", but it's not clear what standard is used to define minors for that purpose. Your answer sounds reasonable to me. As I said, if it had been a 10 year old it would have been more notable. I suppose it's better to just leave the sentence as it is. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and would note that the description of "minor" was added by Lago in the present, not by anyone back at the time of execution (which would be necessary to imply that in fact "minors", as they understood them in 1959, were subject to execution.)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
... and thank you for your hard work, Sfrandzi. I'm sorry none of your edits got into the article, and hope you won't be discouraged from making other suggestions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur and appreciate Sfrandzi's efforts, and even though I did not support the inclusion of Sfrandzi's suggested material, I hope that he/she will feel open to still offer suggestions - (ideally from some of the main biographers on Che - JLA, Castaneda, Taibo) as Lenerd has done, or from established print news sources. There are critical aspects of Che's life contained in the 3 main biographies, and I am open to possibly including more of them to counteract what some may perceive as an imbalance, but the source for negative attributions carries an ever greater importance than those mentioning positive or neutral aspects, and we must constantly be aware of undue weight.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Gleijeses, Piero (2002). Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa, 1959-1976. United States of America: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-5464-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Cormier, Jean (1995, 1997, 2002.). Che Guevara (Nouvelle édition augmentée. ed.). Editions du Rocher. ISBN 2 268 04302 9. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  3. ^ Laro, Armando M (September 2005). ""216 Documented Victims of Che Guevara in Cuba: 1957 to 1959" (PDF). (24.8 KB)". Cuba: the Human Cost of Social Revolution. (Manuscript pending publication.) Summit, NJ: Free Society Project..//N78, Ariel Lima Lago (Minor) (Executed) 8-1-59.
  4. ^ Alvaro Vargas Llosa. The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand// The New Republic July 11, 2005]
  5. ^ Transcripcion del Programa radial Magazine Cubano realizado el domingo 17 de diciembre de 2006 en el cual se entrevista a Javier Arzuaga, ex Sacerdote Franciscano y Capellan de la Prision La Cabaña durante la decada del sesenta, en La Habana, Cuba.

Connection to Obama

A portrait of Che Quevara appears on the wall of Barack Obama's campaign office in Houston. Angie Y. (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'll comment on Sfrandzi's material soon.) I reverted Angie Y.'s mention of a portrait of Guevara in Obama's office. No reference was given to verify it. From this news source, I get the impression that perhaps the portrait was a flag that was put up by one volunteer, not something put up by or approved of by Obama; therefore I think it's not notable and should not be mentioned. Also, as a statement about a living person (Obama), it may violate WP:BLP unless it's very solidly verified, so please discuss it on the talk page before re-inserting it. It may also be more appropriate on a different page and not very relevant to this page, which gives very brief summaries of various aspects of Che Guevara's life. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Angie Y., (1) It was not a portrait, it was a Cuban flag with Che's face on it. (2) It was not the wall of a Barack Obama Campaign Office. (3) It was the wall of an Obama volunteer’s office, that of Cuban-American Maria Isabel, who one could assume is an admirer of Che Guevara, a national hero to many Cubans who still reside on the island. (4) The Fox station who took the video has stated: "The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign." My Fox Houston. (5) Obama has also addressed the issue and called the flag "inappropriate" and "offensive to many Cuban-Americans" Obama Fact Check. (6) This is not notable WP:NOTE enough for inclusion on Che Guevara's article, and I doubt the editors at the Barack Obama article would also find it notable how one of the thousands of Obama campaign volunteers decides to decorate the office where they work. (7) However there is an acceptable mention of the event on the article Che Guevara in popular culture, as that article is an appropriate place for a NPOV description of the "incident" - (Must've been a slow news day).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, has no place in this article per Redthoreau.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ready to be looked at

Ernesto "Che" Guevara (June 14,[1] 1928 – October 9, 1967), commonly known as Che Guevara, El Che, or simply Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader. After his death, his stylized image became an ubiquitous countercultural symbol worldwide.

As a young medical student, Guevara travelled throughout Latin America and was transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed. His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution. This belief prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo Arbenz, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow solidified Guevara’s radical ideology.

Later, in Mexico, he met Fidel Castro and joined his 26th of July Movement. In December 1956, he was among the revolutionaries who invaded Cuba under Castro's leadership with the intention of overthrowing U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to Comandante, and played a pivotal role in the successful guerrilla campaign that deposed Batista.[2] Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara oversaw the appeals rendered from the revolutionary tribunals of convicted war criminals from the previous regime, presiding over none.[3] Later he served as minister of industry and president of the national bank, before traversing the globe as a diplomat to meet an array of world leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism. He was also a prolific writer and diarist, with one of his most influential works being a manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare. Guevara left Cuba in 1965 to incite revolutions first in an unsuccessful attempt in Congo-Kinshasa and then in Bolivia, where he was captured with the help of the CIA and executed.

AND

During the rebellion against Batista's dictatorship, the general command of the rebel army, led by Fidel Castro, "introduced into the liberated territories the 19th-century penal law commonly known as the Ley de la Sierra".[4] "This law included the death penalty for extremely serious crimes, whether perpetrated by the dictatorship or by supporters of the revolution. In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution. This latter extension, supported by the majority of the population, followed the same procedure as that seen in" the Nuremberg Trials held by the Allies after World War II.[5] To implement this plan, Castro named Guevara commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, for a five-month tenure (January 2 through June 12, 1959).[6] Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[7] Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña,[8] Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal.[9] Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.[10]A private nationwide survey showed 93 percent in favor of the trials and shootings.[11] Che reprimanded a group of militiamen who wanted to punish some informants who were still on the loose.

Neither you nor anyone else can take matters into his own hands. There are revolutionary tribunals. If anyone acts on his own behalf, I'll order him to be locked up and tried by a revolutionary tribunal, too.

— Che Guevara, January 1959 [12]

While Che was in favor of both Revolutionary Tribunals which were held at La Cabaña, the first one trying policemen and soldiers, the second (which did not pass death sentences) trying civilians, he did not sit on either tribunal only reviewed the appeals. The first was presided over by Miguel Ángel Duque de Estrada, and it did pass death sentences in some cases, at least two dozen that January.[13][14]


I couldn't get that qoute to wikify. (Lenerd (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

==Notes==
  1. ^ The date of birth recorded on his birth certificate was June 14, 1928, although one tertiary source, (Julia Constenla, quoted by Jon Lee Anderson), asserts that he was actually born on May 14 of that year. Constenla alleges that she was told by an unidentified astrologer that his mother, Celia de la Serna, was already pregnant when she and Ernesto Guevara Lynch were married and that the date on the birth certificate of their son was forged to make it appear that he was born a month later than the actual date to avoid scandal. (Anderson 1997, pp. 3, 769.)
  2. ^ "Castro's Brain" 1960.
  3. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  4. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 115. "The Penal Law of the War of Independence (July 28, 1896) was reinforced by Rule 1 of the Penal Regulations of the Rebel Army, approved in the Sierra Maestra February 21, 1958, and published in the army's official bulletin (Ley penal de Cuba en armas, 1959)" (Gómez Treto 1991, p. 123).
  5. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, pp. 115–116).
  6. ^ Anderson 1997, pp. 372, 425.
  7. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 376.
  8. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  9. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  10. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 116).
  11. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  12. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  13. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  14. ^ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00304.htm
==References==
Thank you very much for your suggestions, Lenerd. I hope you'll give me a few days to find time to look at them in detail. At first glance, though, I would say that perhaps at least some of these suggestions are not NPOV, but sound as if they're designed to argue that Guevara was a good person. We have to present the good and bad with proper balance, and present facts without leading the reader to conclusions. The reader should not get an impression that the writer had a certain point of view about Guevara. This is just a first impression; I still need to look at the references and think about it.
I wikified your quote; I think you had just forgotten the closing curly brackets, i.e. }}. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lenerd, I will also look over the proposed alterations. At first glance I believe that certain parts look reliable (especially the Taibo II) and relevant enough for inclusion (with slight wording alterations), other parts I find unnecessary and the sources possibly 'iffy'. I will propose a few parts for inclusion and then let yourself, Copper, and other editors weigh in on them. Thanks for your hard work.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as Redthoreau says, thanks for your hard work, Lenerd. More later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Lenerd I have carefully reviewed your proposed suggestions and devised what I believe would be an appropriately revised compilation for inclusion. I will include it here below for your own, Copper's, Polaris', and other editor’s perusal and comments/critiques. Of note I am removing your one web based source, and solely relying on your use of Taibo II. My proposed changes of yours are below and also in bold/underline as yours were above. Also I am not including all of the paragraphs you did; only those which contain a portion of changed material. Of note as well I have removed your direct quote by Guevara and placed it into the reference instead (they should be limited and there are more important direct quotes of his to be included if at all in the overall article) and I have shortened your emphasis on him not overseeing any tribunals. Unfortunately I know you wanted to dispute the use of “several hundred” for the executed number, however that is the terminology utilized by Jon Lee Anderson, and to be prudent we should probably go with the higher figure as it also corresponds to Lago’s findings – however I have removed his name from that exact sentence as it is unclear just how many of those several hundred were directly executed under Guevara’s watch.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendments of agreement with Lenerd by Redthoreau:

Later, in Mexico, he met Fidel Castro and joined his 26th of July Movement. In December 1956, he was among the revolutionaries who invaded Cuba under Castro's leadership with the intention of overthrowing U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to Comandante, and played a pivotal role in the successful guerrilla campaign that deposed Batista.[1] Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara oversaw the rendered appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals.[2] Later he served as minister of industry and president of the national bank, before traversing the globe as a diplomat to meet an array of world leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism.

AND

During the rebellion against Batista's dictatorship, the general command of the rebel army, led by Fidel Castro, "introduced into the liberated territories the 19th-century penal law commonly known as the Ley de la Sierra".[3] "This law included the death penalty for extremely serious crimes, whether perpetrated by the dictatorship or by supporters of the revolution. In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution. This latter extension, supported by the majority of the population, followed the same procedure as that seen in" the Nuremberg Trials held by the Allies after World War II.[4] To implement this plan, Castro named Guevara commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, for a five-month tenure (January 2 through June 12, 1959).[5] Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[6] Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted during the revolutionary tribunal process..[7] Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.[8] Guevara also shared this belief [9] as the desire for revenge against members of the vanquished dictatorship became more evident, with a nationwide survey showing 93 percent of Cuban citizens in favor of the tribunals and firing squads.[10] Although the exact numbers differ, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed during this time.[11]

==Notes==
  1. ^ "Castro's Brain" 1960.
  2. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  3. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 115. "The Penal Law of the War of Independence (July 28, 1896) was reinforced by Rule 1 of the Penal Regulations of the Rebel Army, approved in the Sierra Maestra February 21, 1958, and published in the army's official bulletin (Ley penal de Cuba en armas, 1959)" (Gómez Treto 1991, p. 123).
  4. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, pp. 115–116).
  5. ^ Anderson 1997, pp. 372, 425.
  6. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 376.
  7. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  8. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 116).
  9. ^ Che Guevara in January of 1959: "Neither you nor anyone else can take matters into his own hands. There are revolutionary tribunals. If anyone acts on his own behalf, I'll order him to be locked up and tried by a revolutionary tribunal, too." Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  10. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  11. ^ Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Anderson (1997) gives the number specifically at La Cabaña prison as fifty-five (p. 387.) while also stating that as a whole "several hundred people were officially tried and executed across Cuba" (p. 387.). This is supported by Lago who gives the figure as 216 documented executions across Cuba in two years.

  Redthoreau (talk) RT 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While this is obviously an improvement I still don't think it makes it clear that he was not judge, jury, and executioner which seems to be popular belief. Although this is a not the article for La Cabaña I think it should be emphasized that of the two tribunals held at La Cabaña, while Che was in command there, the one that tried civilians handed out no death sentences, and as for the other I have provided the name of the man, Miguel Ángel Duque de Estrada, who did pass out the many death sentences that Che is credited for. (Lenerd (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC))
Lenerd, a dilemma arises because of the fact that Estrada as quoted in Jon Lee Anderson pg 396-397 states that “Che always had a clear idea about the need ... to exact justice on those found to be war criminals.” Estrada goes on to say: “Che made the final decision on whether to order the execution of the accused.” Adding "Che consulted with me, but he was in charge and as military commander, his word was final." ---- Thus we have two differing accounts of Estrada’s role vis-à-vis Che’s when comparing Anderson & Taibo. It would be my recommendation to go with Anderson’s account (the more critical of the two) as he is sort of the “middle ground” ---- but I also am open to the comments by other editors, especially those whose judgment I trust, such as Coppertwig & hopefully Polaris on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as commander Che had the final say but it must be made clear that he didn't find them guilty. That was done by the tribunals. Even if you chose to go with Anderson on this issue Che's role in the executions was the same as a modern Governor of a United State. The tribunal past judgment and handed out the sentences, Che only had the power to suspend the sentencing. Do you feel that this is being made clear? (Lenerd (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
Lenerd, I see what you are saying, however I am going to give some time for other editors to weigh in.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. I don't have Taibo, but I glanced over the relevant part of Anderson. I think most of Redthoreau's version of Lenerd's additions is good.
I can't verify the bit about the 93% in the survey without access to Taibo. Do you have that book, Redthoreau? If not, it would be helpful if Lenerd could provide a quote from the book, just for us to look at on this talk page, about the survey, so we can see exactly what it says. Or is that talked about in another source?
In Lenerd's version, I'm not keen on the negative parts, i.e. "presided over none" and "did not sit on either tribunal". I don't think it makes sense to just talk about what didn't happen. It might make sense to present two points of view, for example to say something like "although it's widely believed that he presided over these tribunals directly, he was actually only on the appeals bench" or "some sources report him as being directly responsible for the decisions to execute, while others state that he only reviewed appeals", if they can be sourced properly and attributed properly. The opinion was expressed in the FA review that the article should discuss more than one side of disputed matters; however, stating only the negative would just look odd to a reader who hadn't heard the disputed claim.
I don't know what the word "rendered" means in "rendered appeals". Perhaps it can be deleted, unless it has some technical significance in legal terminology.
"Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña": This gives the impression that his primary duty as commander was to review the appeals. How about inserting after that phrase, "besides arranging for military and cultural education of soldiers" (based on Anderson 1997, p. 384-5).
"Guevara also shared this belief": the quote given in the footnote does not support this statement, in my opinion. In the quote, Guevara is telling citizens not to take matters into their own hands; he is not recommending official executions for the purpose of preventing citizens from taking matters into their own hands, as implied by Redthoreau's version.
I agree with taking Guevara's name out of the sentence about the numbers of people executed.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fidel launched a counterattack to the U.S. campaign in a speech he gave January 21 at the National Palace, comparing the crimes committed during the dictatorship with those judged at Nuremberg and asserting the people's right to see justice done and to carry out the executions. He asked for a show of hands: was justice being meted out to the torturers? According to Carlos Franqui, who was editor of Revolución at the time: "Fidel's question was answered by an overwhelming 'Yes!' A private nationwide survey showed 93 percent in favor of the trials and shootings." Che was present at the gathering, but took no part in the demonstration. At the same time, his journalist friends and other Latin American professionals began "Operation Truth" to counteract U.S. statements.

— Paco Iganacio Taibo II's Guevara also known as Che, pg. 266/7

(Lenerd (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you very much for providing the quote, Lenerd. That supports the suggested statement about the survey. However, could you clarify what book it's from? Above, you give a footnote to "Taibo 2003", which I think is supposed to mean this book: "Taibo, Paco Ignacio II (2003). Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che: Nueva edición definitiva, corregida y actualizada. México, D.F.: Editorial Planeta. ISBN 970-690-981-8.", which is presumably in Spanish. Is this quote from a published English translation of the book? Currently the Spanish version of the book is listed in the references list in the article. I wonder whether we should cite the English translation instead, for the convenience of readers who don't speak Spanish. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources don't seem completely clear on that point to me. It may depend on the quality of the translation.
A similar scene with the crowd yelling "Noooo!" and "Yeeees!" (translated) to questions by prosecutor Dr. Fernando Aragoneses Cruz is described in Anderson 1997 p. 388–389. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice work Lenerd on digging up that passage. I agree Copper that we should use the same statement in the English version of the same book: "Guevara: Also Known As Che" (I have this book and can find the page number if needed). Furthermore, we should also probably make note of Anderson's mention of the matter. So Copper would you like to make the next proposal now of how to word it, or would you like me to? Also maybe one of us should go ahead and make the edits in the article, and then the rest can tweak those as they see fit?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm kindof busy editing another page, so how about if you come up with suggested wording. Note that the scene in Anderson seems to be a different event I think, though supporting the same idea that the people wanted the executions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the English book titles, Redthoreau. I encourage you to go ahead and put some of the above suggested edits into the article – or suggest another version here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Copper. I'll insert his proposed edits in the next day or so, and look forward to your/his refinements/suggestions.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Copper & Lenerd, I have added 1 , 2 , 3 --- those previously discussed revisions proposed by Lenerd and amended by myself and Copper. In the process of inclusion, I have also utilized a reference not discussed previously, but one with content I deem to be beneficial to the overall account of events. That would be the recently translated and released "Che Guevara", by German historian Frank Niess, Haus Publishers Ltd, ISBN 1904341993. You can access the book here and review the pages 60-61 that I relied on for the additional content. I hope these edits reflect the overall previous consensus of both of you, however please let me know if they do not. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentences in First Paragraph

"Both notorious for his harsh discipline and revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines, Guevara remains an admired, controversial, and significant historical figure. As a result of his death and romantic visage, along with his invocation to armed class struggle and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives [4]" The whole thing seems pretty biased. Also the second sentence is a fragment. The page is locked so I can't edit it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.193.251 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1) You cut off the remaining part of the second sentence. 2) What exactly do you find bias about it? 3)How do you believe would be a less biased way to express those sentiments? 4. Realize that you yourself may be bias as well, and thus read those sentences with your own "lense".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling under the Bolivia section?

There seems to be a misspelling under the Bolivia section of the article. This is something relatively minor, and I could be out of my element, so delete this if necessarry. The sentence in question is...

"Guevara's plan for fomenting revolution in Bolivia..."

Is "fomenting" supposed to be "fermenting"? Either way, its purely an asthetic thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.106.206 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

I think it's OK to have the flags. WP:MOSFLAG says flags should not be used to indicate where a person was born or died, because it might give a misleading impression about their nationality. However, these flags are not there to indicate where he was born and died, but to indicate his nationality. (Argentina and Cuba. I assume he was considered a Cuban citizen? Anyway, he was a leader of Cuba, so the country is very relevant to him.). Possibly the names of the countries and the reasons those countries are there should be indicated. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and would even add that I think country names are unnecessary. Anyone who clicks on the flag will see what country it represents.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Haven't we already had this discussion above? Taifarious1 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

a small improvement

There is a paragraph with the following sentence: Early on October 9, the day after his capture, Barrientos ordered that he be killed. This needs to be changed to include the complete name of René Barrientos and also a quick description of the fact that he was the then president of Bolivia (or whatever he was). The reason I say this is because when I was reading the article, it just mentions "Barrientos" and I was like, who the hell is he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoman (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for the suggestion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

raul gomez treto

In one place you mention that this person is a "senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice," in two others you just cite him as though he's a neutral or reliable source (He's not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.69.205 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is stated who he is and then up to the reader to gage the credibility of a legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice. What evidence/basis do you have to place his reliability into question? (Other than the obvious "He works for the Cuban govt" which would not be sufficent).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Llosa

Here's another thing. Vargas Llosa is full of strong criticisms for Che, laid out in detail. If you're going to cite him, why would you attribute to him a mild criticism that's relegated to one parenthetical comment in his essay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.69.205 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are scores of both Pro & Anti-Che comments that could be listed (enough to make several articles). However if the article outlined the numerous criticisms of Llosa (himself not a neutral source) then to prevent WP:Undue Weight we would have to outline the numerous positive statements by others (which are vastly more numerous). Which one phrase from Llosa's article do you feel would be more beneficial to the reader, than the aformentioned one? Maybe they could be switched out.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
llosa is a cia stooge. a imperialista puppet. he makes money by helping america rape latin america with his corrupt independen institute. nobody in latino america believes anything he has to say. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
* * * * *


Comment

Che Guevara wasnt just a two dimetional image printed on a t-shirt he was a real person a person with ideas, ideas that went against American imperialism to make the world one again not just tawn apart by capitalism and communism by America and Russia who have the power to destroy the world while Che created a communist country in the western hemisphere Cuba which wasnt his country but knew that armed struggle worked against a repressive government. Che a man so against capitalism would hate his image sold especially by the Americans who had him killed and then used his image to their own advantage thinking he and his ideas died in 1967 the Americans then revel in their evil deed all they did was kill a man not his ideas. People who are against Che are either an impeialist of the worst kind or ignorent propaganda the Americans have made up against him to secure world wide hatred but failed the images that support Che outnumber those of anti-Che his image used for anti-war protests during the Vietnam era Americas own people turned against the government who waged war in a country they couldnt possibly understand. His image used by such guerrilla forces as the EZLN who combine a classic revolutionary hero with modern day things like the internet other so called guerrilla forces who are not worthy to use his image do like the FARC who's bussiness is drug trafficking and kidnapping, relying on drugs to finance them when it should be the people who give support and money. Now more than ever in the 21st century people need to be more selfless like Che and stand up against the Anericans with armed revolution. ---matt suter--- 22 august 2008 82.69.30.7

Matt, I'm not exactly sure what critique of the article you are making (or if you are even making one at all), but I would note that an article's talk page - is not a discussion forum to air one's personal views without reference to editing the article in question.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personality and leadership style

This article is quite good and very well cited... one suggestion, there isn't much on Guevara's personality or leadership style aside from the mention that was "ruthless". In Ramonez's "Fidel Castro: My Life", Castro describes Che as an exemplary leader, having "great moral authority over his troops", "very daring", the first to sign up for dangerous missions, but also that he "took too many risks", and had a "tendency toward foolhardiness". In fact, Castro says later he assigned Guevara to the recruits' school, so that he would survive the war, because Castro needed good leaders for when the revolution was won. Any opinions on whether these details might be relevant here? I think they are; I just want some feedback before I go barging in editing what is quite a refined article already... Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Go for it: as long as your edits are cited and NPOV: i.e. sometimes you may need to present more than one viewpoint for balance. If you're doing extensive edits it may be a good idea to present the proposed edits in more detail here on the talk page first, for discussion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - I won't make it too extensive an edit since this is only Castro's opinion... If others add different sources later maybe it would justify a new section someday. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Zatoichi, sounds like a worthy addition. Feel free to include those aspects, and be sure to cite/attribute them properly.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I added two sentences in the Cuba section, it seemed like a good place since it's directly after some anecdotes about Guevara. I didn't add the bit about Fidel sending Che away for the last offensive, since it contradicts the Battle of Las Mercedes page which says he did command a column for Batista's offensive. I'm not really versed enough on the topic to know which is right so I'll err on the side of caution. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Eva Peron article?

I'm one of the primary editors of the article on Eva Peron. An editor suggested that I attempt to use this article on on Che Guevara as an inspiration for the Eva Peron article. I was wondering if anyone here has any suggestions for improving the article on Eva Peron. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

che one of the gratest man in history. brave , smart . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.185.184 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, the article appears to be compiled fairly well. I am not sure what advice you may be seeking.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I suppose I'm just looking for anything anyone may have to say about how to improve the article. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"physician"?

Hello. I'm hoping this is the place to propose clarity re. Guevara. The article describes him as a physician. Yet I was under the impression that Mr. Guevara did not proceed beyond medical school to certification and practice of medicine. Is this not like referring to a law school graduate as a lawyer? Thanks Eggioto (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He practiced medicine. I don't remember what kind of certification he had. There might be something somewhere in the talk page archives about it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Guevara attended Medical school at the University of Buenos Aires and was certified as a medic. Some sources claim he completed a thesis receiving the title of "Dr." as well, although this belief is not universally held amongst biographers. Guevara also worked for a time at a leper colony and later briefly taught on the medical faculty (according to some sources) in Mexico City before the Cuban revolution. Moreover, Guevara's primary job and reason for being on the Granma, is because he was assigned to be the medic of Castro's Guerrilla forces. There are also countless accounts from numerous sources of instances when he treated wounded men (as a physician) in the course and aftermath of battles. Later Guevara would address medical students in Havana under the title of "Dr. Guevara" and often was recognized by this title (although I don't believe that a specific diploma has been located proving he reached the status of a M.D., as the University of Buenos Aries claims that documentation was somehow stolen.) Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Guevara served in many aspects as a physician.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the upshot is that he was trained as a medic, practiced medicine, and referred to himself and was referred to as Dr. Guevara? On the basis of that Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, refers to Mr. Guevara uncritically as a medical doctor? Not trying to be a smart ass here. But this is what I meant by proposing clarity. There is no evidence that Mr. Guevara got beyond the limited medical training of medic. It was my understanding before I read the article that medic was precisely what he achieved at the U. of B.A. I believe he had years of medical training yet to go before he could sit for certification, when he left the University. If he did complete the University's full course of study for an aspiring physician, then would he not have had to take certification exams, complete a residency, etc.? I can't imagine that all records of such were also stolen. And if they were, what about witnesses to such? Given the lack of evidence that he was educated, certified, or licensed as a 'physician,' shouldn't the article on Mr. Guevara be stripped of the title or salutation, 'Dr.'? There is no shame in Medic Guevara. Medics practice medicine. So do nurses, certain therapists, native healers, etc. But they are not doctors.

Thank you, Eggioto Eggioto (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Guevara's attempts to obtain a medical internship were unsuccessful". It also says he planned to be the group's "medic". Maybe it's OK. Maybe "physician" is sufficiently vague. Maybe it could be replaced with "medic" or "medical practitioner" or something. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that "physician" carries the explicit implication that he achieved a M.D. He did work as a physician in several aspects (including a war), regardless of his medical credentials. I feel the current wording is appropriate, but am open to other suggestions or concensus.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?

SandyGeorgia said "This article is in such need of massive amounts of MoS cleanup that it should have a cleanup tag, but I won't do that.". Would anyone who knows what cleanup is needed please tell us so we can fix it? Thanks. Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled about the use of "massive", but do recognize that some of the reference footnotes need to be formatted correctly. Coppertwig, you were excellent at doing this before, would you be willing to lend your efforts again for the few remaining instances still in need ??? (as you are much better at it than me)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Of note as well, I hope that Sandy will give us specifics, as occasionally in the past she has briefly 'appeared' to lend broad (almost-cryptic) critiques, only to disappear when I have requested specifics. I would imagine that is because she is very busy with a lot on her plate, but can’t give a reason with certainty.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia has provided some good specifics here. Yes, I'll have a look at the references. Feel free to remind me if I haven't done it by next weekend. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Is it OK if I use templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} to format the references? I find that these templates make it easier: you just put in the title, author etc. and the template decides what should be in italics, whether to separate items with a period or a comma, etc. I had thought SandyGeorgia opposed using these, but apparently that was a misunderstanding. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support whichever formatting you feel is best. Personally, I like the way you organized them before and how they currently stand (except for those recent additions).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please format references like this:

Easy way (if you find it too confusing to put in the links and everything):

  • Check whether the source is already listed in the References section.
  • If not, add it to that section. Begin with an asterisk at the beginning of the line. Don't worry about adding <cite> tags or {{cite book}} templates etc. if you find that too difficult; just list all the bibliographic information.
  • In the body of the text, just put something like this: <ref>Anderson 1997, p. 43</ref> or <ref>Anderson 1997, pp. 43–47</ref> .
  • Optionally, put a note here on the talk page or on my talk page and I'll put the links in. If you format it as described above, that will be easy for me. I think it's almost as good without the links anyway: the reader can still find the source listed in the References section.

More advanced way

  • Follow all the steps above.
  • The link from the Notes section to the References section needs a unique identifier. It could be anything, but the convention here is to use the letters "ref", followed by the author and year, e.g. "refAnderson1997".
  • The item in the References section should have the id in cite tags. <cite id=refAnderson1997> at the beginning of the item, and </cite> at the end of the item.
  • Within the ref tags, (or anywhere else you want to put a link into the References section), just replace "Anderson 1997" (for example) with "[[#refAnderson1997|Anderson 1997]]". The id after the # symbol here must match the id defined in the cite tag in the References section.

Thanks.

By the way, a problem: the book by H.B. Ryan (The Fall of Che Guevara) has been cited as being published in 1998 in one place, and in 1999 in another place. Perhaps two different editions of the book have been used? If so, the page numbers could be different in the different editions. Perhaps someone with access to at least one edition of the book can re-check it so that we can cite only one edition of the book, with page numbers correct for that edition. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Journalists

The article does not mention that Che followed the post-revolutionary doctrine in Cuba which included the "re-education" of homosexuals and critical journalists. I am sorry if this has been brought up before. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A few things in relation to this comment. (1) “Followed” is a vague term with reference to what exact role you are accusing Che of having. (2) It is not mentioned in the article; because “re-education” camps did not exist in the way you state them. (3) What did exist were UMAP (Units for Military Aid and Production) camps, which were a result of mandatory military conscription being implemented for all Cuban males after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. As a result of the unfortunate prevailing ‘machismo’ of 1960’s Cuba, homosexual men were not allowed to serve in the military (of note this discriminatory policy still exists in the United States, although no longer in Cuba). To complete their mandatory military service, homosexual men were conscripted into producing military equipment and supplies as part of their requirements for citizenship in the post revolutionary period (under the belief --- justifiable or not --- that Cuba was an ‘island under siege’ by the World’s superpower 90 miles away). However, there were not policies that attempted to "cure” or “re-educate” them in reference to their homosexual lifestyle, that I am aware of. (4) None of the 3 major Guevara biographies make the accusation that you are alluding to that I am aware of (if they do, then yes we should absolutely include them), and the only ‘sources’ (I use this term loosely) that do, are very questionable in reliability, scholarship, and objectivity ... not to mention in direct contradiction to the prevailing preponderance of the evidence. (5) As for “critical journalists”, yes many of them were arrested or charged with “counter-revolutionary activity” after the revolution (with many being rightly-or-wrongly accused and convicted as working for the CIA etc), however this policy was not implemented by Guevara, and would belong in the article addressing Fidel Castro (who would have had the final say on such a decision) or the article addressing human rights in Cuba etc. (6) Nevertheless, I would be willing to look at whatever evidence you have to substantiate the above claim in relation to Guevara (please include it below), and am not averse to its inclusion if it can be reliably sourced.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
homosexual lie is a cia myth. spread by the oligarchs who fled to miami after che came to power and gave the people justice. all men in cuba had to serve fighting or making weapons to keep the yanqui invaders from killing the revolucion like they did with arbenz, allende, mossadeq for example. yes che was not fond of gay people but many latinos in 1950 were not. times have changed with views on maricons. however che did not use camps for gays they were bases for weapon producing. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that thoreau obviously knows a great deal more about this than I do. Though if it is true that Che helped back an anti-homosexual policy shouldnt that be noted somewhere? - Indeed, one might argue that this is only marginal, but just like views on anti-semitism have changed, so have views on homosexuals and WIKI includes much of such "maginal" infomation on a long row of historical personæ 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 87, if you have a reliable source chronicling Guevara's support of anti-homosexual policy, then please include it here for possible inclusion. The only statement I am aware of Guevara making, that could even be seen as remotely relevant to homosexuality/heterosexuality was during a June 26 1962 interview, Che stated something to the effect of “I don’t drink, I smoke. I would cease to be a man if I didn’t like women.” (see Che Handbook, pg 258). This sort of “machismo” and “bravado” was certainly prevalent amongst many of the “Barbudos” during the Cuban revolution of the 1950’s, but I am not convinced it would necessitate a direct desire for incarceration/official discrimination of homosexuals.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that quote would justify as anti-homosexual, nor do I think it would be relevant to include such a criticism on the basis of such an off handed remark. What I am talking about is rather the fact that Che supposedly aided in the execution of Castro-ian policies which supposedly included the internation of homosexuals, critical journalists etc. without free trials. - To the extent that this is true, I certainly think it should be stated in a brief criticism section in order to incorporate a more balanced PoW. --- While I have no part in the person-centered struggles that seem to be taking place over this article, I *do* agree with the other poster that a criticism section is sorely missing. Unsigned
To address the unsigned comment above. These "supposed" incarcerations are not chronicled or verified in reliable sources and hence they are not included. If you have a reliable source that includes such a charge that implicates Che, then by all means please include it and we can weigh it against the overall evidence. However, the only sources I am aware that make such a claim are "comical" in their credibility and resemble little of the overall historical record. As for a "criticism" section ... one was included in the past, but it was later moved over into the article on "Legacy of Che Guevara". Some of the prevailing reasons for such a move were the articles length, and the fact that a criticism section would also have to include a "praise" section to prevent WP:Undue weight, with the "praise" section most likely ending up being much larger in size (because there are at least 15 Pro-Che books or essays for every Anti-Che book or essay) and I know because I own all 50 + of them.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Short straw

there is, for me, some confusion in the execution section. my general understanding of the 'drawing of straws' paradigm is that it is to select someone to do something dangerous, difficult or generally disagreeable and undesirable, with the one drawing the short straw being chosen. while that is nowhere certain,that is the connotation i have always taken from it. this then creates the impression that the soldiers were trying to avoid being the one designated.is that the meaning intended? or is it meant here to say that the one who drew the short straw got a much favoured assignment? that is what i would take from the subsequent sentences, re the watch for example. clarification please. perhaps changing it to 'by lot' or something to that effect.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

worldwide hero, saint, icon

i think this page does a good job of showing how the heroico el che is seen as equal to a god by many many people. however there are a few parts that i think are to negative and are probebly made up by the cia or those miami mafia gusanos who hate the heroic el che. editors please be on the look out for cia misinformation. it would be a shame to see wikipedia allow ches killers to also smear him with lies after his murder. in latin america where i am from el che is seen as second only to jesus and to some people who don't believe che is seen as better than jesus. i am in this category and pray to him as a saint. sorry for my english being bad. but overall very good article and you must have had help from some latino americans because gringos usually dont know the real hero che. hasta la victoria siempre !!!! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly respect your right to sanctify whomever you want, but would add that all human beings are flawed, and that it is not our job to enshrine anyone with their wikipedia entry ... but rather to chronicle the views of experts and reliable sources on the person/issue in question (if those views were entirely of a “saintly” nature, then that is how the article would read). The article does give a brief mention to the “Saint-hood” phenomenon you mention in the appropriate legacy section of the article, but any further elaboration in the article would in my view be unwarranted. As for "CIA misinformation", if you have a specific accusation, I am sure editors would be happy to look into it; however it is not enough to simply label all criticism of Guevara as the work of the CIA.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Will be a shame if English Wikipedia state this. Only not Anti-USA and Anti-Capitalism, Che was a terrorist murderer and also a coward for avoid Brazil borders and face real combat with real soldiers. --201.79.253.124 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
IP 201, I will reiterate what I have in the past for both pro and anti Che comments. This forum is not a message board, or a discussion forum to simply air one's beliefs on Che Guevara (although I respect your right to view him however you wish). This page and article are for discussing issues in relation to the article, and drive-by swipes only lead to a deterioration of the page into a squabble of "hero" vs. "terrorist" which is exactly what we don't need.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving dormant and completed discussions

Completed discussions from May 24 - Aug 22 2008 on this talk page have been moved to Archive 18       Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism?

A European newspaper carried an op-ed today where the author quotes the Motorcycle Diaries for this: "The black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink." - Is it true? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IP 90, your statement seems to possess 1 direct question (Q1) Did Che ever make such a statement? & another inherent question based off of the title (Q2) Was Che thus racist against blacks? I will address both of them to the best of my ability and encourage others to weigh in as well if they have further insight.
(Q1) First, yes a 24 year old Che did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952, during his continental trip which would later be entitled and encompassed in his 150 + page memoir “The Motorcycle Diaries”. The full context of this statement (which is removed from its full context in the Op Ed page it seems) is addressed by biographer Jon Lee Anderson on page 92 of “Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.” According to Anderson, Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado had just arrived in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, which at this time was “swollen with migrants” as a result of the nation’s oil boom. As a result the hillsides were draped with “squalid worker slums” comprised of a mostly Afro-Hispanic (black) population. Anderson goes on to state how Guevara up to that point, except for a few brief instances in his life, had never “been around black people” (which were a rarity in his native Argentina) especially for someone of Che’s economic class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local “barrio” (slum) made an written "observation" that Anderson states was “reflective” of the “arrogance and condescension” of a “stereotypical white Argentinean.” The full diary passage that Anderson includes is as follows:
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations.”
A few things of importance in reference to this observational passage. (1) Inclusion of this “observation” would be more applicable to the article “The Motorcycle Diaries” (if anywhere). (2) Anderson notes two pages later how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time, directly after he made this observation, Guevara complained to friends about “white discrimination against blacks” that he witnessed. Thus it is somewhat unclear how Guevara viewed blacks in relation to equality of treatment, although yes he made a statement that I would deem “offensive” in many aspects months earlier. (3) At the end of Guevara’s journey 3 months later, he states that he “is not the man he once was” and declares himself a transformed individual. Thus it is not clear if Guevara’s views on blacks were altered in that short amount of time based on his trip or how much longer he continued to hold this “observation” on blacks.
What is known about the later revolutionary Che Guevara, which I believe addresses question 2 (Q2) are the following points. In reference to “was Che racist against blacks?” – it would obviously depend on what time in his life you are speaking in reference to. Up until age 24, one might be able to state that indeed he was, although his biographers do not expressively do so. What we do know about his later life once he became “Che” 4 years later is the following. (1) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the United States. (2) Che's friend and personal bodyguard (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks glowingly of Guevara to this day. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964, he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S. (which still unfortunately existed), and against the white South African apartheid regime (long before it became the Western 'cause de jour'). (4) Che was also heralded by Malcolm X during this trip to NY and in contact with his associates to whom he sent a letter. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of mostly all Afro-Cubans (blacks) including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique, for their independence from the white South African apartheid regime.
Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still “been racist against blacks?” I guess so, but these actions especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate and offensive early “observation” by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che. Now is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I don’t believe so. However, it may be worthy of inclusion in The Motorcycle Diaries article, if presented in the appropriate context. I hope this addresses your question IP 90, and apologize for the length.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One sided

I can only find one paragraph that criticizes Che in this entire article. It's the second to last paragraph, and quotes a journalist who is self-described as left of center. I find it.... difficult to believe that there are no better critics to be found, and none who are right-of-center.

I'm not suggesting there be a section specific to criticism. If you look at a page of an easily-criticized person like George W. Bush, you find criticism in pretty much every section. I find the Bush article to be a good example of how to handle this: it's not about quoting the critics but rather stating the specifics of disagreements in conjunction with the actions that were criticized.

Secondly, this is supposed to be an article about a person. We learn that he was born and raised. After that there is almost zero information about his life and loves. It's just "here are all the heroic things he did." With one exception: he apparently has to get a divorce before remarrying, which is interesting in that nowhere did it previously mention his marriage, and nowhere again does the article mention his spouse.

This is the best-written article I've ever read which is entirely non-neutral. -- Cjensen (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cjensen (nice to meet you), with all due respect I would disagree with your first contention about a lack of criticism. After looking through the article I note at least 18 negative/critical/unflattering statements with regard to Che Guevara. They include: (1) calling his ideology "radical" (2) Noting he is "controversial" (3) Mention that he has been "occasionally reviled" (4) Note that as a youth "he rarely bathed" (5) Description of his discipline as "harsh" (6 & 7) Mention that he punished deserters as traitors and sent execution squads to hunt them down. (8 & 9) Mention that he was "feared for brutality and ruthlessness" and personally "responsible for execution of a number of men" (10) Note that several hundred people were executed at La Cabana on cases where he reviewed the appeals (11) Mention that he accidentally shot himself when his gun dropped (12) Description of him as “crackers” on his desire to have fired nukes at NYC during Cuban missile crisis (13) Inclusion of his take that the Congo was a “history of a failure” (14) Description of him as a "spokesman for a failed ideology and as a ruthless executioner" (15) "Not a free-floating icon of rebellion" (16) "Person who supported an actual system of tyranny" (17) Mention that Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years & (18) Note than he also remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as "the butcher of La Cabaña. How many more negative or critical descriptions would you like? Certainly if you have others and a reliable source for them, we can weigh them against the prevailing evidence for possible inclusion.
As for your second point about the article lacking “personal anecdotes”, I actually agree and would be more than happy to look up additional points of interest for inclusion about Che the man.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The whole article push Che as icon and hero. Cannot understand why American Wikipedian allow this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.222.228 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 201, first this is not "American Wikipedia", it is simply the English language version of Guevara's article ... and any person, from any country that can type in English, is free to register and help improve the article or suggest edits here as you have. Secondly, nothing is being "allowed" ... inclusion of material is based off of editor consensus, and the overall weighted WP:Undue evidence of material by reliable Che biographers, news sources etc. You are obviously free to hold the view that the article presents Che as an “icon” or “hero”, but that is only because many of the reliable sources make the observation that to many people he is an “icon” or “hero”. However, the article also includes many of the less flattering aspects of Che’s life & character, along with the fact that to others he is a “ruthless executioner”, “spokesman for a failed ideology”, "buthcher", and “supported an actual system of tyranny” --- all of which are noted in the article.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Che's children

For any editor willing to integrate these items, here's my translation of certain family dates from the Spanish Wikipedia:

Married Hilda Gadea, 18 August 1955
Daughter Hilda Beatriz Guevara Gadea born 15 February 1956, died 1995.
Married Aleida March Torres (a member of the July 26th movement) in Havana 9 June 1959
Daughter: Aleida Guevara March, 17 November 1960
Son: Camilo Guevara March, 20 May 1962
Daughter: Celia Guevara March, 14 June 1963
Son: Ernesto Guevara March, 24 February 1965
Affair: Lidia Rosa López
Son: Omar Pérez, 19 March 1964

-- Cjensen (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags in the "name" field of the infobox

What is the rationale behind having two flags in the "name" field of the infobox? The name field, everywhere in Wikipedia, is used just for writing the name. Why is the Che Guevara article special to include two flags?

Also, please not that it's against the Manual of Style on flag usage, which says that "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative.". bogdan (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bogdang, this matter was previously discussed several times, most recently this Summer as archived in the two preceding links - Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18# Cuban flag? ---&--- Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#Flags in infobox. There was no objection to keeping them as they are. Moreover, the MOS on flags was viewed to be "suggestive" not "prescriptive" and I would argue they are “useful” as a visual identifier, not merely “decoration.”   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are they "useful"? It has been previously discussed, but none of the two times, a reason for keeping them was given. bogdan (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive emphasis on minimal Irish heritage

It seems Che's grandmother had partial Irish heritage. Does this merit the inclusion of a quote from his father about "Irish rebels blood flowing through his veins" as a header to the section and a detailed examination of (only) his Irish heritage? Guevara was at the most one eighth Irish and he has much more renown ancestors than this guy Patrick Lynch (such as the Viceroy of Lima).

The excessive emphasis of his irish heritage is the result of an anglo focus on English wikipedia which, according to policy, should be corrected. Hence my edits.

There is also a reference to the Basque origin of his surname. I have not deleted this. However, all of his family's surnames (except for Lynch) are simply Spanish. Furthermore, Basque names are common throughout Spain and the Spanish speaking world. I feel there is a (subconscious?) attempt to associate Che with Basque and Irish nationalism. --Damam2008 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: considering Patrick Lynch married Rosa de Galaya de la Camera in the mid 18th century, Che is probably 1/32th Irish... Would have to look at his family tree. The question is, is this even worthy of note? --Damam2008 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Damam, there are a whole host of issues with your remarks. For starters, Guevara’s family referred to themselves as the “Guevara-Lynch’s” amongst themselves. Now I am not sure where you are deriving this “genetic” theory of “Irishness”, but Che viewed himself as being partially Irish (the fractional derivative is irrelevant). This was corroborated when he visited Ireland and spoke with Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick – mentioning that he saw himself as an Irish-Argentine (of which there is a considerable number in the country). In reference to your “Anglo” theory, Argentina is not your ‘traditional Hispanic’ country, and has a mixed population of both what some identify as “Hispanic” people and “Anglo” (note I use quotes, as I don’t acknowledge the validity of such terms). In reference back to Ireland, Che’s father visited Ireland after Che’s death and made this quote in reference to “Irish rebels” and throughout his life continued to press his own affinity and identification with being “Irish”, and thus the quote is notable for inclusion. As a result you can find numerous murals throughout Ireland which incorporate Che’s image and his “Irish-ness”. I am not sure of the genesis, for your pre-occupation or offense to Che’s father noting his own viewed Irish heritage, but it does meet criteria for inclusion and is sourced. Now what current day Irish “rebels” do with such a fact is of their own volition, and not relevant to whether it should be included.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, as noted in Che Guevara (photo), Che told Fitzpatrick that his grandmother was Irish and that his great-grandmother Isabel, was from Galway, with other family being from Cork. Fitzpatrick describes Che as "curious" about Ireland "from a revolutionary point of view" and remarks that Che proclaimed his "great admiration" for the fact that in his view, Ireland was the first country to "shake off the shackles of the British Empire".[23] Thus any tangential connection to "Irish rebels" is probably intentional and the way Che wanted it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the sourced quote you wish to delete comes from Che's own father. Of course it is notable the way his own father views him. I dare to say that his own father's view of what "flows through his viens" is more notable than a random anonymous editor on a wikipedia page.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Im sure Che Guevara and his father were very nice to the Irish on their respective visits to Ireland and that one of them mentioned that his great great great grandfather was Irish. It all must have been very exciting for the IRA, enough to make murals out of it (???). In any case the facts are the facts. If some present or past terrorist organisation wants to lay claim to Che Guevara for their own ideological reasons it is not wikipedia's problem. Here is the Family Tree of Ernesto Che Guevara http://es.rodovid.org/wk/Persona:24256 As you can see. Only his grandmother Ana Isabel Lynch y Ortíz has any Irish heritage. Here: http://es.rodovid.org/wk/Persona:24285 you can see that Ana Isabel Lynch y Ortiz was the daughter of Francisco Lynch y Zavaleta and Eloisa Ortiz. --Damam2008 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Damam, with all due respect I believe you are failing to see that it is irrelevant the actual % of Che's Irish background ... the fact of the matter is his family (by way of his father) viewed themselves as being "culturally" part Irish. Che's own father also apparently thought enough of his Irish ancestry to opine that it was relevant to Che's 'personal makeup' and thus related to his "rebellious" nature along with yes his Spanish background as well. In addition, nowhere have I mentioned anything about the IRA, and the term “Irish rebels” is synonymous with generations & centuries of rebellions in Ireland against British rule. Your use of the term “terrorist” is also irrelevant. Stop pretending to speak for Che’s family, and let his father speak for themselves.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that in Argentina, "anglo" names are associated with the most wealthy and powerful families in the country. Che's father probably double barreled his name and made such an emphasis for reasons of social prestige within Argentina. The bulk of Argentinians descend from immigrants from Spain and Italy mostly post-independence. It is nonsensical to claim that Che Guevara was "culturally" Irish in anyway, particularly considering that this one distant ancestor immigrated to Argentina 300 years ago. Its like claiming that Bill Clinton is culturally American Indian. --Damam2008 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Damam, your original research WP:OR and unverified hypothesis on why Che’s father stressed his Irish heritage is interesting (and possibly correct), but unfortunately not a reliable source on the issue. All of your ruminations as to the motivations for Che’s father noting Che’s Irish background could be valid, but they would still not be applicable for inclusion. We are only here to document the research of reliable published sources, and one such source (amongst many) note that Che’s father found Che’s Irish ancestry significant enough to make the aforementioned quote, and thus we make note of it. If Bill Clinton’s Mother stated that her Mothers Indian background was vital to Clinton's overall worldview or contributed to his personality, then of course such a statement would be worthy of inclusion, regardless of the “scientific” validity or possible "absurdity" of such a claim. Your personal desire or ‘crusade’ to diminish the “Anglo-centric” influence on Wikipedia is in part noble, but misplaced in this instance, as the perspective displayed is one of Che’s very own father – not a random bystander with a “theory”.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That final comment was simply a reflection. I guess the section is fine now as it stands, even though much interesting info on his background has been omitted. Just be careful not to go overdrive on the whole Irish thing. --Damam2008 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys slow down. Every time I;ve glanced at recent change patrol today I;ve sene this article edited. Why the huge rush all of a sudden? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Over-Quote Tag

User:Damiens.rf is attempting to template the article as containing "too many quotes" (see --> WP:QUOTE) , without any previous discussion of the matter. From current experience with him in our "de-facto quote edit-war", I already know that he/she believes articles should contain NO quotes whatsoever (as he has made it his crusade to currently delete all quotes in Che Guevara related articles). Thus, I figured I would provide this space here for other editors who have been working on the current Che Guevara article to discuss the issue of "over quoting" --- as it relates specifically to this article.

Also Damiens, you are encouraged to (1) offer your rationale here for why you feel the article contains too many quotes, (2) offer up a revised version of the article for how you think it should read (with respect to maintaining the information contained within the quotes themselves if possible, per wiki policy), (3) or offer up specific and cited wiki policy which you believes justifies the removal of ALL quotes within articles. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate to keep the topic on the content, and not on me (or any other editor, as a matter of fact). In this spirit, I ask for help on taking each of the 5 quotations on this article, examine them for presence of factual information or notable sayings, and incorporate the actual info in the article.
To raise awareness about this ongoing effort, the article should remain tagged. --Damiens.rf 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, missing from your above reply is any rationale on why you feel the article contains "too many quotes", and why you feel justified in believing that it is wiki policy to ensure that no quotes remain? Is it your view that (1) The article contains too many quotes? Or that it should contain no quotes whatsoever? Is it your view that (2) These particular quotes are not notable enough for inclusion? Or that no notable quotes are worthy of being used in a quote format? Before other editors can "help" you, alleviate your concerns, you need to be more specific on your exact quandary with the article as it currently stands.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
But still, some other che-related article are in an even worse shape, like Che_(film)#Director_Soderbergh or Che_Guevara_(photo) (where some good work has been started by User:Rogerb67). --Damiens.rf 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to keep discussion on this article itself as I previously requested.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic. I fail to see how some (if not all) quotes in this article (and in the other mentioned) are fulfilling any role other than decoration. It's not about too many or too few quotes. As long as each quote is justified, you can have how many of them you desire. But in the case of these articles, so far, they seem to be just beautiful and inspiring phrases said by great people. Wikiquote is where they belong. --Damiens.rf 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference between "important" and "related" is in the eye of the beholder, and requires a full understanding of the topic at hand (which I believe I have). Moreover, quotes are not like images where you have a corroborating page to justify your fair use (which you seem to be implying we should do). As for "beautiful" or "inspiring" phrases, that is a matter of your opinion, and I would disagree, and state that they are directly relevant to the preceding text in each instance, and made by notable people related to the subject at hand (particularly quotes by Che himself, or his father, which are of course highly relevant and comprise 3 of the 5 disputed uses).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be seen as an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. --Damiens.rf 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) --- Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use

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

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf, you said, (quote) "We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic." I don't think those are the only reasons to use quotes. Quotes can be like images: to show what Guevara sounded like, not only what he looked like. Quotes can be the best way to convey some information in some cases, instead of a Wikipedian sentence. Quotes are used frequently in some articles I edit, such as Circumcision.
I see these quotes of Guevara:
  • a longish quote at the beginning of the Guatemala section
    This is important: it illustrates the development of his way of thinking, which led to the course of his whole career.
  • "the most painful days of the war"
    Illustrates what conditions were like more concisely than a Wikipedian sentence could.
  • "My survival instincts took over"
    This quote serves to emphasize the extremity of the situation he went through and to describe what it was like from his point of view.
  • a longish quote at the beginning of the "leaves Cuba" section
    We report that he spoke at the United Nations. What he said there is of more interest to the reader, I think, than merely reporting the fact that he spoke there. This quote illustrates his ideology.
  • "This is the history of a failure"
    This quote serves a dual purpose of commenting on the Congo mission, and illustrating Guevara's attitude towards it.
  • stating that it was "anti-pedagogical" to expect campesino students to be educated there, while "government officials drive Mercedes cars" ... declaring "that's what we are fighting against."
    The above quote seems to me to illustrate Guevara's ideology nicely.
  • "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."
  • "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."
    These quotes of what he is alleged to have said just before he was killed are notable and are important commentary on his (alleged) character and attitude towards death and towards the relationship between himself and the rest of humankind, which could not be illustrated in any other way.
There are also numerous quotes of other people. I think probably Che Guevara should be quoted more often in this article than anyone else. I would be disappointed in the article if it had no quotes of him. An important aspect of Guevara is his ideology, his way of thinking. This is more important than how he looked (as opposed to an article about an actor, for example, where images might be more important). The article needs to illustrate something about his way of thinking, and quotes can do that.
If you have problems with any specific quotes, please discuss those particular quotes. At the moment my position is that I oppose deleting any of the above quotes, but I'm open to arguments. I oppose having an over-quote tag on the article unless arguments are raised against specific quotes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree Copper, and Damiens desire for a tag is irrelevant for now anyway, as he was just blocked again for the 2nd time in 2 days for a week.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The official record of Che's birth specifies June 14, 1928, as the day. However, subsequent research by Jon Lee Anderson, reported in his biography, Che Guevara (1997), reveals the correct date. May 14, 1928. The explanation for the discrepancy is that Ernesto Guevara Lynch and Celia de la Serna were married when Celia was two months pregnant. The couple left the whisperings of Buenos Aires for a remote area in the north where they arranged for an appropriate birth date. Feel free to read into Andersons work yourself, because i do believe this is the correct date.

This issue has been extensively discussed previously ad nauseum, with the eventual unanimous consensus being to keep July 14 as the birth date. Anderson’s May 14 is based off of a third person account, while July 14 is the recognized birth date by Che’s remaining family, the Che Guevara Studies Center, and in reference to official celebrations in Cuba, Argentina etc. Of note I originally took the same stance as that above, until I was shown the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Real Media? Really?

Whoever thought that rm would be a good format to use for those clips at the bottom of the page obviously has some kind of brain problem. You know, as in not having one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamagurka (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Which clips are you specifically referring to? As for the external link clips, they play in the video format that they are delivered in.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"guided by love"

Where is Che's most famous statement about a revolutionary being guided by a great feeling of love??? This should be included in the article I belief. 137.52.178.189 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please go on and add it. The article is currently suffering from a massive lack of quotations. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalinism?

is it verifiable that Che once signed one of his letters as "Stalin II"? - Also, isn't there ample examples of Che eigther following of speaking highly of Stalinist policy, and if this is the case: Why is it not included in the article? 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As of now the article does not mention Stalinism or Che's support of it. The Spanish edition of this article does. Should it be added? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a worshipful view of Che. So no, it should not be added. User:Redthoreau and User:Coppertwig are in charge of the article and nothing that they do not O.K. is allowed in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As with all articles, content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS involving all editors, not just me and Redthoreau, and by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Whole books have been written about Guevara, and this article is just a short summary, a few pages in length. There isn't room for everything. We need to choose the most interesting, relevant, notable etc. material.
If you think something (about Stalinism or anything else) should be added to this article, I suggest you write something here on the talk page, with suggested text to add, giving one or more citations, and perhaps an argument as to why it's important enough to include. Then everyone can discuss whether to include it or not.
For some material, if there isn't enough room in this article, there may be a place for it in one of the other articles about Guevara. For example, the foco theory article is about Guevara's ideology, sort-of, so possibly that information might go better there, where there's more room to go into detail about ideology, although perhaps the article is only about one aspect of Guevara's ideology so possibly not.
Anderson (1997) mentions Stalin only briefly, e.g. p. 565, and indicates that Guevara was initially enthusiastic about the ideas, then later disillusioned with them.
I don't see why mentioning support of Stalinism would necessarily be considered worshipful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To address the first comments in this section from the IP accounts starting with 87 & 90. Yes, there are a few verifiable instances of Che Guevara having some tangential response with relation to Stalin (the man) although not necessarily the theories of “Stalinism”. As for background, various biographers have pointed out how Guevara who grew up during WWII and his family were ardent critics of Nazism and thus staunch supporters of the allies in WWII - especially Stalin’s Russia, but this would have also included the U.S., Britain etc. Thus there was an instance in 1953 (8 years after the end of WWII) when a young Ernesto Guevara (he was not “Che” yet) after spending 3 weeks passing through the domains of the United Fruit Company in Costa Rica wrote a letter to his Aunt Beatriz back in Buenos Aries. In this private letter to his aunt, Guevara states that he swore on the lamented image of Comrade Stalin that he would not rest until these capitalist “octopuses have been vanquished.” (Taibo II mentions this on pg 31). I also remember that in another text that it stated Guevara wrote this letter after encountering a large group of young children with “swollen stomachs” who were being used in his mind as de-facto child slaves for the United Fruit Co and that he was venting his rage towards the injustices he viewed of capitalism in his letter. Now if editors find this event notable, I would not object to including it in its full context. Moreover, Guevara I believe also addressed a letter to possibly the same aunt around the same time with the moniker of 'Stalin II' (although Taibo, hypothesizes that the mentions of Stalin might have been an attempt to ruffle his more conservative relatives feathers, thus his sincerity is uncertain). However, in regard to undue weight, Che biographers have also pointed out how Guevara (who supported Stalin in the early 1950’s) became more disillusioned with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s as he began to side with Mao and the Chinese in the Sino/Soviet Split. Of note as well, when Guevara was killed, he had books by Leon Trotsky (Stalin’s nemesis) in his bag. In conclusion, it would be difficult to speculate on what degree Guevara identified with the particular Marxist interpretation referred to as “Stalinism”, although it would be accurate to state that in the early 1950’s, Guevara lamented Stalin and viewed him favorably.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should look at including some mentions of Stalinism, *including* desribtions of Che's initial attraction to it, and later shift to Maoism. To me, this information would be crucial to an article on Che. Also, if the context of Che signing a letter as 'Stalin II' is even remotely uncertain, then I think the eventual article entry should reflect that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
IP 87, you are more than encouraged to draw up an example of a cited statement that you believe would be worthy of inclusion and display it here for possible consideration (the article is locked from IP edits due to past vandalism, but I would gladly include it for you if there is some consensus on its verifiability and relevance). In addition, if you would rather have me write up something, and are willing to give me a little bit of time (week or so) then I would also be willing to write up a proposal that hopefully would alleviate your concern for there being a lack of inclusion of this material ... just let me know. The last thing I want is for others to view this article as a “white-wash” (or paradoxically a “hatchet-job”) and I am more than willing to include or back the inclusion of what could be viewed as “negative” aspects, as long as they are verified amongst the credible & scholarly Che biographers (Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo II) or others without an ideological ‘axe to grind’. These biographers do acknowledge this tangential connection to Stalin in his youth, and thus a brief acknowledgement in its proper context, I feel could be justified.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes exactly. The article would also be worse off if it presented information in an overly anti-Che manner. My dream article would present the information, pro et contra, and then let the reader decide. (This really was a good motto before Fox news made a mockery of it.) - Anyhow, I think the mention of Stalinism is especially due in this article because Stalinism is one of the main points of the anti-Che info that is floating around the net and also in academic essays. In a somewhat imprecise metaphor one could say that there is smoke, but seemingly only a little fire (I.e. tangiental relations to Stalin). So by all accounts the article would actually be better off representing the fire, not to let it get out of hand if you will excuse the mixed metaphor. 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
90.184.19.129, you have not made it clear whether you intend to write some suggested text as Redthoreau (RT) suggested, nor whether you wish RT to do so as RT had offered if requested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As R.T. is obviously better informed I think he should do it. - Though it needent be more than a few lines.90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Per your response 90, I will work on something in the next week and display it first on the talk page here, that hopefully will address your concern.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) - Hung up? 93.162.102.10 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Redthoreau? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.99.126 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this, just got bogged down / focused on other things. My intention is to include this by Sunday night, if not hopefully sooner.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
IP's 87, 93 & 90 ... I have added the mention of Che's letter to his aunt where he laments on a picture of Josef Stalin, along with two separate corroborating references (Anderson & Taibo II). If you are unable to access either of these texts to view the passages I utilized in full, let me know and I will be happy to produce them here for you to read.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

why Category:Anti-globalization ?

Why is Che Guevara in the category Anti-globalization? AFAIK, marxists supported international integration, more explicitely their version of globalization, Proletarian internationalism. bogdan (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is most likely in that category because his ideas, and his denunciations of "neocolonialism" have been utilized by those who oppose the current neo-liberal policies identified as "globalization." Fidel Castro for instance has repeatedly cited Che's own statements to not only critique globalization, but to show how in his mind - Che was "prophetic" in his criticisms and warnings of such a system.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that you can interpret Jesus' words to say that his statements were a critique of globalization. That's just POV: The category doesn't belong there. bogdan (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If Jesus' words were heavily utilized amongst many in the anti-globalization movement, then your red herring/analogy might be relevant. Che's critiques of what we now call "globalization” existed before the term was clearly defined ... however this does not negate the fact that his ideas do bear relevance in the anti-globalization community and are accurately identified as not only a ideological pre-cursor, but an “early warning” by those who prescribe to an anti-globalization ethos. There is nothing POV, about such a reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think if you go to an anti-globalization rally you might find people carrying placards with Che's image on them. A web search for "Che anti-globalization" has about 40,000 hits. If my arithmetic is right, that's about 5% of all the hits for "anti-globalization". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they mean Economic globalization which is often described as plain globalization. Che did a lot of travelling on the global scale.86.42.210.51 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Che was a communist, that meant he sought the end of nationalism, and economic globalism controlled by a central authority. Marx claimed that workers revolutions in German States, Austria, France, and Great Britain would lead to the fall of Capitalism by 1850, in 1873 he predicted the economic panic would lead to a second wave of revolution, it did not. in 1905 Lenin claimed that the reason capitalism did not fall was because of Imperialism, not just the capitalist exploitation of the worker but also the capitalist exploitation of poor countries like Russia. So the goal was that by causing revolutions in Cuba, or Bolivia, or Peru it would cause revolution in Mexico, if countries like the Congo fell it would lead to workers revolutions in the United States and Europe which would allow for a communist world by which a Communist order (probably Moscow)could distribute goods equally and dismantle capitalism. It is a very centralist concept which allows no room for non conformity, free arts, variations on status quo and which has proven unsuccessful on a small scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk)16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
IP 67, see WP:FORUM & WP:OR. This talk page is not a discussion forum for the life/ideas of Marx etc. It is about Guevara (the man), and about improvements related to the article. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was merely describing the evolution of Communist ideology, and how they they would explain Che's worldview and actions, specifically why his anit-American views were not anti-globaist but pro globalist revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I think we should say something about how monuments to Guevara are vandalized in Chavez's Venezualia. 67.201.136.122 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, someone vandalizing a monument is not WP:notable enough in my opinion, to warrant mention in the short section we have discussing his legacy. However there exists a separate article on Legacy of Che Guevara where I believe a sub-section on Venezuela and Chavez's connection could be appropriate (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE). I would also recommend that you read WP:NPOV, as most of your proposed edits seem to be extremely hyperbolic (saying nothing of their questionable accuracy as well). Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Current issues

(Comment Redthoreau is replying to has been fiddled with and "refactored" out of existence. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Redthoreau's comment below [5] is responding to [6], which hasn't been edited, according to this diff [7]. Gimmetrow 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the article is in a "sad state". I also believe that old/past comments on an article ‘may’ not be helpful in the sense that they often/can refer to an article that resembles little of the current edition. Additionally, I would contend that the current article is far superior in quality to the original March 10, 2006 article that received FA status. What is your view on comparing the two? With that said, I respect your right to vehemently disagree with this assessment, and find your opinion valid + in good faith (even if I don’t agree with it). Out of curiosity, and in recognition of your dearth of editing experience, what are some flaws that you believe exist with the current December 25, 2008 article? + Possible remedies to correct them? Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 07:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we ask for 'peer review'? Redthoreau, I see that you are looking for feedback, as stated above. If no one objects, I will ask for some input of other editors here. Any objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Editor br, I of course welcome the participation, input, and advice of any editor who wishes to assess the article (not to mention that my 'permission' is not required). On issues pertaining to mode of style, grammar, composition, format etc I believe that a peer review can be extremely beneficial. However on matters pertaining to neutrality, npov, undue weight etc I believe an open request to any/all editors 'may' not be as useful, to the extent that judging the weight of the preponderance of information, requires a grasp of the subject area and available materials. On matters of neutrality, this could be difficult for someone with a novice background of the relevant material, as they might become easily susceptible to baseless attacks or unfounded hyperbolic partisan critiques which exist 'online' and through a Google search, but do not exist in the prevailing & heavily sourced printed materials by experts/scholars/researchers in the field. With a controversial and polarizing historical figure (such as Che), it can be very difficult to achieve a ‘fair’ portrayal (which admittedly can be in the eye of the beholder). --- Despite this I would be open to a peer review or FAC, but would first prefer discussing the matter here on the talk page and preparing the article for such a review, with editors who may have an interest in the material (and thus hopefully more than an introductory exposure). Br, what are some areas that you believe need to be addressed?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! Nominate the article for FAC!. That is the best test of the article's quality. Redthoreau or other editors who have been working on it should nominate it. FA reviewers give excellent evaluation and advice. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There are formatting issues I was going to work on before proposing it for FAC. See Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#Cleanup?. I haven't gotten around to starting. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Editors, I understand your concerns regarding the difficulty to grasp the topic. Che is indeed controversial. The idea of a peer review is to check how does this article appear for a new pair of eyes. If there is a perception of a better quality than the 06' standard and an interest to nominate this article to FA in the future, a peer review may be a good start. As for my concerns, in a superficial reading I had the impression that article is too favorable to Che (e.g. most of the section that . I did not check the sources yet. I agree that internet is not the best resource to do such work, and I can check some academic publications of historians and published material in my Univ's library once I return from the break. Is there any important sources that are missing? I noted some in the to-do list, but I don't know if the status is acurate. Although I am not a specialist, I am willing to help. I work in the Wiki-portuguese and my plan was to translate the article and include some -pt sources, but as there seems to be a neutrality dispute, I prefer to work on the article before translating it. What do you think? Editor br (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
br, what is your view of the current Portugese Che Article and how it relates to this English version? Additionally, for those that can understand them, there is also the Spanish Che article or the French Che Article which may help in weighing the npov of this English version. I respect your view that the current article is "too favorable", although we have had accusations recently of the article also being "too critical". As for texts, I would recommend consulting the 3 main biographies by Anderson, Taibo II, and Castaneda (mentioned up above) which were also recognized by User:Jbmurray (whose objectivity I believe is unquestioned) as being the primary reliable texts on the issue in the past.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Editor br, you're certainly welcome to edit the article. It's my impression that there has been some criticism of the article as too favourable to Che, but not so much clearly-stated argument about what needs to be changed to balance it out. The article tends to just report things as facts, but at least one of the featured-article reviewers thought it should more often state both sides of things (e.g. along the lines of "this source says this but that source says that"); that seems like a good idea to me, too. I have no opinion about whether a peer review would be a good idea at this time, so go ahead if you like. When specific issues are raised, I might (or might not) get involved in discussing them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just as a quick note, I will be on vacation (and not able to post) till January 4th. Upon my return I would be more than willing to take part in any peer review, group discussion, FA process etc that editors feel is warranted. I obviously do not WP:Own the article, and understand if some process should get underway before my return. In my absence, I would cede questions intended for me to User:Coppertwig ... whose judgment I hold in high regard.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys, the Portuguese article is bellow acceptable standards, that is why I am looking for other versions to base a new edit of the article upon. I will read the Spanish version and give my thoughts. Furthermore, I will briefly check the three bios you mentioned in the library, late January, when I go back to the University. Let me know what needs to be done in between. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding Portuguese and other articles as models, I suggest a third party, neutral evaluation, such as submitting it to FAC. Even if it failed, you would get some outside feedback. Saying that this article is better than the promoted one means nothing unless validated by outside reviewers. That would be better than using foreign articles as sources —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
My first suggestion was to ask for a 'peer review' before submitting to the FAC, as Coppertwig mentioned some formatting issues need to be addressed before that. What do you think? Editor br (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that your suggestion is a good idea. The more outside (read "disengaged") input the better. There are two issues here. One, the material regarding Che. But second, and most important in my mind, is what makes a good, or even Featured article, on Wikipedia. I think we all agree that we want the article to meet the highest standards. This is independent of the POV views of editors. I would like to see this article go through all the standard steps, rather than remain isolated in a POV war universe. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I refrained from asking for a 'peer review' as I think I need to be the first to review it before asking for others to make comments on edits that Coppertwig and Redthoreau are doing for months. My first hunch was that it was POV, but I did not check the sources, did not try to improve the article nor edited it, and I did not provide any constructive feedback on how make it better. I find easy in Wikipedia to criticize others, but hard to actually improve the content or collaborate with other editors. So, in order to avoid this misbehavior, I want to check the sources, give a close reading to the article, and exchange some ideas on how we can improve it with the active editors of this article about Che before even considering proposing a 'peer review' myself. That is my plan, at least (in line with what was proposed by Redthoreau above). =) Editor br (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Editor br, this sounds like a reasonable course of action. I am pleased to know you are open to a thorough investigation based on the scholarly materials.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is a little scary. There was a long time when Coppertwig and Redthoreau double-teamed and Redthoreau was the only one allowed to edit. So I am somewhat surprised that others are allowed to now. I think you would have to be very careful. That is why I would prefer to see outside editors involved. Coppertwig and Redthoreau have guarded the content very carefully. I personally would not dare to edit the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, you are welcome to edit the article, as always, as is anyone else. If there's something about my behaviour that's bothering you, feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page if you want, or follow other steps in dispute resolution if you prefer. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I have no power or authority to prevent you nor anyone from editing the article. The previous instances you mention were merely an issue of disagreement between Copper, me, and you. Although it is true that we had previous conflict many months ago, I have long since unilaterally apologized to you for my part in the escalation, and wish to move on. Your presence here is just as valid and welcome as any other editor, despite our past difference of opinion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist

There should be something about how he's the Godfather of Terrorism -- (67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, (1) Such adjectives/neologisms would be inappropriate and WP:POV, (2) Wikipedia has words that they WP:AVOID and "Terrorist"/"Terrorism" is one of them, (3) Che is not known for having carried out any "terrorist" attacks, thus calling him the "Godfather" (itself an inappropriately hyperbolic term) would be unwarranted. --- As an aside, I would suggest expanding your reading list on the subject beyond hyper-partisan blogs or negationist/polemicists (I can provide you an array of varied sources, both pro-and-con, if interested).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Red, the Osama Bin Laden article has the word terroist in the first paragraph. Che Guevara was a terrorist he terrorized Cuba, the Congo, Bolivia, he attempted cordinated attacks on the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell but this plan was foiled by the FBI and RCMP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (67.201.136.122 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
IP 67, it is your WP:POV that he "terrorized" Cuba, others (including the majority of verifiable and reliable published sources) disagree with your assessment. We are not here to include our own personal views (that should be left to a blog / editorial letter etc). We as editors are here to document the views of those experts, scholars in the field, and neutral sources - who have published material on the subject. This WP:FRINGE theory about Che plotting to blow up the Statue of Liberty, is not included in any of the 3 major Guevara biographies (Anderson, Taibo II, Castaneda) or the other (30 + biographies that deal with Che), nor has it been noted by WP:reliable or non-partisan sources. The only person I am aware that makes such a claim is Humberto Fontova, who would not be considered an objective or scholarly (main source) for such a claim (or any other for that matter), especially one that does not appear in other sources dealing with the same subject. Moreover, Fontova’s sourcing (par for the course with him unfortunately) for this "accusation" is also not clear, nor is there definitive proof to WP:verify it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Red, most of John Lee Anderson's book was writen within Cuba, how can an objective and unbiased account be writen from inside a police state, that heroizes Che. Che is a hero in Lebanon where more succesful terrorists influenced by Che, drove out democracy, then proceeeded to drive democracy out of Isreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
IP 67, Jon Lee Anderson spent over 5 years researching his 814 page biography, which is viewed by nearly all reviewers as the definitive English-language work on the subject (the first 4 pages of the book are cited accolades from nearly every newspaper/magazine in the Western Press) + the book contains over 50 pgs of sources. Moreover, although yes Anderson did spend 3 years within Cuba (speaking to friends, family, consulting govt archives, Che’s widow, fellow guerrillas etc ... and no not Fidel or Raul) he also spent (as he discusses in the introduction) 2 years traversing Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, The United Kingdom, Moscow, Washington D.C., and yes even Cuban exiles in Miami (including CIA agent Felix Rodriguez). I will let others decide if Anderson should have spent 3 years in Cuba (the place that is most discussed in the book & for which Che is most known) or whether those years would have been more fruitful in say Iceland or Bangladesh. --- Have you read Anderson’s work? If you haven’t, I would urge you to check out Amazon’s reader reviews and possibly acquire yourself a copy. Anderson himself states (pg IV) that his mission was to counter the “Official Cuban hagiographies” & the “tiresome demonizations” which existed on the subject. Furthermore you have the biographies by Castaneda and Taibo II as well, which do not mention your proposed revision. ----- As for your comments on the tragic turmoil which has plagued Lebanon, Che’s standing as a “hero” there could be relevant to the Legacy of Che Guevara article, but I’m not sure Wikipedia affords editors the leeway to blame current political actions (regardless of their heinous nature) on figures that have been dead for 41 years, and who may have “inspired” such behavior. If you are Lebanese, I can certainly empathize with your plight, but these issues are unfortunately not relevant to this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Redif had wrote it in Iceland after doing research in Cuba I would trust Anderson's work to be reliable yes (not sure about censors in Bangledesh), but he didn't he wrote it in Cuba under the eyes of Castro's Regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm can become lost in written form. IP 67, the point was that Anderson compiled research for the portion on Che's life in Cuba - in the appropriate of all places - Cuba. Additionally, Castro's "censors" had no editorial control over Anderson's work. The final composition was formulated at the end of the 5 years of research and compiled outside of Cuba, free from those omnipresent "eyes" you seem to believe Castro possesses. Jon Lee Anderson lives in Spain and New York City and is not under the auspices of "Castro's regime". Do you have any verifiable evidence (what Wikipedia relies on WP:VERIFY) to call Anderson's research into question, or is it simply your unsubstantiated belief that the book you apparently have never read, must be unfairly slanted?   Redthoreau(talk)RT 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok Back to the topic at hand. Che Guevara said the to Daily Worker (a Communist Newspapaer) reporter Sam Russell "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims." That is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) IP 67, Che's comments to the Socialist Daily Worker are noted in the current article, and in Jon Lee Anderson's book [pg 545] – (which you apparently dismiss as biased). However, the order that you list the quote, does not appear that way in Anderson nor Castañeda's Compañero [pg 231]. In Castañeda's book the quote goes:

"If they (U.S.) attack, we shall fight to the end. If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all ... but we haven't got them (the rockets), so we shall fight with what we've got."

(Note this is after the repelled invasion at Playa Giron). Moreover, the exact verbage may not be important, as we already know that Guevara told Henry Brandon of The Sunday Times, in October 1962 before the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved (before the Daily Worker interview)

"Direct aggression against Cuba would mean nuclear war. The Americans speak about such aggression as if they did not know or did not want to accept this fact. I have no doubt they would lose such a war." Article

Now leaving aside Guevara's (almost comical) cockiness and bravado, telling a nation that if they attack the nation you are at the head of, that your nation reserves the right to retaliate to such an aggression with a nuclear attack = is not "Terrorism" per the normal or even stretched definition (keeping in mind that this neologism grows with the day to encompass any political opponent for some people). It is part of the common parlance for nations with nukes, to declare that they will use them if threatened, or if their friends are even threatened (For instance Hillary Clinton said this year that if Iran attacked Israel they would be "Obliterated" Clip). Further still, (as if it already wasn't clear enough), WP:Terrorist recommends against using such a bias term WP:NPOV and 99 % of all published sources refrain from ever referring to Guevara as a "Terrorist". As editors we are here to report what the scholarly and WP:Reliable sources state, not to INVENT what we wish they reported (or how we personally feel) ... this concept seems a difficult one for you to grasp.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

but Castro (Who appointed Guevara) became head of Cuba in an illeagal coup, it is not a legitamate government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
IP 67, that is your opinion, not a stated fact (nor a commonly held view). Also which or whose "law" are you relying on when you declare the overthrow of Batista's dictatorship illegal? There is no international body that precipitates the “legitimate” means for a transfer of power, and coup d'état or internal revolution is recognized as a ‘legitimate’ transfer of power within international law. If they weren’t, the U.N. would have to expel half of their members.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Baptista coup was in violation of Cuba's constetution signed in 1940. The Castro accession was legitimate only until the provisional government was able to hold elections in accordance with the costetution. Castro violated that agreement and and betrayed the rebbelion as such the Castro should have been removed from power, which was attempted from 1959-1965 however US support of the rebels ceased in 1962, this was a failure of the Americans as the USSR (also an illegitamte government) was supplying planes, tanks, and advisors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Redthoreau. We report what's in the reliable sources. I don't think the main biographies of Guevara call him a "terrorist". [Deleting possible BLP vio.](23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) To avoid WP:OR, calling someone a "terrorist" would require a source that calls them a "terrorist", not just a source that says they would have used nuclear weapons. And then we would have to consider the relative weight and notability of such a source in comparison to the main biographies etc. I'm sure Guevara has been called many things, but it wouldn't be appropriate or concise to list them all in this summary article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • This article has always been very selective in what it reports, even from Anderson. I referenced many things from Anderson that were deleted when you and Redthoreau were controlling the pages. Also, do we take what Nazi Germany said was the "truth" because they said it? User:Jimmy Wales slapped a POV tag on this article for a reason, and thing have only gone down hill since you and Redthoreau took control of the article. If you have confidence in the article, why don't you submit it for an independent review? GA, FAC, Peer Review"? Let some other "eyes" see it. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Format

I noticed that the link "shades of gray" in the "Legacy" section links to the song "Shades of Gray" by the Monkees. It should probably be deleted or link to "Grayscale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruvaltir (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Physician?

Why is he called a physician in the first sentence? To my knowledge he never practised. There are rumors that he might not even have graduated.[8]--87.162.13.177 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the source you are relying on is a partisan "blog", this issue was discussed recently ... with the archived discussion being here ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#"physician"?. It is irrefutable that Guevara studied and practiced medicine throughout his life. He also served in a war as a medic and provided medical care to countless individuals (as discussed in his diary). The issue seems to be whether "physician" implies possessing a M.D.? Note that he is not referred to as a "Dr." even though during his life, and since his death, many reliable sources have done so. In my opinion "physician" is sufficiently vague to describe the role he played at various points in his life, but I am open to suggestions as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In reference to 'rumors/smears' of there not being a diploma, I've tracked down a published text which contains a copy of Guevara's original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated). The source is [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer - Translated from the Spanish by Sarah L. Smith, Marea Editorial, 2006, ISBN 9871307071. Ferrer was a longtime childhood friend of Che, and apparently when Guevara passed the last of his 12 exams in 1953, he "shook the diploma in Calica's face" to show him that he had passed. Ferrer had been telling Guevara that he would never finish, and this was Guevara's way to finally (and triumphantly) show him he had (Che also gave him a copy), so that they could embark on their trip throughout Latin America (Che's 2nd, this one subsequently after the more widely publicized Motorcycle Diaries). --- I would be more than willing to scan the page/image and post it here on the talk page, as long as Wikipedia would allow me to do so. Or perhaps I will make a fair use claim, and include a link to it as part of the article. Any suggestions are welcome.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This is not my general neighborhood, but I sometimes work with Coppertwig on copyright issues, and he asked me to share my opinion on this. :) First, this is too recent to be public domain, so the document can't be posted here on the talk page unless the copyright owner has released it or licensed it in a way that we can use it. If you want to advance a fair use claim, I would consider getting feedback first at WP:MCQ. This doesn't seem to fall into any of the standard allowances at WP:NFC, though perhaps it could be worked around into point 8 under images (kind of dubious; as I understand it, that point is when an image is itself historically significant, like File:Kent State massacre.jpg). Any fair use, obviously, would require commentary. Though I have not worked on this article (and don't intend to at this point :)), I do wonder if it it isn't sufficiently simply to add a line somewhere in the article (which I've not read; maybe it's there already) about this event with an inline citation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your input and will add a note to the references.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Showing he graduated from medical school would not prove he was a physician, only that he graduated from medical school. Not the same thing. Is there much argument that he graduated from medical school? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, he served on the medical faculty in Mexico City, worked as a physician in a leper colony, served as a medic and dentist in a Guerrilla War, diagnosed as a physician scores of illnesses and provided some treatments to Campesinos during his time in the Sierra Maestra and Bolivia etc. As for disputing the actual medical degree, it has become a recent line of attack from ardent Che critics (outside of Wikipedia), to further undermine his overall biography, luckily it is easily disproven.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias tag

I feel this article on Che Guevara is a biased point of view. The little paragraph on Che Guevara executions could possibly even contain weasel words. I will be tagging this article with the bias template. Rent A Troop (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rent A Troop, although you are free to "feel" whatever you'd like, tagging an article should not be a 'drive by process' for an editor based off of a feeling (hence I removed it for the time being). Anyone here is welcome to bring up specifics and cite sources for their claims. Although a few editors have mentioned a pov concern lately, nobody seems to be providing many specifics or citing sources for their claims. If you believe any weasel words are in the article then please voice that issue here so they can be discussed and possibly corrected. The template should be a last resort, once specific concerns are listed, evaluated for legitimacy, and THEN if there is a belief of gridlock between editors on content --- a template is warranted. If any article that someone read which didn't "feel" right to them was allowed to be tagged, then every article would be. To the specific issue of the execution paragraph that you mention ... [1] How do you believe this is WP:POV? [2] What aspects do you believe are missing or incorrect? [3] What sources are you utilizing to arrive at that belief? [4] What texts have you read on Che Guevara which you believe allow you to properly judge the overall “correct” feel of the articles material? Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
History is full of nice middle-class boys like Che killing people who don't agree with them - what is so notable about that?86.42.199.193 (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IP 86, I'll try to contain my cynicism and believe that you are truly interested in actual investigation on the matter, but first to correct your statement - Che would probably be seen originally as part of the "upper class", most would probably not refer to him as "nice", although he showed compassion to campesinos and spoke of their plight, he was also an armed and rigid guerrilla, who believed in the validity of violence to overthrow systems he found to be unjust, and as for WP:NOTABILITY Che's is unquestioned, by any stretch of the definition (regardless of whether you agree with his actions).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of the article is rather ordinary stuff - going to school &c. The extra-ordinary aspects were supporting Castro at an early stage and then other people putting his photo on posters and T-shirts after his death. All the rest followed from these things and is not really notable.86.42.232.56 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
IP 86, although the majority of the article deals with Guevara’s life (after) meeting Fidel Castro (while other articles 1 / 2 / 3 detail the rise of him as an emblem / symbol), it is still common practice (if not required) that an article deal with the individuals entire life (hence mentions of his upbringing etc). This is par for the course, and found with every article of a historic figure on Wikipedia.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that if there's a bias tag on the article, it should include a pointer to a specific section of this talk page which contains a list of specific problems that would need to be fixed. (For example, you can put {{POV|Name of talk page section}}; see Template:POV). I think it's probably not necessary to have a tag, anyway. We can still discuss things on the talk page and try to improve the article.
While Guevara is not notable for having parents, going to school and travelling around the country, those parts of his life are described in order to give the reader context to his life and to let the reader try to imagine how he came to be what he was. I find it interesting, for example, that he suffered severely from asthma and I like to wonder how that affected his attitude to life. The early life section may in a way get more weight than it deserves because it comes at the beginning of the article, but arranging the life chronologically is a logical way to do things and it might be difficult to find any other way that works equally well. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The third paragraph of the Legacy section reads "Moreover, Guevara has ironically been subsumed by the capitalist consumer culture he despised. "

I think this is an extremely subjective statement and even reads as if it's someone's opinion rather than a objective fact. It assumes (without supporting evidence) people who display items bearing either his image or message do so without any knowledge of him or support of his ideology, which I really don't think is the case; rather everyone I have ever met sporting such a t-shirt or bedroom poster strongly supports him and his ideology.

Looking at the article's history, it seems this line has been deleted many times but keeps being added by contributors also making strong criticisms against the man and/or other socialist/communist articles. This leads me to believe its inclusion is more of a political attempt to dissuade people from wearing t-shirts bearing his image rather than to express a factual statement. Tachy99 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tachy, welcome to the article. First to clarify, this particular sentence has never been deleted and then reinserted. There also has never been any voiced objection to it before now (that is not to say that your concern may not be valid however). I am not sure which editors you are referring to as "making strong criticisms against socialist/communist articles", but I don't believe that description would match either Copper or myself (the 2 primary editors at this time). No lines in the article should be an attempt to convince or "dissuade" people's actions, and it is regrettable that you interpret it as such. In my perspective the sentence is referencing the merchandizing phenomenon wherein Che's stencil image is used to sell every product imaginable. This has been the subject of many news articles, and even a recent documentary Chevolution. Moreover, a simple search of EBay under "Che Guevara" will leave you nearly 1,000 different consumer items. There is additional information in the Wiki article Che Guevara in popular culture which I feel may be helpful to you in gauging the validity of this issue. Now would Che Guevara condone or agree with such a trend? Well Wikipedia is not for editor speculation, but his statements with regard to consumerism, and belief in the Marxist concept of commodity fetishism, has led published commentators to assume he wouldn't support it. Of note, I don't believe that the article at present condemns or passes judgment on those who choose to wear a Che t-shirt etc, but acknowledge that you may have read it that way (or that it may be written that way to others). ----> With that in mind, how do you propose the sentence should read to prevent this? In your view should it be removed, adjusted, rephrased? Are there any references you would like to include to counter this perceived bias? I am open, as I believe all the involved editors here are, to your considerations. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tachy99 that the "subsumed" statement is opinion, not fact. I suggest changing this part:
"Moreover, Guevara has ironically been subsumed by the capitalist consumer culture he despised. The primary vehicle of this phenomenon has been a high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face, which has become one of the world's most universally merchandized images,[1][2] found on an endless array of items including: t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis.[3] Yet, Guevara also remains an iconic figure both in specifically political contexts[4] and as a wide-ranging popular icon of youthful rebellion.[5]"
to this:
"A high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face has become one of the world's most universally merchandized images,[6][7] found on an endless array of items including: t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis,[8] ironically contributing to the consumer culture he despised. Yet, Guevara also remains an iconic figure both in specifically political contexts[9] and as a wide-ranging popular icon of youthful rebellion.[5]"
although I think that's only a little better and could perhaps be further improved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Copper, I would agree with your proposed changes. Hopefully Tachy will also take time to respond, so we can ensure that he/she is also content with the adjustment.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, I would agree the proposed change sounds a lot more factual than what is written currently. I understand the point being made, I just think its phrased in a very opinionated way, so changing it to that proposed by Coppertwig would certainly be an improvement.
In regards to the edits, I cannot find specific reference (although I do not really understand how to use history properly), and so may have gotten confused with various other statements which have been repeatedly added and removed in the past (admitedly, quite some time ago it seems). Regards, Tachy99 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading/content

Resolved

De Guzman states that he "took pity" and gave him my small bag of tobacco for his pipe,

This sentence should be verified against its source: "and gave him my small bag of tobacco" may actually be part of the quote. If it's not, the word "my" should be "a".--74.15.76.38 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 74, thanks. I have fixed this issue and checked the statement against the given source.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Where is a criticism section of stalinist murderer and butcher?--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He is not a murderer-he was murdered in cold blood because he overthrew a wretched, corrupted governement! User name;75.155.175.36 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)(Vivalavida)
There is one paragraph in the "Legacy" section. bogdan (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Good Wikipedia articles don't usually have separate "criticicm" sections, but mix any criticism among comments in other sections where they are relevant, so that the entire article is NPOV, rather than having one section from one point of view (POV) and another section from another POV. If you think there's a POV that's not adequately represented in the article, I suggest that you state on this talk page some precise words that you suggest adding to the article, and cite a reliable source. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This issue is also discussed in more detail here.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
it was censored because its not PC to talk about the evils of Che 134.129.203.26 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored (WP:NOT). The policies used include verifiability and neutral point of view. The article should contain both negative and positive statements about Che, in similar proportions that such statements are contained in the reliable sources, and expressed in an impartial tone. The article already contains some negative stuff about Che. If you think it needs more, you can help. Please suggest some specific words for the article, give a reliable source for it, and maybe argue why you think the article doesn't have the right balance of positive and negative in comparison to the reliable sources. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the former featured article version and found the criticism section particularly useful to enhance the NPOV of the article. Why isn't it featured in this version of the article? Editor br (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Editor br, are you referring to the article as it stood in 2004/2006 etc? A link to the particular edition may be helpful in analyzing what details you found "helpful". I do know that during the FA process a year ago or so, that it was decided not to contain a separate section on "criticism". Of note, I believe any criticism section would need to be balanced with a "praise" section, as WP:UNDUE would mandate a proportional representation. I also would posit that even those who harbor an unfavorable view of Che, would find it hard to argue that indeed there is not more praise or accolades attributed to him, than criticism (to say nothing of the validity of either position). Moreover, to shorten the article (which became quite long) the section that formerly dealt with criticism, was branched off into a separate article entitled Legacy of Che Guevara. Is it your position that the article lacks particular criticisms? Because I share the view of Copper above that these critiques should be incorporated into the overall article (if they can be verified with a reputable source) and represent a criticism contained within the major Guevara biographies.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to this section, that I find particularly useful to balance the article and improve it. Coppertwig, can you point out in the Manual of Style or any other guideline why a separate criticism section is not featured in 'good articles'? I am in favor of including this section that existed in the previous FA again, immediately after the legacy. Objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly object for numerous reasons. There are many criticisms that one could make of Che Guevara. However that particular (almost 3 year old) section is not only in contradiction to the majority of scholarly sources, but also blatantly incorrect on numerous accounts (to say nothing of extremely WP:POV). It also violates WP:Terrorist, WP:UNDUE, and includes a blatant advertisement for an anti-Che site which sells merchandise. How that section was allowed to last more than 1 hour to me is baffling, as anyone with even a basic background with the material could easily point out the errors (I have provided a source below [Physician section] for a copy of his medical diploma for instance).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

History

  • This is what happened. The article was promoted March 10, 2006. Subsequently, naturally, many edits were made to it. On July 7, 2007 Jimmy Wales put a POV tag on the article [9] and [10]. saying the article was Che propaganda, that it had become far too pro Che, and lacked a balanced perspective on his negative effects. Those of us editing it tried to fix it for a while, but as we were getting nowhere, I put the article up for FAR, as it had become such a travesty from the FA version. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. At one point, we had agreed to revert the article to the version that had passed FAR as it had been hopelessly messed up since then and could not be fixed. In fact, SandyGeorgia and another editor agreed to revert it. However, that fell through, and even those that worked hard on it, such as Jbmurray admitted the problems were massive, could not be fixed without months and moths of work by neutral editors, and voted to remove the FA status. SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008. It has remained in that sad state since, not appreciably improved. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008." I do not "demote articles" at all; closing Featured article reviews is not within my remit as Featured article candidate delegate. (See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1; the article was defeatured on 23 April 2008 by Marskell, the FAR delegate.[11] ) In fact, Mattisse, Jbmurray, Ling.Nut and others argued that the article was "hopelessly POV",[12] while I entered no declaration. I did, however, bow out of attempts to improve the article (which I thought was on track to be saved)[13] when Mattisse expressed discomfort over my participation.[14] It is not clear why Mattisse is now suggesting that the article come to FAC when she previously opined that it was "hopelessly POV". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, learn to recognize irony (hard I know) and find something else to do with your time than follow old arguments that have nothing to do with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A false claim that I "demoted the article as POV", explicitly mentioning me by name, definitely has everything to do with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am flattered that my "every little" post is followed with bated breath by you. Feel free to continue! I only thought (since you are always complaining about how far you are behind) that you might have something else to do. But I guess not, so again, feel free! I know with one stroke about anything at all can send your reputation into the cellar! (Have you noticed that no one else gave a s--t! Somehow my ironic little comment got NO notice, except by you, dear Sandy. So thanks for noticing.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That comment, like several before it, is really uncalled for, Mattisse. I think you need to redact it, and reflect on your approach in general, as I find it could stand some improvement. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

Che Guevara was born on May 14 1928, in the city of Rosario. The june 14 is a falsified date. Che's mother asked a doctor to move the actual date one month forward so she can avoid a family scandal due to the fact her pregnancy happened before her actual marriage``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoar (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoar, this has been discussed in the past, with consensus being to keep the date as July 14 (although the article does make note of Anderson's reporting on the date actually being a month earlier).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

error in type of weapon

Resolved

"Terán hesitated, then pulled the trigger of his semiautomatic rifle, hitting Guevara in the arms and legs."

In order for him to be hit in the arms and legs with one pull of the trigger it would have to be an automatic rifle not a semiautomatic rifle. He would have to repeatly pull the trigger to hit him more than once. You stated he "pulled the trigger" i assume this means once. This needs to be changed. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.56.74 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 68, I have fixed this issue, and ensured that the new wording remained consistent with the given source. Thanks for making note of it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in Timeline

Resolved

The last item on the timeline is clearly biased. "1968 - Becomes the Greatest and most Admired person in the world" What? This isn't fact. Tuckerjohn (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tuckerjohn, it was the result of vandalism by a single IP user (76.185.176.82) on January 9. Unfortunately, I did not have the timeline page watch listed and thus never caught it (I do now). I have removed this as such a statement is as you said, "clearly biased", not to mention absurd. Thank you for pointing it out to us. Luckily it was not up there for long.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

death

Resolved

i think his final words should be included. while facing his killer he said, "I know you have come to kill me. Shoot coward, you are only going to kill a man."--Krasilschic (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Krasilschic, this statement is already included in the current article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia Death

Resolved

In regards to : reference #108

There are many links to this particular source, which I can't find. I am most concerned with the quotes contributed to the said article. It is from 1968, if they are indeed valid, are there more current, verifiable links than the ones given? I may be mistaken but am sure there are many devoted persons to this page who can set me straight if I am indeed wrong. Ray, Michèle (March 1968). "In Cold Blood: The Execution of Che by the CIA". Ramparts Magazine: 33. CheersDough007 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dough007, I own this particular magazine and can vouch for the authenticity of all the stated quotes. I am not sure if the content can be found on the internet, but one option could be that I scan the article and email it to you (My email - Redthoreau@gmail.com). As for more contemporary sources, I am aware of several texts that mirror Michelle Ray’s findings, and I can look up and match a specific statement to an additional source if you would like. Is there a particular utilized statement that you question the veracity/authenticity of?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the quote that caught my attention was the "anti-pedagogical" one. No need to send me anything, I was just curious. From the looks of your userpage, it seems that you may know quite a deal about this subject. Thanks, Dough007 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Dough007, throughout Che's speeches/writings/diaries he often referred to "pedagogy" and things being "anti-pedagogical" etc. It matches Guevara's usual vernacular and is included / cross referenced in a source I have recently been reading - [pg 83] of Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution by Dr. Peter McLaren.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Neutrality here can be a problem. The thing is that one must understand is the "nature of the controversy" over Che. This article is a decent starting place in addition to the other sources I cited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece) that detail what Guevara really was.

All political murderers claim that their victims were traitors or "human rights violators" of some kind to disguise that they were really political opponents or simply extortion killings. Many on the Left still justify (and glorify) this one particular mass murderer because he had a photogenic angle and because they still love the Communist dream.

The issue with this article is global. This article says Che Guevara was a legitimate insurgent and freedom fighter. The truth is that there was nothing legitimate about Che Guevara, and that he was just another authoritarian/totalitarian killer. You are not going to neutralize these perspectives anymore than you can neutralize a pro-Hitler POV with an anti-Hitler POV. As long as a Che partisain can use the Anderson Puff Piece to deny the reliability of sources contradicting him, the best you can do is put a pro angle and a con angle, which is what I suggest. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article says that he was a "legitimate insurgent and freedom fighter". If it does, that should be removed. Perhaps you mean that the article implies that. If so, that implication should also be removed. You say, "The truth is that there was nothing legitimate about Che Guevara and that he was just another authoritarian/totalitarian killer"; that seems to be an opinion, not the type of thing that could be verified as fact, and as such should not be stated or implied in the article. Calling the Anderson biography a "puff piece" doesn't convince me that it isn't a reliable source. Do you have any good arguments that it's not a reliable source? If other equally reliable sources contradict it, we can report both angles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Tintindeo, speaking of neutrality see WP:NPOV & WP:MORALIZE, as your suggested revisions violate nearly every aspect of this foundational wiki policy. In addition, this article does not state that Guevara was a "legitimate insurgent" or a "freedom fighter" which is part of wiki's WP:Words to Avoid. If it did I would remove such claims myself, as they have no place in an encyclopedia. As for most of your other statements, they are your opinions (of which you have the right to bear) & I would personally defend your right to carry those views (irregardless of my view on their factual credibility) ... however this article is not your personal blog for you to mention all of the aspects you dislike about Guevara. We are merely here to document the verifiable (WP:VERIFY) views of WP:RELIABLE sources on the issue, providing the correct WP:WEIGHT and listing them as impartially as possible. Your practice of dismissing carte blanche the work (Anderson's) recognized by most sources as the definitive English resource on the matter as "fluff", nearly ensures that you will always be displeased with this article (and even the Che Spanish language article for that matter, which recognizes Anderson's findings). Furthermore, it is not just Anderson, I am sure that you also would dismiss Castaneda, and Taibo II as "fluff" as well ... including probably 95 % of all Guevara biographies in print. Now there are places on the internet for your pov ruminations, but wikipedia is unfortunately not one of them.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already given my sources. The Hidden Face of Che by Jacobo Machover This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece The Cuba Archive Project Anything by Humberto Fontova. (He is stridently anti-Communist and anti-Che; but his facts are good.) Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa,

As for bias in the article, here's one example.

Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against those considered to be traitors, chivatos or war criminals. (Well, were they traitors, or were they mostly innocent? How exactly was a "traitor" defined? What were some of Che's own words on the subject?) Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted during the revolutionary tribunal process. On some (How many? What proportion?) occasions the penalty delivered by the tribunal was death by firing squad. Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands. (Interesting. Who might have considered it unjustified?) With 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed at the hands of Batista's accomplices, (This is simply a grotesque People's Weekly World style lie. Even the most anti-Batista periodicals of the day placed the number at less than 1,000.) publications and a survey at the time showing 93% public approval for the tribunal process, (How trustworthy is this survey that is being conducted by a government that we already see is engaged in large scale political executions?) the newly empowered Cuban government along with Guevara concurred. Although the exact numbers differ, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed during this time.

This entire section reads like an apology for the wave of executions. It takes great pains to mention 5 separate rationalizations for the executions (that the victims were "considered to be traitors", that they were given trial and only "some" were killed, that the restrictions on the death penalty were "eased" for benign reasons, repeating the lie that Bautista killed 20,000 people (implying that it's "no big deal to kill 2,000), and the 93% approval rating cited by the Cuban Ministry of Justice of all places!) while not mentioning anything reflecting poorly on Che, such as how the executions were televised, and how the trials were farces, not to mention some of Che's more colorful statements on the subject, such as:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We execute from revolutionary conviction!" Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

I could cite examples such as these in every paragraph. Please commission someone else to rewrite this article from scratch. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tintindeo, once again it is your personal point of view that the paragraph reads like an "apology". It is not my intention, nor should it be of any editor, to "excuse" the executions after the revolutionary tribunals. As I have said, I am open to including some differing views on the matter, which already exist in the utilized sources (not the poorly sourced editorialized essays and WP:FRINGE hit-pieces you would like to use). You can find a litany of web articles by Googling 'Che + Murderer', 'Che + Killer' etc, but that does not make them worthy of being used for an Encyclopedia. In reference to such, here is Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Che Guevara which I would add reads similarly to this wiki one, and even more favorably in many respects. As for your quote, yes it is indicative of Guevara's view on the executions, however Che (as most people) was a complex individual with many self conflicting views on an array of things. I wonder what your view would be on including some of Guevara's other verified statements like:

:: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine."

— Che Guevara

:: "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth. Far more important than a good remuneration is the pride of serving one's neighbor."

— Che Guevara [On Revolutionary Medicine, 1960]

:: "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality .... We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force."

— Che Guevara [Man and Socialism in Cuba, 1965]

:: "Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary."

— Che Guevara [last letter to his children]
I am ok with including any verifiable statement by Guevara (in its proper context), but with respect to WP:UNDUE there are 5 "fluff" (to use your designation) quotes which may show Guevara in a positive light, for every negative one. Many of those sources you cite take great effort to cherry pick many of Guevara's less flattering statements, but ignore those which could be interpreted more positively (this is what seperates them from biographers like Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo etc who report all aspects of his life, both pro & con).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Red my friend, don't take this the wrong way; just please note that I am not addressing you in my comments. You and yours have an MO. Any source critical of Che Guevara is "fringe". Any source worshipful of him is "reliable". It is unfortunate that so many have gotten conned by the Castroist/French Communist publicity machine that generally reliable sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica continue to lionize him. I'll remind you that Walter Durante of the New York Times was taken in hook, line, and sinker for Joseph Stalin and proceeded to run a full blown propaganda campaign for him in the NYT. I'll also alert you to how Herbert Matthews wrote glowingly of the revolution, assuring the public that Castro was not a Communist. There is a large contingent on the not-yet-fringe-Left that considers Che to be legit. which unfortunately seeps into sources that are not usually this wrong.
The fact remains that there are other reliable sources that are NOT fringe and that are critical, and you can't dismiss them. It is also true that the Anderson book will eventually be exposed as a monumental snow job. The fact also remains that you have yet to justify the two paragraphs I mentioned in which Che's brutality was rationalized while no fact reflecting poorly on Che was mentioned. The fact also remains that you have yet to explain why Che should be treated in a manner different from Pinochet, who is given much harsher treatment despite far bettor records on economics AND civil rights than Che and Castro; (this is a comparison between the two, not a defense of Pinochet). Quite frankly, Stalin is a much more apt parallel to Guevara than Pinochet. The fact remains that the 20,000 figure for Batista's victims is a lie that is invisible outside of Communist literature. The article as it stands is obviously biased in the extreme, so before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
But again, I'm not addressing you; I don't address apologists for mass murderers who happen to be Communists who are not yet--though soon will be--as discredited as Stalin is. I am asking a responsible editor to either provide a perspective to balance yours or to get someone else to write the article and insist that you recuse yourself. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.249.136.18 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 64.249.136.18. Anyone, including yourself, is welcome to refer to reliable sources and suggest changes to the article. It would be helpful if you would mention the sources more critical of Guevara which you consider reliable, and explain why you consider them reliable. What do you think of the biographies by Taibo and Castaneda? I've also replied here at your talk page. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
IP 64, who I believe is also Tintindeo (correct me if I am mistaken) ... the only modus operandi I have at this time is to follow wiki policies and prevent the article from turning into an unreliable editorial screed from Che-Sucks.com or a treatise from Saint-Che.com. I am aware that both sides have entrenched and impassioned positions, and that there is often time a parallel relationship between the degree of information an individual has on Che’s full life, and how strongly they feel about him. To some of your criticisms,      (1) None of the sources we utilize are “French” (not that such a fact would be a negative thing), and at Wiki we are only here to report the current reality – not to change it. Thus when Encyclopedia Britannica and other scholarly sources begin to ‘revise’ the life of Che, then Wikipedia will follow suit ... but not before. I understand your claim that all of society has been “duped”, however Wikipedia is not the place to counteract such a ‘phenomenon’. Even if as you say there was a elaborate conspiracy to hide the 'real facts' on Che and trick 90 % of the Western Media to tow the Castro line, Wikipedia would not be the place to counter this practice, and the article would follow suit with the 'duped' until they were no longer in the majority and most reliable sources.      (2) Of course there are critical sources of Guevara that are not WP:FRINGE. Additionally, the 3 main biographies (including Anderson) contain a litany of critical assertions (that could be still be included) – have you read Anderson’s work? Or do you just ‘assume’ it is a “snow job”? An additional source that contains critical information would be Leo Sauvage’s - Che Guevara: The Failure of a Revolutionary (1973), which compiles critical information, but does so in a scholarly and well sourced tone - and not as an editorial rant advocating a position (like many of the more recent Anti-Che screeds you cite).      (3) I am unsure why you feel that Pinochet is an apt comparison. Ignoring the fact that Wiki does not work that way (by comparing pages), I don’t find them to be analogous in a myriad of ways. If I told you to compare Che’s page to Simón Bolívar, Toussaint L'Overture, John Brown, or even Ronald Reagan (beloved by the American right, loathed by the global left) etc ... I am sure you would dismiss the analogy and respond with Pol Pot, Stalin, or Vlad The Impaler (seeing that you’ve already used Hitler as well). The method of historical negationism often applied to Che could be used on any historical figure, along with the impartial language you would like to see utilized. For example, I am sure that if Thomas Jefferson’s page began by describing (smearing) him as a "racist slave owning possible rapist" (Sally Hemings), it would be ‘technically true’ to some, but not a proper introduction for an Encyclopedia article on him, nor a way that any mainstream source would describe his life.      (4) In reference to the 20,000 deaths being "a lie" (as you claim), that figure exists in scores of sources from the time period and many written in the current day. Despite this, I am open to what cited evidence you have that the figure is false. Taibo’s biography (which uses the figure) would also not be described as “communist literature”.      (5) Lastly, I will not be recusing myself, simply because you resent my practice of ensuring that the article represents the majority of mainstream sources. There are many places on the internet for you to revile Che till your heart is content, and you will even find an echo chamber of agreement in many outlets, however an Encyclopedia is not the place to ‘revise’ the existing historical record. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I have no idea what IP64 is.

It's hard to take seriously these exhortations to name sources when I have done so on 2 separate occasions. I shall do so again. The Hidden Face of Che by Jacobo Machover This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece The Cuba Archive Project Anything by Humberto Fontova. (He is stridently anti-Communist and anti-Che; but his facts are good.) Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa,

One of these sources is the Times of London, which hopefully on par with the NYT and Britannica. I cite the others as reliable because I approve of their methodologies, and some have been given good press by generally accepted reliable sources. Fontova has a voice-in-the-wilderness quality to him, but his facts are good, he has also been given press, and he should not be ignored. None of these are "recent anti-Che screeds"; and only Fontova comes close to a "screed" in his tone; and I wish he wouldn't because all it does is obscure that his facts and methodology are reliable. As for me thinking that "That is because you were all taken in...by that verdampter [Castro] Propaganda", I said no such thing. There are a lot of media people who understand who Guevara really was; unfortunately, there are also several caught in the Castro hype. Anderson will eventually be seen as Walter Durante II.

I am sure that if Thomas Jefferson’s page began by describing (smearing) him as a "racist slave owning possible rapist" (Sally Hemings), it would be ‘technically true’ to some, but not a proper introduction for an Encyclopedia article on him, nor a way that any mainstream source would describe his life.

Good point. It is for precisely the same reasons (except for the lack of substantiation--as far as I know--for the Jefferson rape allegation) that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Che are properly described in an encyclopedia for what they primarily were: totalitarian killers. The analogy between Che and the first three is not quite apt, because the first three were real politicians, while Che was mainly an executioner whose victims were often brought to him pre-gagged and bound.

In other words, imagine, Red, that someone came to a Hitler discussion protesting that there weren't enough positive things on Hitler's page, and that there should be some balance in the article reflecting Hitler's point of view and putting Hitler's policies in a more positive light. (Substitute Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or anyone else if you don't wish to tread on Goodwin territory.) What would you think of this person's contributions? Well, Red, my estimation of your contributions is the same as your estimation of those of this hypothetical person's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re "IP64": Please log in to Wikipedia with a username so that it's easier for us to tell whether we're talking to one person or several different people. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of this talk page, you can see that some of the edits to this talk page have been credited not to usernames of any logged-in users, but to IP addresses such as "64.249.136.18" and "68.197.236.146". Perhaps you're using dynamic IP, so your comments don't always come in from the same IP address. Redthoreau was using "IP64" as an abbreviation for "64.249.136.18", which is, in effect, the account name that one of the comments was posted under. It also helps if you sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Your statement that Che was "primarily" a "totalitarian killer" is your own opinion. I don't see this view reflected in the biographies I've read. Leaders of many countries are responsible for deaths in wars and executions (where they have the right to pardon or veto the execution); we don't necesssarily portray them as primarily killers. Wikipedia articles, according to the neutral point-of-view policy, are supposed to present the views that are shown in the reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Wikipedian editors.
Redthoreau said Fontova's book was not peer-reviewed (See links below).
Re reliability of Fontova: see Redthoreau's comments at Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 14#Humberto Fontova and Che not needing proof to execute and Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#Comments. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
IP 68/64/Tintindeo (all same person) ...

WP:VERIFY ---> Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
  • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
    Also see WP:SOURCE & WP:FRINGE
To your comments --- (A) “Naming a source” is more than simply stating the name of a book. A good place to start would be to give a page # and passage in context of a desired revision, accompanied with the source note from the book, of where that author derived the aforementioned information. That way the claim can be weighed against the 3 main biographies and other sources on Guevara's life WP:UNDUE . (B) Your Times Online article is merely a description of the authors motivation for writing the book. It does not address the actual claims within, as a peer-reviewed academic journal article would. Have you read the book itself, what are some of its main claims and sources? Moreover, the 3 main Che biographies have all been peer-reviewed by scholars in the field numerous times … your desired sources have not. (C) The Cuba Archive Project is a web based advocacy group, with most of their work still unpublished, and likewise free of academic review. (D) Humberto Fontova is the epitome of a WP:POV / WP:Fringe source, who writes in a bombastically polemic style, and often times cites himself for a litany of revisionist and conspiratorial claims. His editorialized (hardly ever sourced) hyperbolic diatribes (where he calls people "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", "boobs" etc) are written solely on hyper-partisan websites, for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context to the contrary. (E) If Anderson is ever viewed as ”Durante II” then Wikipedia will have to reassess him as a primary source. However at this time, his work remains the definitive, and most widely acclaimed biography on Guevara which was even endorsed for a documentary by the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Marxism). (F) Che is not “primarily described as a “totalitarian killer” as I have shown with the Britannica link. This descriptive view is your opinion, and not the majority view of authors, experts, mainstream news outlets, or scholars who have written on the subject. If it ever becomes so, then you will have a justifiable claim, however as it stands now, you do not. (G) if you wish to be taken seriously… I would recommend relinquishing the Reductio ad Hitlerum’s.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think the History Channel is a "reliable source of info. then there is no need to proceed.Again, there are several people who understand Anderson to be a dupe; and this will be revealed in a few years. Concerning the praise Anderson received from all those bastions of Journalism you mention, the question becomes, from which contributors? Ignorant Che fetishists are all over the media.If you don't like Fontova, (and I wish he would tone down the invective, because it does only hurt him) I've given you plenty of other guys. The passages are coming shortly. Regarding Britannica, it represents the adage that all institutions are vulnerable to Left-Wing bias, particularly with a subject like Ché, that arouses the interests only of Castro fetishists and Cuban exiles; and for some reason, the Castro fetishists, despite never having seen anything, are more highly regarded in the academy. The academy seems to simply disregard the Cuban exile community that has lost their country. (Perhaps they regard them as an embittered oppressor class.) Anyway, Britannica got this one wildly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tintindeo, to begin I have removed your personal attack against me, and would encourage you to review the Wiki policy of WP:NPA. To your comments. (1) Nowhere in the article is The History Channel used as a source, my rationale for bringing it up was to display to you that Anderson’s book was acknowledged by them (along with nearly everyone else) to be the authoritative source on the matter. I’ll let others decide if The History Channel is more credible than an anonymous wiki user, who apparently thinks 90 % of the world are “dupes”. (2) I’ve taken note that you used the word “several” in relation to those who find Anderson to in your words “be a dupe”. That is probably correct; however the vast overwhelming majority find him to be one of the definitive sources on the topic. I can find you “several” people who think the earth is flat, or that George Bush is really a giant lizard ... however these WP:Fringe theories do not usually get a prominent placing (if any) on a primary Wikipedia article. (3) As for the “coming passages”, if they do not reflect the overall consensus of the major biographers or peer reviewed academic journals, or if they are littered with pov polemic hyperbole as some of your posts here have been, then you might as well save yourself the time and not bother to create them. Your time may be better spent writing a blog essay or perhaps you could write your own book entitled “Why scholars, biographers, and Britannica are all dupes and Castro fetishists, and why I’ve unearthed the truth on Che Guevara” ... or something to that effect.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to you and/or Coppertwig to "answer" every comment on this page. Please! Allow editors to have some conversations free of control. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, many of the above comments reflect a back and forth conversation/retort between me and Tintindeo etc. It obviously would be "up to me" to comment when someone addresses me. Nevertheless, even if they weren't, all editors are free to reply to any of the talk page comments that they choose. Sometimes a day or two will pass by before I even reply, and my responses are in no way intended to "control" anyone. If you have replies you would like to include to any future (or past) posters, I would encourage you to feel uninhibited in making them. Your opinion on the articles content is more than welcome here (as it is for all posters).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, there was a time when a variety of productive conversations occurred between multiple editors on this page as occurred on this page prior prior to the time all comments were had to be evaluated and judged by you and Coppertwig before they could remain. Many of my referenced additions were reverted. When the page returns to its vibrant normalcy representing a more balance representation of various points of view and not must the POV of you and Coppertwig, then true collaboration can occur. When long time productive editors of this page are willing to return, it will be because the aurora of the two of you controlling this page has been dispelled. Do you not wonder why no respectable editor is willing to get involved in editing this page? Why the long time editors that created the Che FA has fled? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A conservative recognizes Che's nuance

I feel that maybe this recent piece could be included in the article. I am a conservative and recognize the complexity of Che's legacy, and in fact can be embarassed at times by the hypocritical hysteria that goes into criticizing him.

From the American Conservative Magazine:

"Lincoln, Wilson and FDR–each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used in rationalizing revolutionary violence is employed to praise and sanctify approved figures who authorized much larger slaughters for the “right reasons.” Not only have sympathetic, shoulder-shrugging, anti-moralizing stories been told about these men, but we have built large physical monuments to them (or at least to two of the three mentioned above), which is rather more troubling in its way than silly people who wear T-shirts or directors who minimize the moral failings of their main characters." 137.52.151.206 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 137, I am not sure what part of the above excerpt you believe should be included. Of note, I don't believe that the article at present accuses conservatives of "lacking nuance", although I guess one would assume (on ideological grounds) that most conservatives would not view Che favorably. I can't really comment on "hypocritical hysteria", nor would my own personal view be relevant, but if you have a reliable source (I guess this could be one) which addresses such a thing, we can look it over for possible inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, you do not have to control this page and monitor every comment and respond. Arghh! I can hardly breathe! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I do not consider replying to a fellow editors question, statement, or request as a form of "control" or "monitoring". Please WP:Assume Good Faith and realize that you (or anyone else for that matter) are also welcome to reply to such comments as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Reader

As a new reader of this article I have to agree with Editor br that this article seems to really be biased and "pro Che". I came to wiki to read about Che after seeing that a movie had been made about him and I knew very little about him except that he was some kind of rebel and that people either loved him or hated him, but most who wear his t-shirt know nothing of him. Now having a reputation of being loved or hated is pretty strong. When I read this article today I just had a feeling that the writer/s were pro Che. I know you will ask for specific evidence and that is hard for me to do because its just the overall feeling I get from the whole article and not a specific line. The article just seems to use words like hero and revolutionary more than once. A hero to one could be a villan to another. A revolutionary to one is a rebel to another. Do you see what I mean? I get the sense from the entrie article that it was written by someone who loved Che, but where is the balance to this? Redthroueau states many, many times on this discussion page that he does not want someone who is not "well versed or educated about Che" to add or change anything about this article. It just seems to me that you are really saying that YOU are the only one who knows anything about Che and that only YOU can deem changes worthy of someone you seem to worship. Again, this is what I get from the tone of what you write, I may be completely wrong. Really, I am not trying to be negative. Sometime people just get themselves so deeply involved with a project that they begin to feel a deep connection or ownership of it and take it really hard when anyone tries to criticize it. I think that is what has happened here. I am new to commenting in discussion and know nothing of the wiki process, but it seems obvious to me that this article needs some serious POV help. Just my 2 cents and I am sorry if I step on anyones toes. Circling skies (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Circling Skies, first welcome to Wikipedia. To your comments ... [1] What was the movie you saw about Che before visiting this article, and how did it match up in comparison? [2] The "writers" views on Che (pro or con) should be irrelevant to the article. What is relevant is the opinion of the published reliable sources. If those sources have a majority favorable view, then ipso facto, the article will reflect that reality. [3] The word "hero" only appears twice in the entire article, and both times in the legacy section (where he is also referred to as a "butcher" and "ruthless executioner" according to some). [4] I do NOT worship Che (in fact I don't worship anyone) and recognize that all human beings are complex with both positive and negative attributes. My goal as a historian and editor here is to ensure that the article does not devolve into a partisan hack-job or love-fest and stays true to the main biographies on the subject. Hence why sources from Che-Lives or Che Sucks (dot)-com are not utilized. Guevara is a very polarizing figure, and those with the most impassioned views on him (from both sides) are often those with very little information of his actual life. If one has only read a Conservative attack piece by Humberto Fontova, or a "Viva Che" piece from Che-lives.com - then of course they will have a problem with the article as it stands. The article I believe does an admirable job of trying to blend the views of reputable and non-partisan sources and relies on several of the major biographies. However with that said, I am always open to criticisms and attempts to improve this mission, as long as any editor makes a good faith effort to mutually investigate the printed materials and judge them with respect to accuracy and WP:UNDUE weight.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading this entire article, talk page, and some of the talk history, I tend to agree with several users that feel that there may be a POV problem with this article. Redthoreau, while I appreciate your passion on the subject, any time a source has been mentioned that provides a counterpoint to the article, you simply blow it off as faulty. It certainly makes sense that many of the criticisms of Che come from conservative sources, just as Anderson and Castaeda's texts come from sources looking for redeeming qualities in Che's legacy. Both men were liberal and pro-Che. This does not make their views any less valid, of course, as their work was thoroughly researched (and well-written, I might add). I do question your simply blowing off the sources that have been presented by other editors as "anti-Che" and "conservative"; these qualities, of themselves, do not make the contentions they contain any less valid or relevant. While some requests (eg labeling as a "terrorist") would probably not be advisable, I do find it odd that essentially every criticism of Che is boiled down into only two sentences in the article. Clearly there is a considerably larger amount of criticism directed at Che (as has been demonstrated by several other editors) than is referenced in the article, and what is there is not "throughout" the article as you stated was advisable when you were defending the removal of the criticism section. I am not really on either side of this debate, I just thought I would try to add some neutral feedback on the issue. Cfirst (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cfirst, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Looking over the article, I find a host of unflattering characteristics mentioned (not merely "one sentence" as you claim). To demonstrate this ALL of the below bolded phrases or words are included in the current article, which I am combining to form a paragraph:
"Che was a controversial radical, notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and thus has been occasionally reviled. He rarely bathed, sent execution squads to hunt deserters, and was feared for brutality and ruthlessness and personally responsible for execution of a number of men. Several hundred people were executed at La Cabana on cases where he reviewed the appeals, he accidentally shot himself when his gun dropped, he was described as “crackers” for his desire to have fired nukes at NYC during Cuban missile crisis. He considered his Congo expedition the history of a failure and is viewed by some as a spokesman for a failed ideology and as a ruthless executioner. Then Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years & he remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as the butcher of La Cabaña."
Now obviously if someone posted this as a singular 'rant', we would announce it POV, however all of the above information is present in the current article (that a few editors seem to unfortunately believe is hagiographical). ----- With all that said, I am currently working on researching some more critical aspects (in addition to other things), which I plan to include in the article in the near future, and would welcome any editor to propose certain info and its source if they so choose. Some of these factors I'm attempting to address are: (1) His unfavorable effect on the Cuban economy as head of the Central Bank (2) Further elaboration on those executions he personally pulled the trigger for ... under what rationale and against whom (3) Examples of his rigid, dogmatic, and intolerant personality (4) More elaboration on the executions at La Cabana with both pro and con rationales for their legitimacy ETC. ----- Obviously these issues need to be addressed in WP:NPOV with respect to WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE, and with cross-sourcing (along with ideally not being blatantly contradicted by the major biographies) – but I believe that all of that is possible. There are a myriad of unflattering characteristics about Che’s flawed life/legacy/impact in texts, which are not written in an accusatory un-encyclopedic hyperbolic tone.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like things are on the right track, then. I think at least some of the concerns others have expressed here will be alleviated by the additions you mentioned. Thanks for your work on this article.Cfirst (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

media

Is there any way to find video and sound files that aren't reliant on realplayer? 69.249.150.28 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 67, the format should play on whichever video player is your default on your computer. You can download realplayer --> Here (for PC) or Here if you own a Mac.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, RealMedia will require the aforementioned player or codecs for playback. I'm not super-familiar with MacOS, but Windows and Linux systems often will not play this format out of the box (as is the case on the machine from which I address you). There are a large number of Che clips on YouTube which you might consider as an alternative: software installation is not always an option for those on shared terminals.Ogre lawless (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

advice

I advise anyone who is seriously interested in editing this page, consider that Coppertwig sets the conditions for editing this page. Redthoreau is in contact with Coppertwig and is coached on how to handle their mutual Che Guevara POV. I have complained about this because it does not take place on this page but is covert. Coppertwig says he is merely supporting civility by coaching Redthoreau on how to handled this page. As I have said to Coppertwig, what I object to is that this "coaching" is hidden. If you look back in the history of the talk pages, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1, you can see how after Redthoreau took over the article lost its FA status because of POV. See how the main editor of this page no longer edits it. Look at the edit patterns and the dates:[15] Polaris999 has not since last June, despite repeatedly being "invited" back by Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau. It is a shame but I do not think anything can be done about it, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is meant to be realistic advice to anyone who wants to edit this page. If anyone disagrees, then please comment here. It is worthwhile to remember that it was Jimmy Wales who put the POV tag on this article. He is the founder of Wikipedia. I am merely urging people to look at the data, look at the history on the talk page, look at the history of contributions, and make their own decision. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse or anyone else, if you would like to participate in editing this article but are not comfortable doing so because the editing dynamics here are somehow not to your liking, what would work for me would be if you would state clearly that you're interested in editing the article, and in the same message state clearly what conditions you feel you need in order to be able to edit comfortably. I will then seriously consider complying with your requests or negotiating with you about them.
Re your allegations about POV, "[taking] over", loss of FA status etc.: I will reply on your talk page, as I think this discussion is getting off-topic; this page is supposed to be for discussing article content. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Che"

Does anybody know where in the article (unless it was deleted) it mentions how they gave him the nickname Che, I wanted to do an edit regarding that. Lighthead þ 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lighthead, nice to have your participation. Currently this issue is addressed in the center of the Guatemala section and reads:

:: During this period he acquired his famous nickname, due to his frequent use of the Argentine diminutive interjection che, which is used similarly to "hey" or "pal. [25]

You are certainly welcome to elaborate on this point. What did you have in mind?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Here are some "criticisms" of the article, which I will assume was mainly written by Red.

Quote: Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, ratifying sentences which in some cases utilized firing squads.

"Convicted...war criminals" who are "sentenced with firing squads" implies that there were certain persons who violated just war conventions, such as the Geneva conventions who were prosecuted and convicted in proper military tribunals and executed when found guilty. This, from everything I have heard and read, is not what happened in this instance. I would have rephrased it thusly.

After the Cuban Revolution, the Castro government rounded up several officials of the deposed Bautista Regime, as well as dissidents and perceived political threats, and subsequently summoned them to appear before tribunals over which Che Guevara presided. In the event of a guilty verdict the prisoners were promptly executed by firing squads also managed by Che Guevara. As there is next to no record of Guevara ever issuing a verdict other than guilty and as no credible defense was afforded to the accused, these trials are understood to have been show-trials, and the executions political murders. Both the show trials and the executions were ceremonial, and often televised. Overall, the first three years of the Castro regime saw 2,400 documented political executions--though scholars suspect a significant amount of undocumented cases--and over 300,000 political prisoners, which amounts to a ratio of one prisoner for every 18 Cuban residents, a higher ratio than the Soviet Union ever had, even during the Stalinist purges.

Here's another: Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader. After death, his stylized image became a ubiquitous countercultural symbol worldwide.

Che never held a political office, admitted never to have formally acquired a medical degree, and never won a guerrilla battle. Che did however, spend a good chunk of his time as an executioner. Let's thus rephrase for accuracy:

Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, author, executioner, and guerrilla fighter. After death, his stylized image became a countercultural symbol worldwide, in spite of his well documented murders of civilians that by his own admission ran well past 2,000 in number.

Or this: Both notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and revered by supporters for his rigid dedication to professed doctrines, Guevara remains an admired, controversial, and significant historical figure. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives Guevara evolved into a quintessential icon of leftist-inspired movements.

could easily be changed to this:

Che was a fanatical ideologue whose paranoia drove him to unhesitatingly shoot defectors. Because of this, he is either loathed or unnoticed by much of the world, but nonetheless remains admired amongst certain segments of the global Left who see him as an icon of defiance and a martyr for his cause, and who are enthralled by a famously photogenic pose he struck for Alberto Korda, which is considered the most famous photograph in the world.

None of the facts change. The current interpretation of a ruthless disciplinarian who shoots people who step out of line is changed to a paranoid maniac who shoots people who step out of line. Given what we know about his personal death toll, what seems to be the better evaluation?

The Jon Lee Anderson bio has taken a lot of criticism for being a fawning puff piece and using as its principle source one of Che's Communist prosecutors himself, Orlando Borrego, who to this day remains a functionary in the Castro government. As a counterweight, I included sources such as the Cuba Archive Project, the book Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, and the work of the maligned, but nonetheless surprisingly scrupulous Humberto Fontova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 January 2009

Reply to Tintindeo82: I see that you're concerned about "convicted as war criminals" as implying that the people actually were war criminals. I think it allows the reader to decide whether to agree with such convictions, but perhaps the wording could be changed somehow. It would help to find a reliable source stating that they were not war criminals – does one of the sources you mention above do that or something similar? In some other places I think the wording needs to be changed, e.g. "accomplices" sounds too negative, and I've just changed "murdered" to "killed".
I think some of your suggestions are too anti-Che and some I'm not convinced are verifiable facts.
Re this passage:
" Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against those considered to be traitors, chivatos or war criminals.[10] Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted during the revolutionary tribunal process.[11] On some occasions the penalty delivered by the tribunal was death by firing squad.[12] Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.[13] With 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed at the hands of Batista's accomplices,[14] and a survey at the time showing 93% public approval for the tribunal process,[15] the newly empowered Cuban government along with Guevara concurred. Although the exact numbers differ, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed during this time.[16]"
I suggest changing the last 3 sentences "Raul ... during this time" to "Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, expressed a concern that the public might take justice into their own hands as a result of 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed by people working for Batista. The new government, including Che, concurred, and tribunals were set up, for which a survey at the time showed 93% public support." The main advantage of this change is to remove the word "justified", thus putting less emphasis on the revolutionary government POV. Perhaps these sentences need to be moved to earlier in the paragraph to make it more chronological. I would appreciate it if someone would check whether this suggestion is in accord with the sources. I found my copy of Anderson but it doesn't have Treto in the index; I can get the Treto source from JSTOR but it may take me weeks to get around to it.
If someone can find a reliable source that expresses a different POV about the tribunals themselves or about the accuracy of the survey, it would be good to add those POVs to the text, e.g. after the sentence mentioning Nuremburg, another sentence reporting some other POV from a reliable source.
I don't remember seeing a source saying that Che presided over the tribunals, as opposed to reviewing the written records of evidence and convictions which had been made by other people acting as judges. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Tintindeo82, I am aware of the potential futility in discussing point of view matters, however there are many factual inaccuracies in your remarks, to say nothing of the extreme POV and hyperbolic language. I will do my best to respond to your criticisms in their chronological order.     (1) I would not classify the article as “mainly written by me” and would even contend that upwards of 80 % of all the words were inserted from other editors.     (2) “War Criminal” is not a phrase that belongs solely to the practice of disobeying the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, Guevara did not as you contend “preside” over any revolutionary tribunals. They were panels of 3 judges and held all over the country in several areas. For those held at La Cabana, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those found guilty during the tribunal process. As Castaneda notes, the degree to which Guevara enjoyed this process is not definitive, and there are reports which Castaneda notes of how he did pardon cases of those found guilty. Taibo goes further and notes how Guevara reviewed cases that did not deliver death sentences, although Anderson notes 55 cases where Borrego and Guevara made the final call on whether to deliver a pardon at La Cabana.     (3) To your claim of “no credible defense being afforded” to the guilty, this is also a disputed issue. Although all sources agree that defense counsel was provided, the degree of their competency or effectiveness yes is disputed. For your claim of them thus being “political murders” (although I guess philosophically many would argue all capital punishment is “murder”), none of the 3 main Guevara biographers use such a term, nor do about 50 of the 54 books/biographies dealing with Guevara’s life. See WP:UNDUE. If that was the term commonly used, then of course that is how it would be reported in the article. To the issue of “show trials”, I am ok with mentioning sourced remarks about how Guevara critics describe the trials as “show trials” or “Kangaroo courts” etc, if we also include the other sourced view that they were not.     (4) What is your source for the firing squads “often being televised”? There is only one known case of a televised firing squad execution that I am aware of ... that of Batista chief of police in Santa Clara, Col. Cornelio Rojas. (Do you know of any others?)     (5) What is your source for 2,400 “documented” political executions? As stated above, there are many different numbers for those killed under Guevara’s command, and nationwide. Also what years are these over? As it would not be relevant to attribute executions that took place while Guevara was no longer in power in Cuba, or deceased.     (6) In relation to 300,000 political prisoners, that number is used often by Fontova, but never in many of the more mainstream sources. Furthermore, if true, that would probably be more relevant to an article on human rights in Cuba, or maybe Fidel Castro’s article (who would have had the final say on such matters).     (7) “Che NEVER had a political office” = Huh? It is irrefutable that Che served as Cuban minister of industry and president of Cubas national bank. This is recognized by every source, regardless of political ideology.     (8) “Never formerly required a medical degree” = Often repeated by critics, however untrue, a copy of Guevara’s medical school transcript can be found [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer. I can also look you up an additional source for a copy of his medical diploma if you would like.     (9) “Never won a guerrilla battle” = Once again, often repeated, however contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Leaving aside the The Battle of Santa Clara (and yes I am aware that Fontova creates an alternate reality where there were under 10 casualties) the forces pitted 300 of Guevara’s men against 3,000 of Batista’s troops and is recognized as a battle, it is also irrefutable that Guevara killed 30 Bolivian soldiers in ambushes before losing his first casualty in Bolivia – See Henry Butterfield Ryan.     (10) “Great deal of his time as an executioner” = There are roughly 10-15 documented cases of individuals who Che personally executed. As for his time at La Cabana, all sides agree that it only lasted 6 months. Thus most of Che's time, irregardless of the death toll, was NOT spent as an executioner.     (11) It is disputed that Guevara ever “admitted” to well past 2,000 executions. As noted by Castaneda, CIA agent Felix Rodriguez claims that before his own execution Che admitted to such a figure, despite the fact that Felix did not report this matter in his personal CIA report of the incident, his personal memoirs, or in a personal interview with Castaneda himself. There is also contradicting evidence of whether Felix ever even met with Guevara, some evidence that his photo with Guevara could have been doctored (see the German documentary 'Schnappschuss mit Che' (Snapshot with Che) by journalist Wilfried Huismann News Story), and Felix still to this day wears Guevara’s watch as a personal “trophy”. I would imagine that any reported confessions by Guevara of a man before his own execution would be branded unreliable, however in this instance you are ok with taking the word of the man who relayed his execution order, on what some of those last words may have been. I think you would agree that they should at least be taken with a grain of salt.     (12) “Anderson has taken criticism” = He may have received such criticism by hyper partisans, however his work has received praise from: The New Yorker, The Economist, Newsday, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Publishers Weekly, The Sunday Times, Foreign Affairs, Book List, The Kansas City Star, San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The Independent, The New York Review of Books, The Denver Post, Latin Trade, Kirkus Reviews, The New York Press, The Guardian, The Times of London, Literary Review, Harpers, The Philadelphia Enquirer, The Boston Book Review, and The Boston Globe. Hardly bastions of Marxist thought, nor on the payroll for Fidel Castro the last time I checked.     (13) Per your accusation that Anderson used Orlando Borrego as a “principle source” what is your source for that? Anderson spent 5 years traversing Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, The United Kingdom, Moscow, Washington D.C., and yes Miami (where he consulted Cuban exiles including CIA agent Felix Rodriguez).     (14) Your “counterweights” (all of which I have read) are an activist website, and books published for the specific purpose of attacking/criticizing Guevara. Llosa’s “book” is really a few page web essay (written for his think tank) with very little sourcing. As for Humberto Fontova being “scrupulous”, the only thing “scrupulous” with his tirades/screeds are that they are riddled with colorful over the top hyperbole, unverifiable events whose only source is himself, and irrelevant straw men. His “research” is filled with immature vernacular, written in an almost Gonzo style (which I enjoy, but not for an Encyclopedia).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am reading Jon Lee Andersons book right now, and agree that it is a great book with alot of research involved. 137.52.150.252 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Facts

Just curious if anyone thinks that the fact that "Che" descends from one of the 14 tribes of Galway, the Lynches, is interesting. Not sure if it should be mentioned, just cause I thought it was neat. Any thoughts? Here is the source I found for it. It comes from the book, "The Good Intent."

http://books.google.com/books?id=IB_NzHoV8FUC&pg=PA447&lpg=PA447&dq=pierce+lynch+married+ellin+martin&source=bl&ots=ngk3pc1EPy&sig=sHr2Xp2Y1rVU12D2i0ho-UdC5OA&hl=en&ei=rSKpSeTCM5HItQP7tsj2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA449,M1

Type in "Che" in the search box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker1026 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whole books have been written about Che. We can't include every detail in this summary article. The source you give seems to be a self-published book, so probably not a reliable source for that information. Thanks for making a suggestion, though. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

=The Death sentences

Death sentences don't "use" firing squads. They can "prescribe" an execution by firing squad.

"Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, ratifying sentences which in some cases utilized firing squads.", as appears in the opening paragraphs of the article, is weasel-wording. It somehow (clumsily) appears to minimize Guevara's responsibilities. A "sentence utilizing firing squads" is called, in normal English, a "death sentence" and the "utilization of firing squads" is called an "execution by firing squads".

If "numerous" death sentences is felt as being POV, even something like "ratifying sentences which in some cases (the number of death sentences is disputed) involved execution by firing squad" would be much better than the present formulation Giordaano (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Giordaano, I would agree with your above rationale and second choice for revised wording. I have been meaning to delve into this issue more, but recently got distracted with other articles. Hopefully in the next week or two, I intend to propose an overhaul for part of this section to include a content note of all the various execution figures. I also want to add cited opinions on the judicial nature of the proceedings, and various biographers’ views on their precedent/'fairness'. Your opinions on that proposal when it occurs are more than welcome.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

"quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation", according to WP:Quotations

Most quotations in this articles were like mottos for the paragraphs, not parts of the actual text of the article. That's against the practices in Wikipedia (and IMO, also bringing POV into the article), so I removed them. bogdan (talk)

Bogdan, I reverted your large deletion of long standing material from the article in the hopes that the issue could be discussed here on the talk page to attempt to reach a consensus. Previously when the matter of quotes was discussed in October of 2008, the decision was to keep them, however this does not mean that we are binded by that decision. First to address your concerns as I understand them:
[1] You are utilizing a passage from WP:QUOTE. Although the article contains useful information, I would note that it is only an "essay" which "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" ... however as it stipulated on the very top of the page "essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion."
[2] However, in relation to this essay of advice: "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia" which "provide a direct source of information or insight." It goes on "Brief quotations ... may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." = I would argue many of the removed quotes do just this. The essay continues "A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves" = I would posit that this is exactly what some of the quotes by Che himself do. It is not WP:POV (which refers to us as editors) to utilize the POV of the actual individual the article is on (realizing that his remarks are always inescapably his own pov). As for the essay the other suggestions state that quotes should "be sourced" = these are, and that "editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section" = I would put forward that these quotes are NOT in a stand alone section, but are actually within 'the body' of the article. I find these remarks to relate to a specific section of an article entitled "notable statements/quotes" etc.
[3] The one issue of contention with this suggestive essay is the part you cite initially, stating that quotes should be "presented with an introduction" and that "a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph." In regards to this suggestion, I would argue that in fact most of the removed quotations are in fact paragraphs in themselves, and yes they are "a stand along paragraph", unlike a one line quote (which I interpret this as referring to). As for them being presented with an introduction, I would interpret this to refer to a short out of context statement without clear relevance to the article. However, all of the removed quotations are directly relevant to the sections below them. Thus, I would argue that they are within the 'spirit' of this suggestion, as no explanation for their relevance is necessary for your usual reader.
[4] Although WP:QUOTE is merely a suggestive essay, Wikipedia does have a clearly defined policy with regards to quotations @ WP:MOSQUOTE. In fact, the MOS page provides the actual template utilized for these aforementioned deleted quotes, with the pre-formatted attribution line (making them clearly 'stand alone'). Additionally, nowhere in WP:MOSQUOTE does is state any of the suggestions utilized in your initial remarks as justification for removal.
[5] I believe it is best to address the Wiki policy argument for the preservation of these long standing quotes. However, if you want to challenge them on regards of them being POV, (let me know) as I am welcome to have that discussion as well. Thanks, and I apologize for the length.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Bogdan, you seem to have ignored my lengthy reply to your concern, and simply removed all the quotes again. Moreover, this time you rationale has now shifted from "against the practices in Wikipedia" (a structural policy issue) to "out-of-context" and "pushing a POV" (a content issue). Am I to discern from this that you no longer challenge the quotes on grounds of them being in contradiction to wiki guidelines, but now wish to debate their inclusion on the grounds that they are improperly contextualized, and pushing a WP:POV? Because that is an entirely different discussion altogether from my above statements, and would require you to provide at least minimal rationale for why you believe this to be the case (especially since these quotes have remained virtually unchallenged for months on end, while being viewed by hundreds of thousands of individual readers). For example, if I were to integrate these statements into the article per your first structural complaint, would you then shift to desire their removal on grounds of POV? As a self-proclaimed administrator, I am surprised to see you discounting any talk page discussion, while also providing little foundational basis for your disputed removal.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, there are both structural policy issues and content issues:
[a] POV issues: -- Adding too many quotes by him about himself skews the neutrality balance toward his own POV, because there's one POV included and that's his own; imagine what would be if the article on Adolf Hitler included lots of assorted quotations from his Mein Kampf.
-- Picking the quotes themselves is dictated by a POV: you chose a certain quote from TIME that shows Guevara in a good light. I'm sure that I can find plenty of quotes that label him a murderer of civilians in the mainstream American media.
[b] Structural issues -- the article is not cohesive, it uses a format that is not commonly used in Wikipedia; we use paragraphs, we don't throw random paragraphs of text that are not linked to the rest of the article. the quotes should be there for a purpose, in a context, not just as mottos.
also, the argument that it has been so for a long time is not valid. Wikipedia evolves, I've been here for seven years and many things that were acceptable even three years ago are no longer acceptable. bogdan (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Bogdan, a Reductio ad hitlerum in violation of Godwin's Law is not a good way to start off a good faith discussion. If I wanted to be equally hyperbolic, I guess I could say = "can you imagine a wiki article about Martin Luther King Jr, that ignored most of his famous speeches, announcing them his own POV? It is also not promising, that you dictate their removal (without consensus), and then pretend to be interested in discussing the issue (usually the order is the other way around). To your specific statements [a] Yes you could find "plenty" of quotes by American media that label him a murderer of civilians, however in regards to WP:Undue the majority of American or international sources do not. We are here to represent the majority views of those scholars and established + WP:Reliable news sources that relate to the topic at hand. The specific Time Magazine piece you cite was written during the time period in question, after a direct interview in Cuba with Che Guevara and those around him. Making it far more credible than a partisan detractor’s blog or historically negationist news article 40 year later, which might cast all sorts of unfounded charges against Guevara. [b] If the concern is cohesiveness, then some of these quotes could be amended into the text so as to avoid being in your words "mottos". However, I fear that once I interspersed some of them into the body of the article, that you would then hastily remove them under a POV rationale. If that was not the talk page consensus, then you would remove them under something else. Point being, I am not convinced from your actions thus far, that you are concerned with any sort of collaboration or discussion on the matter, rather choosing to dictate their removal regardless of talk page discussion, and then offer up an ever shifting rationale to do so. Furthermore, you have not offered anything of “addition” to the article, but rather only offered up items to be "subtracted" from the entry. POV issues are usually reliant on the overall composition, and sometimes can be ‘counter-balanced’ with the diametrically opposite preposition, the result being preferential to simply removing or excluding them both.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdented Addendum) Bogdan, I no longer wish to dispute your removal of the standing alone quotes, and since have carefully taken some of their former material and blended it within the article's body. I hope this will bring resolution to your initial concerns of Wikipedia “modes of style”. Per your pov concerns, as always you are free to: open a new discussion outlying why you wish to challenge the inclusion of any of the aforementioned cited materials, or to counter their incidence with new referenced material, which you feel addresses any perceived bias you believe still exists. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Private property

I have read the article, and a good part of the discussion. This article seems to be the private property of Redthoreau (with some participation of Coppertwig). They, quite obviously, are in a position to give this article an amount of time and effort which would be difficult to match, and have effectively sidelined any dissenting view. There is little point therefore in wasting one's time against impossible odds. Good bye, one and all.Giordaano (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Giordaano, to clarify this article is not my "private property" nor anyone else’s WP:OWN. I can also not be held responsible for the fact that other editors are not willing to put in the amount of time that Coppertwig or I am willing to devote to the article. I find it puzzling, that you have proposed 1 change to the article which was kept (with me even agreeing with your rationale), but somehow I 'squash' dissenting views. If you are interested in editing the article, I would encourage you to do so, and I even welcome your participation. However, the talk page is not the place for dramatic farewells as a result of imagined martyrdom (especially when the most recent and only alteration you proposed still stands).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Executions, tribunals, public support, 'war criminals'

Um...why isn't there anything about the victims of Che Guevara? Anything about the several thousand summary executions he claimed to have ordered, or the many murders he himself committed, say the 14-year old he ordered murdered along with many other innocent civilians La Cabana Fortress (names of these individualis down below) or the pregnant lady he decided to shoot in the stomach..? Does anyone who can edit this article care to mention his rhetoric and his quotes?? "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." -The Cuban Revolution : Years of Promise (2005) by Teo A. Babun and Victor Andres Triay, p. 57

Did we ever talk about he was more than just a Marxist but a Communist? The 156 executed at La Cabaña Fortress prison at Che Guevara’s orders?

Or do these facts seem irrelevant for whatever reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.185.84 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Marxist and Communist? do you even know what is a Marxist and what is a Communist? And do you have any reliable source to back up your claims? This is an encyclopedia article, not a debate on different political views Ufopedia (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
IP 70, first to some of your claims/objections. [1] The "thousands" (the number Rodriguez claims was actually 1,500) of executions that Che "admitted" to have ordered are mentioned by Daniel James (1969: pg 113) in reference to a claim made by CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, from an alleged conversation with Che before his execution. However Jorge Castañeda in Compañero, notes that this information is not included in Rodriguez own memoirs, his report to the CIA, or in a personal interview with Castaneda in 1995 (pg 143). [2] The accusation of a 14 year old boy being killed by Che originates from a December 28, 1997, letter to the editor of the El Nuevo Herald (Spanish Miami Herald) by Pierre San Martin (who claims to have been a prisoner at La Cabana). The claim had been widely purported by Humberto Fontova (whose father was held prisoner for a brief time and then released) in his litany of Anti-Che articles for Conservative websites, and has thus sort of "entered" the public debate ... despite the fact that it is not mentioned in the other 40 or so Che biographies (which do not utilize the hyperbolic language of Fontova). [3] To the "156 executed on Che's orders", Guevara reviewed the appealed convictions from some of the revolutionary tribunals that were dolled out by a panel of 3 judges. As a comparison, as Governor of Texas, now President Bush signed 158 death warrants after reviewing the last appeal, yet it would be pov to announce him a "butcher" or list those names on his Wikipedia article (although I believe some would probably like to). Moreover, the article does already mention that several hundred people were killed during this stint (The published numbers range from 55 to 550 usually - see Castañeda pg 143). [4] As for showing no qualms about executing, that is indisputable and mentioned in the article. Guevara did execute a number of people from his own unit for stealing food, falling asleep on guard duty, raping local peasants, giving away their position to Batista's forces etc. These cases appear in the main biographies, and appear in this article (although I would be ok with more elaboration on this practice by Guevara).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
i think you are correct in stating that the article is missing much mention of EcG's roles in the cuban administration and his role as an executioner and such. Even Hemmingway wrote about it. A very poorly balanced article if you ask me. easytiger (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
EasyTiger, if Ernest Hemingway wrote about the executions, then please include a source so we can look into it. Unsubstantiated claims without a reference do not provide much assistance.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there are huge gaping holes in this article. The article is shameless enough to refer to him executing "war criminals" and compares it to the Nuremberg trials. That is absolutely ridiculous, Che Guevara was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people whose only crime was saying bad things about the communist system and the new government. User:CaptainNerdling —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Any reliable source to back up what you say? The article is not "shameless" since it's only an encyclopedic article with information gathered from notable sources. Do you even know what is an encyclopedic article? George Washington was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people whose only crime was saying bad things about his system and the new government, you know? Ufopedia (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And that "93% approved of the executions" statistic is garbage, you cant trust data coming out of repressive communist countries. Should we also have glowing articles about how Stalin won elections in a landslide? In addition where are the mentions of Guevara setting up the forced labor system in Cuba? He was responsible for setting up a system where people who listened to rock music, engaged in homosexual behaviour, or had any other lifestyle traits he didn't like were sent to forced labor camps. This is extremely noteworthy and failure to mention the forced labor camps says volumes about the level of bias in this article. How about his efforts to discredit and stamp out all the pro-democratic and any other non-communist anti-batista elements of the revolution after seizing power? This article should not be playing into the whole romantic myth that Che Guevara was a freedom fighter, it needs to mention the negative things he did also. He spent more time trying to stamp out freedom in Cuba than he did fighting for it when he was allying with different groups against Batista. User:CaptainNerdling —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestions. Feel free to suggest specific words to add to the article, along with reliable sources to back them up. Note that WP:NPOV requires that the article be balanced; we've been relying mostly on 3 main biographies; not everything that is published in every source can be included. Whether some things Che did were "crimes" or not may be debatable, especially if they were not crimes according to the government of the time. A previous discussion on this talk page which seems relevant is at Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#the New variant of part After the revolution. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If I can find the time I will write a section on his role in administering forced labor camps and figure out a better way to word the explanation of his role in executions so that it doesnt sound like he was only executing war criminals. For the time being can we at least delete that BS statistic that 93% approved of the executions? That is unreliable by any standard. If we allow this statistic then we should also be allowing statistics coming out of the 1930s Soviet Union about how beloved Stalin was by the Russians. User:CaptainNerdling(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC).
If you can find the time to get notable and reliable sources to back up your claims, then feel free to do so. And if you want to delete "that BS statistic", then find the time to get reliable sources that shows it's indeed "BS statistic", not some biased opinion of your own. Your red herrings with Stalin and stuff is completely nonsense here, since there are notable sources that shows the Stalin's BS statistic is indeed BS statistic. So if you can find any notable source that shows Che's statistic is indeed "BS statistic", then feel free to delete it yourself, else it should remain. And Cuban's condition was not comparable to Russia's, as Cuba was ruled by a US-supported repressive dictator who's worse than the communists anyway Ufopedia (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
CaptainNerdling, the 93 % survey is cited because it appears in a major Che Guevara biography. We are only here to cite the published material from the main sources, not to 'rewrite' or 'create' our own version/opinions on events. Moreover, irrelevant red herrings about Stalin are not helpful, please stay on topic.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a major biography written by a devout leftist who took a bogus survey as gospel. This is not scientifically collected data that was gathered from people who had no fear of retribution by the government if they said "no Castro/Che cant just kill whomever they please". If the statistic is to remain in there then at a bare minimum an explanation of its context, how the data was gathered, and how it is not scientifically valid would be necessary in my view. Taken at face value a reader might be inclined to assume that this is an actual representation of how 93% of Cubans felt and that is misleading. User:CaptainNerdling(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
Whether the major biography is written by a "devout leftist" is not for you to decide. Neither is whether a survey is bogus or not. You can write a "major biography" of Che yourself if you want, and if it receives enough notability, it will be quoted in wikipedia. BTW, ALL public polls and survey results are misleading anyway. This is an encyclopedic article, not a debate on whether a particular statistic published in a particular notable source is misleading or not. Ufopedia (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, I can only check the sources late January, when I will have access to the bibliography. Meanwhile, I agree with CaptainNerdling reasoning that the survey most likely would be bogus. The paragraph also seem to ratify one POV. Here "Raúl Gómez Treto,... considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" you are providing an opinion that validates that the trials were a good thing. The other two "facts", including the survey, are also trying to support Che's actions. This is POV. I think we should delete all the sentences starting from "Raul... " to "Guevara concurred". Let the facts speak for themselves. Objections? Editor br (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Editor br, do you have a published source that describes this survey as "bogus"? It is not up to editors to eliminate material over a 'hunch' of it being illegitimate. As for Treto his opinion is valid as it is contained within a peer reviewed academic journal, and merely describes the rationale at the time of those in the Cuban government. It is up to readers to decipher how much weight to give that view. Moreover, nowhere does it state that the trials were a "good thing" nor a "bad thing". They were mostly public tribunals (many occurred in stadiums) which in some cases resulted in those guilty being executed. Ones views on whether this was justified (as with all death penalty cases in or after a war) is up to the observer. For instance, pointing out the rationale for why the United States nuked several hundred thousand Japanese does not excuse nor justify it – but to exclude such a rationale would in itself be pov. I will look more into how this survey was conducted (and encourage you to do so as well) and see if there is a published critique to call its accuracy into question.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, as I hope you noticed by now, I am trying to provide balanced opinions in this talk page, being able to actively contribute in writing the article once I go back to United States (I don't have access to the books here). This does not prevent me to assess the neutrality of this paragraph and if, although written with reliable and academic sources, this article is portraying only one POV. The three sentences starting in "Raul.." and ending in "... Guevara concurred." are providing a justification about the trials that are only an opinion, not a fact. If this is a disputable and controversial topic, either you only 'let the fact speak for themselves' and remove the opinion, or you provide competing views with the due weight that this highly sensitive topic requires. I am not a huge fan of using other articles as comparison, but as you mentioned the Hiroshima bombing, please note that this section debates about the competing views about the bombing, never presents justifications that argue that the bombing was necessary or acceptable, and in articles with coverage equivalent to about one paragraph about the incident only state the facts, no opinion. (see Hiroshima, that provides equivalent coverage of the bombings as the Che article does about the the trials). I am still in favor of deleting the three sentences, not convinced that the justification in this paragraph is adequately providing a NPOV and I welcome the opinion of other editors in this debate. Editor br (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently no one is objecting the change anymore, so I will delete the referred sentences and improve the NPOV of the article. Editor br (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted the edit, because I did not notice that RT was still in process of writing the reply to my inquiry: [16] Editor br (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Editor br, I appreciate your commitment to collaboration ... please see my lengthy reply and sourced expose below, and I welcome your thoughts. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Captain Nerdling, re "war criminals": These are the sentences in the article containing those words:

  • "Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, ratifying sentences which in some cases utilized firing squads." I think this is OK because it says "convicted as war criminals"; this article is not stating that they actually were war criminals.
  • "In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution." This use of "war criminals" looks non-NPOV to me. I suggest inserting "those it considered" before "war criminals", and adding a comma after "criminals". Alternatively, "war criminals" could be put in quotation marks.
  • "Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals." This looks non-NPOV to me. I suggest inserting "those considered to be" before "traitors", and changing "and" to "or". What does "Batista's war criminals" mean? How about deleting "Batista's"?
  • It says that the Cuban Ministry of Justice said that it followed the same procedures as the Nuremburg trials. I think it may be OK to report that.
I also suggest changing "considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" to something else, along the lines of "suggested removing restrictions on the death penalty". Someone with access to the biographies will have to help with the exact wording; I seem to have misplaced my copy of Anderson. (Editor br, I see only two sentences from "Raul..." to "...concurred".)
Thanks for helping to work on POV issues with this article; it's good to have some new editors involved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Copper, I agree with all of your proposed changes (to increase NPOV) above and in the absence of any objection, encourage you to make those as soon as you have time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I made the changes I suggested above, except that I didn't (yet) change "considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" to "suggested removing restrictions on the death penalty". I'm not clear whether you meant it's supported by the source, Redthoreau. Would you please either do that edit yourself if you think it's correct, or state clearly that it's verifiable and then I'll do it. I'm just hesitant to change the words without checking whether it's still correct, since it will be saying slightly different facts (i.e. did Treto actually "suggest" that or merely argue that it was justified.) Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Copper, I have made the discussed changes after checking the source. The wording of the source makes it clear that Treto is justifying the action after the fact, and using the anti Machado uprising 20 years earlier as the historical basis for his hypothesis.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't change it the way I meant. It still uses the word "justified". Currently it reads "Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, has argued that removing restrictions on the death penalty were justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened twenty years earlier in the anti-Machado rebellion." My suggestion was to change this, removing the word "justified", in order to avoid giving undue weight to the revolutionary government POV, as discussed above. We could just delete that whole sentence; or, we could balance it by quoting someone else too, giving a different POV ("on the other hand, X says Y about this" type of thing). Was it only many years later that he was arguing that it was justified? Was anyone at the time concerned about citizens taking justice into their own hands, and was that part of the motivation for deciding to do the executions? If we have no evidence of that, and it's only his opinion with hindsight many years later, I'd tend to delete the sentence. In other words: if he's explaining why they decided to do the executions, then I think that's relevant (but need to be worded to say it that way); but if he's arguing that the executions were justified, I think we could delete the sentence, or if we keep it I think we have to present an alternative POV too, if one can be found in a reliable source, and I'd be surprised if it couldn't. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Copper, I still intend to adjust this in the near future. I am replying now so that the thread won't be archived, until the issue is addressed and resolved.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

La Cabaña & Executions

Below I am offering a lengthy look at the executions at La Cabaña Fortress in regard to the 3 major Che biographies [all of which have been peer reviewed in academic journals] (by Anderson, Castaneda, & Taibo II) that is not WP:OR. Possibly in the future this could be part of an FAQ in order to prevent the talk page from circularly arguing these points every few months when a new editor (commonly a previously uninvolved IP) decides to join us or object to the current article.

It is clear that Guevara’s 6 month stint as Commander at La Cabaña (January 2 through June 12, 1959) has become a "lightning rod" (possibly justified) for Che critics. It is also clear that there exists the "recognized or common" account of events contained in the majority of Che biographies (I am using the main 3 here below), History Channel/Discovery Channel documentaries Video, and mainline press – and then there exists the account of events from Cuban-American exile opposition WP:UNDUE, primarily written on websites solely as a personal critique/attack of Guevara or Communism, to a staunchly conservative audience (usually by Humberto Fontova in a hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone). In the past it was determined that Fontova’s Gonzo style ‘screeds’ (which at times I admit are entertainingly written) & vernacular (to say nothing of sourced accuracy) qualify as WP:FRINGE and thus for the purposes of this article we decided to rely on the 3 main biographies. What both sides (to a certain extent agree on) is that people were shot by firing squad after a revolutionary tribunal process (whether these were legit proceedings or ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is disputed). The NUMBERS OF THOSE EXECUTED directly under Guevara’s watch differ (this is also because there is the # killed nationwide in Cuba or in other prisons under different commanders) and then those killed directly at La Cabana (which would have been the only deaths one could directly tie to Guevara’s oversight or cases where he ratified the sentences already dolled out by the 3 person tribunal). Castaneda in Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara - notes (pg 143) how Historians differ on the # killed and place it as anywhere from 200-700. Cables from the US embassy in 1959 placed the number killed at around 200 in early 1959. He also notes how Fidel Castro himself would acknowledge that the number executed from 1959-1960 was around 550 (Nationwide). Jon Lee Anderson on (pg 387) of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life notes how 55 executions were carried out directly under Che’s command at La Cabana during the “first 100 days” of 1959, however Che was in charge for around the first 180 days of that year. Anderson also notes how nationwide there were “several hundred” such executions over the next year as a result of the revolutionary tribunals. However this is reference to the entire nation and in reference to the entire year of 1959, while Che only oversaw La Cabaña for the first 6 months. Of note Armando Lago’s unpublished work has compiled 216 names of people believed to have been executed under Guevara’s orders, but those numbers also stretch through the entire 1957-1960 campaign and include deaths during the guerrilla combat stage of the war (including some of Guevara’s own men who deserted, disobeyed commands, fell asleep on guard duty, stole food, raped peasants etc). Nevertheless the article at present states that “several hundred” were executed during this time at La Cabana, which I believe is a fair and accurate declaration = [Does anyone object? And if so Why?]

Now to the issue of RATIONALE for the executions (which is relevant), Several biographers and general sources on Che/Cuba etc on the time note how Batista’s forces were alleged to have killed upwards of 20,000 Cuban citizens during his reign. Paco Ignacio Taibo on pg 267 of Guevara, Also Known as Che, notes how a nationwide survey at the time showed public support for the tribunals and executions as being 93 %. (of note Fidel had not pronounced his revolution as a “socialist” one at this time, and the biographers note there was overwhelming consensus among the public that Batista’s “henchmen” should be tried and shot if convicted.) Taibo notes (pg 267) how many of Batista’s men tried during tribunals were accused of “gouging out eyes, castrating, burning flesh, ripping off testicles and fingernails, shoving iron into woman’s vaginas, burning feet, cutting off fingers etc”. Jon Lee Anderson reports a similar account on (pg 388) about how there was “little public opposition to the wave of revolutionary justice at the time” and recalls several private media outlets (not run by Fidel) who were in a “lynching mood”. This Jan 1959 American news clip from the time, I believe captures some of that sentiment. Anderson on (pgs 388-389) notes how many of the audiences for these tribunals (many were held in public stadiums) found the sentences too “benign” and wanted even harsher measures used. Were there some “innocent” (however you define that) people killed ? (statistically one would imagine so), however Jon Lee Anderson, (admittedly only one biographers opinion, but not directly contradicted by the other 2 either) during his 5 years of research (which included time in Miami amongst exiles) notes:

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

— PBS Forum

The last issue of focus is the competing views on how CHE HIMSELF saw these tribunals and executions. All 3 main biographers agree that by this time he had become a “hardened” man who showed no qualm about having those he deemed guilty of torture shot. Below is a quoted statement by Castaneda (pg 143-144) that I believe could be helpful:

“Conflicting views exist of Che's role in the executions at La Cabaña. Some exiled opposition biographers report that the Argentine enjoyed the rituals of the firing squad, and that he organized them with gusto-though they acknowledge that the orders came from Fidel Castro. Others relate that Guevara suffered at every execution, pardoning as many prisoners as he could - though he did not hesitate to carry out orders when he felt they were justified ... Guevara's responsibility for events at La Cabaña ... must nonetheless be seen within the context of the time. There was no bloodbath; nor were innocent people exterminated in any large or even significant numbers. After the excesses of Batista ... it is surprising that there were so few abuses and executions. It is also true however that Che had no qualms about the death penalty, or summary and collective trials ... If the only way to defend the revolution was to execute its enemies, he would not be swayed by humanitarian or political arguments ... He never wondered about or agonized over the link between means and ends."

---- TO CONCLUDE ---- I am more than content with providing a balanced analysis of the situation and mentioning how some sources mention that Guevara “reveled in the process” while others note how he agonized over it. Obviously the issue needs to be condensed for this article (and maybe possibly given its own article in order to cover all of the varying viewpoints). Thoughts? Suggestions? I can compose a paragraph here on the talk page first if editors would like, of a possible addition to the present article. Additionally, utilizing sources with your objections is helpful, and since I have access to pretty much every book in print on the matter, I can follow along with your rationale. Thanks and I apologize for the length.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RedThoreau, you say that the biographies have been peer reviewed. I'm sorry if you've already explained this, (in which case I hope you can help me find your previous answer,) but could you please provide citations for the peer reviews, and explain how books can be peer reviewed, since I'm not familiar with that process?
I think a talk page FAQ is a good idea. I'm currently working on an archive guide for the talk page archives of the Circumcision article. After I get further with that, I may start a FAQ for the Circumcision article, and depending on how that goes, I may start archive guides and/or FAQs for some other articles, including possibly this one. These pages should really be cooperative efforts among the editors of the respective pages. I suppose anyone can start a FAQ at Talk:Che Guevara/FAQ.
Re "Does anyone object? And if so Why?" I think the featured article reviewers want to see not just one number ("several hundred") of executions mentioned; they want to see more than one number mentioned in the article, with discussion of the reliability of the various numbers presented in the article. For example, perhaps it could say right in the article, "Rodriguez claimed that Che admitted to 1500 executions, [citation needed] but this information does not appear in his memoirs and was not mentioned in an interview with Castaneda." [citation needed] If many people have heard elsewhere of the "thousands" figure, then including a statement like this in the article may help make the article more credible. On the other hand, maybe the 1500 figure is "fringe" and doesn't deserve to be mentioned. If so, perhaps more could be said about the other estimates: similar to a summary in about 2 or 3 sentences of your analysis above, of the numbers. I think it would be interesting, for example, to mention an estimate of the number of executions country-wide, since this helps put in perspective both the numbers killed by Batista and the number of executions overseen by Guevara. Just saying "several hundred" and giving a footnote won't sound very credible to readers who have heard of the "thousands" figure and who don't have the time and energy to read the references. At least, perhaps a footnote can contain some quotes from sources to help establish the credibility of the figure.
If you would like to compose a paragraph to be considered for addition to the article, taking into account some of the comments that have been made, I encourage you to go ahead. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Copper, the peer review process (as it relates to this discussion), is basically a review of a book by an academic journal entailing scholars from the related fields. An author can submit his work for review and scrutiny in order to add credibility to their research findings. It then allows those professors and academics in the field to judge the accuracy, validity, credibility etc of the research. As for these 3 main biographies they have been peer reviewed by scholars several times. Unfortunately to gain access to most of these archived reviews one would need to have access to a JSTOR database of academic journals at a University (which I have). I would be willing to download such articles and email them to anyone without access, if someone wishes to have a particular issue. Some examples are:
Matilde Zimmermann. Latin American Research Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1999), pp. 197-208 Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Philip Chrimes. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr., 1998). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
John Mason Hart. The American Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 615-616. Published by: American Historical Association
etc etc – there are many ... and anyone with access to JSTOR can simply do a keyword search and find them all.
To the matter of numbers, I agree with your contention that the article could use a variety of numbers and include a detailed and referenced footnote of the differing figures. I will work on something to that effect, and have it reviewed here first before including it. I also agree with the idea of eventually creating a FAQ for this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau and Coppertwig, first of all, thank you for a lengthy answer and sorry for taking so long to reply back. Some thoughts:
1) Now I can have a better sense of what other sources have to say about the incident. Thanks for providing me other perspectives from notable sources about the La Cabana & Executions. As this is a controversial topic, I agree with you that it deserves a separate article, where you can provide more lengthy explanations about the numbers of those executed and the rationale for it. Having said that, I still think the paragraph the way is written in this article seems partial, as it is providing only one side of the debate. However, it may be adequate if the weighted opinion of reliable sources agree with the rationale you presented. I need to check the sources once I have access to the books (probably February). Only then I can say (IMO) if the weight is adequate or not. Until then, I trust on your judgment.
2) I checked some reviews of the Anderson biography published in peer-reviewed history academic journals, and I think they can provide enough information that they are credible. One of the reviews, for example, was written by a Harvard professor, Kenneth Maxwell, who used to be the Director of Brazil Studies at Harvard and a member of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. If his credentials do not satisfy, I can personally attest that he is neutral as I know him, but probably my opinion does not count. ;-) I volunteer myself to write a separate article about the biographies. What do you guys think? I will probably need some help in revising my grammar and style, as English is not my native language, and hence my prose is not that good.
3) I like the idea of the FAQ.
4) I don't know if you noticed, but I am a new editor, so I am still learning about it. Hope you all be patient and don't mind about it. Editor br (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Editor br, it is great to have an additional editor interested in conducting research (I am happy to have & welcome your participation). I agree with your contention that the paragraph could include a more nuanced view and will thus work on something for review here on the talk page. I also second your contention on the peer review in relation to these books. As for the language issue, no worries, I would be more than willing to assist in proof-reading your additions if you would like. To the matter of separate articles for the books, I believe that is a great idea – but would first recommend adding a separate section to the articles on the 3 authors themselves. Then once you have enough information, move it into a separate article. Since you are a new editor, feel free to ask any questions you may have about the process end of things and Copper and I will be glad to assist you (for the record Copper is much more knowledgeable than me on such Wiki-matters and should be a first choice).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau: thank you very much for the explanation about peer review and the references. Within a few weeks I might go somewhere where I can access JSTOR. Would you please be a little more specific about the keyword search: is that a search within JSTOR, or where? What keywords would you suggest? (indented 3 colons because replying to Redthoreau's previous post which was indented with 2 colons; see Wikipedia:Talk page#This is easy to read) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you redthoraeu for your lengthy and well thought responses. As an interested reader, I am glad to see you have a good grasp of the history of these times. i wish all wikipedia articles were this well thought out. 137.52.150.252 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Coppertwig, I just noticed your above question which I did not answer. On the Jstor site itself you can conduct a search by title or content. I am also including a link here, that lists several Jstor articles you may be interested in.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
* * * * *


Dr Ernesto 'Che' Guevara?

Resolved

Should not the title be, Dr Ernesto 'Che' Guevara?, I am just wondering because I was of the mind set that 'Che' graduated from medical school, I know it was not of the time of the "Motorcycle Diaries", but it may of been later, I am not objecting to the page just questioning. Bobbutcher (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CREDENTIAL, article titles do not include personal titles. Grsz11 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but was 'Che' a doctor? and if so shouldn't it be stated somewhere in the artcle 86.139.140.138 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
BobButcher & IP 86, the article does state this at the end of the 'Early Life' section:

:: "Upon returning to Argentina, he completed his studies and received his medical diploma in June 1953, making him officially "Dr. Ernesto Guevara".[22]" --- Sourced to pg 98 of Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life

Moreover, although there is an incorrect often repeated "urban legend" that he never graduated medical school, a copy of Guevara's original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated) can be found on [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer - Translated from the Spanish by Sarah L. Smith, Marea Editorial, 2006, ISBN 9871307071. Grsz11 is also correct that the "Dr." would not be used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If we were to use a personal title, it would probably make more sense to use the one he was most frequently styled with, i.e., "Major General Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". Heather (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Last Words ?

This line specifically "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."[112] from the article is questionable (while not an expert, i have read that this line is a myth made after his death) and makes me question some of the other statements made about Gueverra. When checking the source provided it links back to the same wiki page and source: [112] is non-existent, as i'll bet a lot on this page are. Any of those who want to keep wiki to the standard it tries to be, please investigate this. 68.229.47.130 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

IP 68, the stated source is Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (pg 739). You are also incorrect in your statement that "it links back to the wiki page", once you click on the [112] number then click on 'Anderson 1997' which will take you to the fully listed ref down below (the entire article is set up this way) hence ALL of the refs are linked in contradiction to your remark that they are "non existent". Our "standard"(s) at Wikipedia are (among others) Wp:Verify, Wp:Reliable and Wp:Undue. Jon Lee Anderson's book (most commonly identified as the 'definitive' work on the subject in question) adheres to all of these policies. Now yes there have been several accounts of his last words --- for instance Castañeda's Compañero cites a different statement on pg 401, as does Taibo II's Guevara: Also Known As Che - which reports a different passage on pg 561 ---. I am fine with including a content note listing the several reported last phrases, however this "Shoot coward" phrase has become the most commonly listed last words in the majority of sources. What evidence do you have to dispute it?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, his executioner was interviewed in Adam Curtis' documentary 638 Ways to Kill Castro, and reported his last words as being along the lines of "tell my wife to remarry; I want her to be happy". Heather (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Heather, nice to meet you. To correct your assertion, the man interviewed in the documentary is not Che's executioner (Mario Terán), but rather CIA agent Félix Rodríguez who reportedly spoke with Che before leaving the schoolhouse to speak to Terán ("aim below the neck"). Rodríguez's comments are noted on [pg 738] of Anderson's book which he states were "Tell Fidel that he will soon see a triumphant revolution in America ... and tell my wife to remarry and to try and be happy." However, it is about 10 minutes later that according to Anderson [pg 739], Terán enters the schoolhouse alone and Che speaks the last words of "Shoot coward ... etc". Thus, the two are not mutually exclusive, and do not contradict one another.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator" (Batista)

User: Luis Napoles has attempted to remove the above information twice recently. Once claiming:

"Pov. Just because Cuban government was not opposed (and it was) by the US does not mean that Cuba was "US-backed" (is France US-backed? Relations with France are much friendlier than ever with Cuba)"

and again after I sourced the content to an NPR audio report stating:

"Not in the source, for obvious reasons"

... despite the fact that the given link ---> (click on the first "Listen Now") begins in the first 13 seconds (00:9-00:13) with this EXACT verbatim phrase.

With this in mind and in anticipation of a likely deletion forthcoming again, per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize this talk page to list "several" sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists these web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"</

>

Now Luis Napoles, I trust that you would agree that listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much", thus if you can not provide any evidence to dispute this well known and accepted historical fact (which I document above) per Wp:Undue, WP:Verify, Wp:Reliable - and if there is not editor Wp:Consensus to dispute the above material or its inclusion - then please refrain from removing this important historical detail from the article going forward. Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you surely could substantiate what this "backing" consisted of. The United States was among the last countries in the Americas to recognize his government and probably the first country to demand end to it. The Cuban communists and labor unions were his core support groups, but of course the historical reality does not play well with your mission to demonize the United States by adding nominally sourced weasel words you refuse to substantiate. If he was "backed", then you should be able explain what it meant per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, or even better, a general definition of "backed".Luis Napoles (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Luis, the WP:Lead is for a summary of the main points. Per WP:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Your plethora of caveats, stipulations, and Wp:Pov Wp:Weasel explanations for such a commonly utilized phrase in nearly all the Wp:Reliable sources (i.e. “U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator”), not only makes for bad prose and composition as you have attempted to do here, but it violates WP:Undue. We are here to document the consensus of the sources, thus if the overwhelming majority of sources reflect a general opinion "i.e. “Batista was a U.S.-backed dictator", then our goal is for the article to reflect this view = that is WP:NPOV (and my view on the matter is irrelevant, as is yours). Treating opinions which have different levels of support as though they had equal levels of support is POV and, frankly, misinformative if not deceptive ... this would include your Wp:Fringe theory that Batista was, contrary to popular opinion and fact, a "Communist", "humble labor organizer", "peacefully elected President" - "Man of the people", who was overthrown by the United States. If you wish to further this revisionist & historical negationist view, I would suggest you either get your own blog, or attempt to gain some editor Wp:Consensus on the talk page for Fulgencio Batista, as this article would not be the relevant place to "correct" the historical majority through WP:Original Research – while inserting a litany of badly formed sentences which obstruct the flow of an article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Having seen you attack editors in multiple articles, it was unsurprising that your response to issues in the article consisted of only personal attacks. If he was "backed", then you should be able explain what it meant per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. But you won't do that because you know that substantiation would make it look a lot closer to the reality.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, I have never attacked you as a person (I don’t even know who you are), I have though criticized your actions - which violate nearly all wiki policy in a range of ways. You are more than welcome to get your own blog, and rewrite the history however you like, however we are here to cite what the majority of published reliable sources say. They clearly use the phrase "U.S.-backed dictator" solely (in fact I could have sourced this to hundreds more books and articles). It is your prerogative to not agree with this description (some people still don't believe humans landed on the moon) - but it is not your prerogative to supplant wikipedia with your Wp:Fringe theories that Batista was a "leftist, labor, & Communist elected president & social reformer - who was an enemy of the U.S.". This unfortunately does not match the published reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You have never replied to simple request to substantiate what "US-backed" means, particularly during the year before the revolution. It took months before Batista received diplomatic recognition after 1952. The United States was the only Western country to put Batista under embargo (Batista bought arms from the British). Castro received diplomatic recognition within days and Castro's rebels were directly supported by the United States embassy - was Castro "US-backed"? Encyclopedia Britannica, which you earlier claimed to be a reliable source, has not a single word about support from the United States. Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica says Batista was backed by "the army, the civil service, and organized labour". Of course, you will try to claim that Encyclopedia Britannica is not reliable anymore, or resort to attacking other editors like you have repeatedly done in the past. Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, this is an article on Che Guevara, and thus a summarized form of "U.S.-backed dictator" is sufficient to describe the situation. -(1)- If you want to expand and include your caveats and convoluted stipulations, then I would recommend the Fulgencio Batista article (which you have already dramatically slanted) or maybe creating a new article on the foreign relations of the Batista regime etc. We are here on Wikipedia to document the published reality of the majority of Wp:Reliable sources. The majority of these sources utilize this description, and thus we follow in kind and echo them. If you would like to revise the record through Historical Negationism, then move your Wiki ‘crusade’ offline and work on getting published and challenging this often repeated description which you believe to be inaccurate (see WP:OR). It does not matter what you or I believe, what matters is the fact that the majority of nearly all sources describe Batista in this way. Changing such reality is not the mission or job of Wikipedia. -(2)- The U.S. was the only nation with the ability, power, and geographic proximity to put an embargo on Batista, and this came as his regime was on the verge of collapse in 1958 - thus that is irrelevant. -(3)- Of course the U.S. recognized the Castro regime; they had hoped he would be a U.S. ally and preserve the previous business relationships on the island. When he didn't, they became enemies. Thus yes Fidel was "U.S.-backed" for all of a few months after 1959. -(4)- Batista on the other hand had U.S. support for nearly 16 of the 17 years he was in power. -(5)- Britannica is a reliable source (one which you have tried to ironically challenge on the Batista & Fidel Castro articles themselves) but utilize now out of convenience. Your behavior is extremely transparent and inconsistent. The Britannica article you cite describes Batista as a: "Cuban dictator" who was "jailing his opponents, using terrorist methods, and making fortunes for himself and his associates" while also describing him again as a "brutal dictator”, who was “controlling the university, the press, and the Congress” while he “embezzled huge sums from the soaring economy." However you censored nearly all of this from the Batista article recently and (with the lack of ref’s as your pretext) - rewrote it in a near Orwellian manner. Yes Britannica does not address U.S. support, but they also don't deny it. Luckily (and I guess unfortunately for you) we have the other 95 % of sources which address the issue to call on - which back the current version. -(6)- You can continually claim that I always personally attack you and not your actions, but just like your often innacurate & biased advocacy, it will not make it true.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

The editor Redthoreau has repeatedly deleted citation needed tags from the article. Among other things, the lead claims that Mr. Guevara thought "economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution." Yet the entire article has no reference to "neocolonialism" where this could be checked, nor is "world revolution" mentioned anywhere in the article. The same editor seems to be fond of using terms such as "prolific writer" and deleting any references to Mr. Guevara's thoughts regarding the overall success of his Bolivian mission.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, per WP:LEADCITE:

::"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

Now why is this relevant? (1) Your Wp:tendentious practice of sprinkling citation needed tags throughout leads is nearly always in reference to easily verifiable material (by this I mean in the majority of sources, which unfortunately you seem not to put much weight in). (2) The phrase you mention at one time had ref links after each word (i.e. "Monopoly Capitalism", "Neocolonialism", "Imperialism", "World Revolution") however there was editor Wp:consensus nearly a year or two back not to have so many ref links in the lead per Wp:Mos. I can easily ref each of these words, and it looks like I will unfortunately have to in order to play your continuing game of "tag to annoy those you edit war with". (3) Notice how the policy uses the word "likely to be challenged", the reason why this phrase does not include a ref link after each word, is that for over 2 years it has never been challenged by any of the thousands (400,000 per month) readers of the article - as anyone with even an elementary background knowledge of Che Guevara and his philosophy, will instantly recognize that these "isms" were the "ills" that he believed plagued those societies in which he wished to spark revolution. (4) Note the words "editorial consensus", this is something I have yet to EVER witness you seek out in all of your pov-laden edits. You and you solely would like this phrase and others to be referenced (which I am glad to do), but please do not act as if you have followed proper wiki protocol in requesting such sources. You seem to work backwards (overtag, and then use the talk page to complain about the removal of the tag) - when the proper order should be (inquire on the talk page about the source for the material and then if consensus is to tag, then do so). You also have not used the article talk page to provide rationale for your desired insertion of disputed material (i.e. "no local support"). (5) Lastly, my only "agenda" as you say, is to follow wiki policy, and ensure that your Wp:Soapbox solo pov-pushing of anti-Castro/Che/Cuban govt material - bordering on mere WP:SPA advocacy and not encyclopedia building (I'll let other editors view your editing history for themselves) be slowed down for the sake, quality, and neutrality of this overall project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Your behavior seems to be attacking other editors instead of addressing the issue. The article has not a single mention of "neocolonialism" outside the lead. That was just my observation, and you did not even attempt to deny it.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, I have more than addressed the issue and since complied with your initial request of sourcing the statement. The current given source states (in the words of Che Guevara):

::::"The struggle for liberation from a foreign oppressor; the misery caused by external events such as war, whose consequences privileged classes place on the backs of the exploited; liberation movements aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes — these are the usual factors in unleashing this kind of explosion."

Since the statement is addressing Guevara's own personal conclusion, this more than suffices.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
As of current revision, you have not addressed the issue, although you finally added at least some source. Anyone can search for "colonialism" in the revision and find out that it's only mentioned in the lead. The source you finally added does not claim that "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution". So far the claim is your original research and Wikipedia does not publish original research. If you have a source for it, you should add it to the article. If you don't have a source, personal attacks won't solve the issue.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, the source does not need to claim this phrase verbatim; however the encapsulated idea is contained within this source (along with many others). Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Che Guevara would recognize the evident accuracy of the aforementioned statement. Moreover, the given source has an array of mentions of "Capitalism" + Guevara stating how in his view "monopoly capitalists" pervert the law of value. There are also several mentions of "imperialism" (although in theory I could utilize any number of essays by Che on this subject if you prefer). Challenging this statement would be as absurd as someone questioning whether Martin Luther King Jr. ever spoke out about "racism". Nearly every speech by Guevara post 1959 deals heavily with what he deemed were the negative outcomes of "monopoly capitalism", "neo-colonialism" (+ colonialism really), and "imperialism" (the subject he probably railed against more than any other). I have plenty of sources, and would be happy to list personal quotes by Guevara dealing with these issues upon your good faith request. I can provide further documentation here on the TP if you would like to challenge the undue weight or accuracy of these remarks with your own referenced & reliable material. Right now however, it is 95 % of the material on Che versus your unqualified & unverified opinion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a major problem with WP:V. The claim that "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution" is your interpretation of Guavara's letter. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Luis Napoles (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, I have cited each word to its own article, that contains a clear phrase pointing out each of these issues. My edits are based solely on the words of Guevara himself, not my own original research as you claim. Actually reading the material is not "original" it is merely research and referencing.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed verifications

  • In Anderson p. 95-96 there is nothing about how Che was transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed. There is only a general Che's statement about how "vagabonding though our America" has changed him. Even if Che somewhere said something in the context of witnessed poverty such statement should be attributed to him, and not stated as a fact.
  • Anderson on p. 398 talks about events after Fidel became prime minister, not about Che's views after his trip throughout Latin America. -- Vision Thing -- 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, Anderson pg 95-96 certainly was citing the "transformed" portion of the sentence in Guevara's post trip remarks that "The person who wrote these notes died upon stepping once again onto Argentina soil, he who edits and polishes them, ‘I’ am not I, at least I am not the same I as before. That vagabonding through our 'America' has changed me more than I thought." However, to understand the context of that remark one would need to read the preceding chapter from pgs 71-95 on his trip in order to understand the encapsulating sentiment and take note of the numerous encounters with poverty and the effect it had on him personally. Nevertheless, I went ahead and utilized his August 19, 1960 speech to the Cuban Militia --> Ernesto Che Guevara: On Revolutionary Medicine - where Guevara outlines specifically the effect that traveling and viewing poverty had on him ... i.e. "I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland" etc --- per the second instance you mention I have utilized the same 1960 speech by Guevara where he speaks of the Arbenz coup at the behest of the United Fruit Co, where he "realized a fundamental thing: For one to be a revolutionary doctor or to be a revolutionary at all, there must first be a revolution (continued) ..." --- This very common information you wish to have cited is in an array (nearly all) of sources on Guevara, so I am not exactly sure how precise of wording you are looking for, but I do believe these passages achieve a near verbatim idea. If you are pleased with these citations let me know, as it is important to me that you are confident in the sourcing and accuracy. I can certainly look up more if you wish and have nearly every Guevara related text at my disposal. Thanks, and nice to meet you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, you right. If he said "endemic", it should be inside quotes, if he did not, it should not be there.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, I would strongly disagree. Guevara personally using the term "endemic" is not the only threshold wherein the term could be utilized. The wiki article is not entirely a collection of verbatim quoted statements. Most of the time the editor needs to summarize (WP:Summary) the information for the reader. In the given source, Guevara does not specifically use the word "endemic" (defined as - "Prevalent in a particular area or region"), but what does he describe? The answer to that would be = "subjugated continents" where "the downtrodden classes" and "authentic offspring of hunger and misery" suffer under "adverse governments and social conditions which prevent progress" along with "privations in childhood" and "hunger". Guevara then decrees in the same given source that "monopolies" and "creatures of malnutrition" need to be "overthrown" so that the "entire social collectivity" can experience "profound social change" in "the mental structure of the people" on top of the "ruins of a decayed system" where Guevara wants man to "build the new system which will bring about the absolute happiness of the people". --- Now in the spirit of expediency, "endemic" acts as descriptive term, for capturing Guevara's prevailing personal sentiment, as the latter would be to long for the lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be inside quotes or use word like "perceive" instead of "witness". It's a claim about Guevara's opinions.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, of course it is a personal claim by Guevara (but also backed up by biographers). Who would be a better authority on the "opinion" of the effect of traveling through South America on Che Guevara - than Che Guevara himself? Are you also claiming that there was not actual poverty in South America that Che encountered on his 2 trips and almost 2 years traversing nearly every nation in Latin America - which included leper colonies, barrios, mines, rafting the amazon, and traveling the majority of the time on trucks with as Anderson puts it on [pg 80] "Indians with their filthy ponchos, their lice, their unwashed stench". Have you read The Motorcycle Diaries? Or the account of his second journey a year later? Furthermore, [pg 63] of Anderson's biography notes: "The injustice of the lives of the socially marginalized people he had befriended along his journey - lepers, hobos, detainees, hospital patients - bore witness to the submerged turbulence of the region". I am not exactly sure what your problem with the wording is, other than the obvious fact that you detest anything that provides a background and context to Guevara's eventual radicalization.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Campesinos"

Resolved

"Guevara has been sanctified by some Bolivian campesinos as "Saint Ernesto", to whom they pray for assistance".[17] Nothing about campesinos. Luis Napoles (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, your Wp:TENDentious practice of making a Wp:Point is becoming tiresome, but I will not let you aggravate me as you have many others. I will insert an additional article for the "campesino" claim solely. As I am sure you are aware, "campesino" is the Spanish term for "peasant" which is used in this new link many times.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It did not come as a surprise that regard verifiability as "tendetious" and "tiresome".Luis Napoles (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research in Bolivia section ?

The claim that "Guevara's plan for fomenting revolution in Bolivia failed, apparently because it was based on three primary misconceptions:" is Redthoreau's original research, he picked two different claims from one source each (and one unreferenced claim) and made up the theory. He now deleted what Latin American scholar Thomas C. Wright directly said about Bolivia ([18]).Luis Napoles (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, for your information and clarification, I never inserted the "three misconceptions" theory. That was part of the article before I ever began editing it. Thus it is not my original research. Furthermore, I did not delete what Wright said. I tried to move his main claim “no recruitment” to the appropriate place so it would make since in the paragraph and even correctly formatted the source for you (as for the language issue that is already mentioned below). Now all the "not a single" claim needs is a page #. Something you have yet to provide despite my request.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

20,000 Deaths Under Batista?

The figure of 20,000 deaths under Batista seems exaggerated. This website "http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat7.htm#Cuba52" lists several sources, and there seems to be a consensus among the non-partisan ones that 5000 people died on both sides during the civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.121.228 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Castro himself accused Batista of only some hundreds of deaths and the official number published after Castro's victory was 898 (more than half of them guerillas). The "20,000" was invented later.[17] Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
IP 88, first off your "source" (I use this term very loosely) is a self published Wp:SPS personal blog/website by a non-notable individual (Matthew White) where he asks for monetary donations. This site is essentially not much different from a credibility standpoint than a Myspace page or even a user page here on Wikipedia. Per Wp:Reliable, this is not a legitimate source for any claim. Nevertheless, in regards to your statement ... this 'site' (which even acknowledges the 20,000 number was supported in Newsweek Magazine) seems to be addressing the "Civil War" from 1958-1959 and thus 5,000 deaths - whereas the cited 20,000 killed in the article under Batista (sourced to a 2007 Che biography by German historian & author Frank Niess), is presumably the given number of people killed by his regime collectively during his last 7 years in office (1952-1959). Moreover, per Wp:Verify, the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs in 1959 (as pointed out in their 'Current Notes on International Affairs'‎ - Page 261) stated that = "Batista had, particularly in the latter part of his term of office, ruled by terror" ... where "as many as 20,000 Cubans had met violent deaths". If you don't prefer an Australian point of view, you could use the 1959 United States Senate Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws by the Committee on the Judiciary (digitized online), which noted that = "Batista in Cuba was regarded as the butcher of some 20,000 or 25,000 of its finest youth." This matches the belief 10 years later by the 1969 United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence which published a report entitled: 'Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives: A Report' - where on Page 582 it states that = "It is clear that counterterror became the strategy of the Batista government ... It has been estimated by some that as many as 20,000 civilians were killed."   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, that would be incorrect. [1], you are referring to the death total during the 1956-1959 war against the guerrillas - whereas the 20,000 total is in reference to those Cuban citizens killed during Batista's reign from 1952-1959 - the vast majority of whom were not part of any armed resistance under Castro (or even Communist sympathizers), but merely individuals who objected to Batista's dictatorial rule during that time and who fell victim to those employed as part of Batista's internal security apparatus (i.e. BRAC etc). [2] "Invented" I guess is in the eye of the beholder. As I am sure you are aware, many historical events have a death count that is altered over time as more information comes about. However, this 20,000 total has remained consistent in the majority (see Wp:Undue) of sources (not all) from 1959 to the presently cited 2007 biography.
Some published examples of this include:
Bolivia, Press and Revolution 1932-1964‎ - Page 347 .... "Batista had been responsible for perhaps as many as 20,000 deaths"
The Free World Colossus: a Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War‎ - Page 192 - (by current day Conservative and Castro-critic David Horowitz) .... "the 20,000 Cubans who had been killed by the Batista regime"
World Guide: A View from the South‎ - Page 209 - .... "Batista engineered yet another coup, establishing a dictatorial regime which was responsible for the death of 20,000 Cubans"
The Third World in Perspective‎ - Page 344 .... "under Batista at least 20,000 people were put to death"
Invisible Latin America‎ - Page 77 .... "All told, Batista's second dictatorship cost the Cuban people some 20,000 dead"
Conflict, Order, and Peace in the Americas‎ - Page 121 (by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, hardly a bastion of Marxism) .... "The US-supported Batista regime killed 20,000 Cubans"
Controversy Over Cuba‎ - Page 3 (by the D.C. Committee on National Legislation, hardly Pravda) .... "Some l9,000 to 20,000 Cubans were murdered during Batista’s regime, some were tortured, others bled to death after being castrated"
Then again as author Abbott Joseph Liebling notes in his 1981 book The Press‎ - Page 267: "On the international scene, the 20,000 shootings by Batista got considerably less space than the 700 by Castro"
Lastly Luis, I know from our previous edit conflicts on other articles that you believe Youtube to be a reliable reference for material (although I on principle do not) – thus I would point you to ---> this short clip from the documentary Fidel: The Untold Story and the section of the clip from [1:03-1:09] right after testimony by Wayne Smith (former head of the United States Interests Section in Havana). Note the figure given and terminology used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Redthoreau, Youtube is not a reliable source and unlike your attack attempts to claim, I have never said anything like that.
You are picking sources which do not study the history, but rely on the figures which were invented in the 1960s.
Here are some papers that studied the subject:
Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart : American Policy Failures in Cuba (1968): "total deaths ... not more than 900 on both [sides]".
Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or, the pursuit of freedom (1971, 1988): 1,500-2,000 deaths as a direct consequence of the political crisis, 1952-58, including war.
Gilbert: 2,000 deaths in 6 years of war and punitive actions.
Exploring revolution by Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, page 63: a thousand
Miguel A. Farria: "Despite the atrocities committed by the Batista regime, no more than 1,000 to 2,000 deaths can be reliably attributed directly to his regime."
Fidel Castro himself talked about a thousand deaths, before the 20,000 was invented. (Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley)
These papers explicity studies how many died, instead of just stating Castro's 20,000 figure at face value.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Luis, -[1]- It is curious that you now don't support Youtube when you previously ---> cited Youtube at Civil disobedience (another article you have badly edit-warred on and slanted with your bias) as a legitimate reference for a claim regarding one of your pet advocacy projects - Yo No Coopero Con La Dictadura. Both User:MarshalN20 & User:Likeminas has had to remove your insertion of youtube from this article. -[2]- The figures you are citing appear in some cases to be in relation to the civil war between Batista and anti-Batista forces (predominately from 1957-1959 during the period of guerrilla armed conflict). Not in reference to the 7 year period of 1952-1959, in which Batista’s regime is reported in the majority of sources to have murdered 20,000 Cubans. Although, as with any historical regime the death totals differ (Mao can be anywhere from 5-70 million, Stalin 2-20 million etc), the most commonly accepted number for Batista is 20,000, which is our threshold for inclusion. -[3]- You seem not to understand that Wikipedia is for regurgitation, not creation. For example, if you were hypothetically able to successfully plant a lie in 80 % of the news media, published academic literature, and peer reviewed sources ... then wikipedia would echo your lie irregardless if it were actually true. We are not here to determine historical validity (that would be Wp:OR), we are here to rely on the research of others - hence if they are 'duped' by "invented" facts as you put it, then we still report the invented evidence until the majority of reliable sources correct the record and retract the formerly accepted facts. -[4]- Additionally, your sources are not "papers", they are books just as mine are. Are there sources which report a death total of 2,000 instead of 20,000? sure. But per Wp:Undue, the question becomes - what do the majority of them state? I believe the answer to that is 20,000 casualties and you have yet to provide ample evidence to call the above 20,000 citations into question or display that it is not the commonly reported figure.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when does Wikipedia have a rule requiring that only the majority opinion shall be referenced in articles? If there are reliable sources with contrarian conclusions, it is perfectly acceptable to include these in Wikipedia provided that language be used to qualify the fact that they are in fact not in line with the status quo. -- itistoday (Talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Name of Ernesto Guevara

Resolved

I haven't looked up a source for his full name, but isn't his full name (which I haven't seen at the start of the article where it should say) Erneste Rafael "Che" Guevara de La Serna? (I know it's long - and picky - but I felt it should be included) Yours sincerely - Phanax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.26.215 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Phanax (ip 85), although several sources identify Guevara with both his Mother's surname "de la Serna" and his Father's surname "Lynch", his legal name was solely Ernesto Guevara. This matter has been discussed previously here ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 17#Wrong name with a provided document showing his legal name.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe WP:Naming conventions (people) focusses on the most common name, not the legal name. Although it may not be explicit in WP:LEAD, I believe that the first sentence of Wikipedia articles often mentions several names for things when there is more than one commonly-used name; for example, see People's Republic of China, which mentions "China" as an alternative in the first sentence. I conditionally support including "de la Serna" in the first sentence somehow: either as it currently is, or some variant such as "Ernesto Guevara, "Che", or Ernesto Guevara de la Serna". I don't think "Che" is his legal name, but it's there; how can it be included, yet exclude "de la Serna" on the grounds that it isn't a legal name? I don't know how many sources use the "de la Serna" name. If not many, then perhaps it doesn't belong in the first sentence. It could be mentioned later in the article that he was sometimes identified with his mother's name, or not mentioned at all if it's not sufficiently prominent in the sources. Note the objection I raised in the discussion linked to be Redthoreau, based on the mention of the name "Serna" in connection with a soccer nickname. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I can see the value of both sides on this issue. For instance biographer Jon Lee Anderson introduces him as "Ernesto Guevara de la Serna" in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. However, in other Che biographies it is noted that Che in adolescence would refer to himself as "Ernesto Guevara Lynch" (his father's surname). At one time the article here led with Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch (both parents’ surnames) but that was then revised when the editor of the Spanish language article provided us with a copy of his birth certificate showing solely "Ernesto Guevara". I think the best option would probably to use Ernesto 'Che' Guevara" or merely "Ernesto Guevara" to begin the article. Currently it lists the names of "de la Serna" and "Lynch" in the beginning of the first section, but possibly a sentence could be added noting that because of this his name has been juxtapositioned with both surnames? What do you and others think?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The "butcher of la cabana"

Resolved

There needs to be a mention of the title he has gained by some as "the butcher of la cabana". Faro0485 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Faro0485, please read more carefully or utilize the (Ctrl + F) option to do a key word search in the article. Had you done so you would have seen that this in fact is mentioned in the article presently. It states in the relevant 'Legacy' section: "Guevara remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as 'the butcher of La Cabaña'."   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I did do a search, it didn't come up. Faro0485 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Faro0485, it comes up if you use the correct n = ñ, or you can simply type in the word "butcher".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he was asking it to be more prominent (in the title or intro) as a large subpopulation of Cuba views him in that way. Certainly it doesn't belong in the title, but perhaps more in the intro instead of buried half way through the article.Gtadoc (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Gtadoc, the wording Faro used was "a mention", not a more prominent one (+ it would probably be best to let him/her speak for themselves). Moreover, it would be Wp:Undue to begin the article with the term, as 95 % of all biographies of the subject don't even include any mention of this epithet. You would be hard pressed to find any Wikipedia article about a polarizing political figure that opens up with the chosen moniker of his or her ideological foes. However, it has tangential relevance to his current legacy among a subsection of the population and is thus mentioned in that appropriate section.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Redthroreau Actually, critical information is in the intro in many wiki articles; while I don't claim that "butcher" would be best in the intro, it does read a bit flowery. And since you are wikiquoting, here is one for you: [[19]]. Gtadoc (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Gtadoc, of course "critical information" can be acceptable in many circumstances. In the current intro for instance it states that Guevara was a "ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors" - which is noted in the major biographies. However, (as a random example) I wonder what response an editor would get if they opened up a thread on the George W. Bush talk page and questioned why it wasn't mentioned that many people refer to him as a "war criminal" (especially if it actually did later in the article, which it doesn't), as well as a host of other epithets that would of course be unacceptable for a Wiki intro? Moreover, you can also propose additional negative information with sources so that they can be judged against the overall weight of the cumulative material. As for your "flowery" assessment, the article is supposed to reflect the majority of scholarly and published sources, which in this case you would probably describe as "flowery". Our task here is to reflect that reality, not to “correct” or “revise” it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening length

Resolved

I could be wrong, but the opening seems to me to be too long. The third paragraph, in particular, would not be hurt by some trimming. Thoughts? - Waidawut (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Waidawut, nice to meet you. The Wp:lead has the recommended number of paragraphs (4), however I would agree with your contention that the 3rd paragraph could be shortened somewhat. The problem I believe is that as time goes on, editors insert a notable moment of Guevara's life (which involved an array of historically significant moments) to the third paragraph which is sort of the de-facto "career" paragraph in the lead. I can propose a shortened version of paragraph 3 for you here if you would like, to see if we can reach agreement on a sensible way to summarize its content. Just let me know.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
As Redthoreau noted, length of the lead is in line with WP:Lead. However, paragraphs are of very unequal length so that is prehaps something that might be addressed with little reorganization. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done my best to tighten up the wording of the lead. I believe it reads much clearer now and is more precise. Waidawut if you disagree, let me know.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition about detailed bullet wounds

Resolved

I don't think this recent addition [20] detailing the locations of the bullets in Che's body is particularly relevant. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I would agree with your contention. Although the description is factually accurate, and was added in good faith, I feel it is unnecessarily precise - especially considering that the sentence which precedes it - explains nearly the exact same wounds in 1/3 of the space. I will thusly remove the passage, but please if anyone objects then revert me, and we can further discuss the matter here.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "would"

Resolved

I have been removing some instances of the word "would" which i find to be out of style and poor prose for an encyclopedia. Basically there are three contexts in which would is appropriate: 1. a prediction about a future event while describing it from a past viewpoint "later that day he would go down to the river". 2. an expressing of will "he would nolonger stand it" and 3. expression of habitual actions in the past "every sunday he would take out his pipe". Therefore a usage where "would" is simply used to describe an event in the past should be avoided. e.g. "During his visit to Limerick Che would celebrate St. Patrick's day" this suggest that he wanted or were scheduled to but didn't. Since he actually did celebrate St. PAtricks day in Limerick "During his visit in Limerick Che celebrated St. Patrick's day" is better and more straight forward.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose removing it, and likely it was over-used, but it can be appropriate. It indicates a past future tense, i.e. that at that time in the past, the action was going to be in the future. It can be used when briefly mentioning a later event in the middle of recounting a series of past events. It signals to the reader not to let their imagination stray completely to the later time, (only to have to jump disruptively back into the past again in the next sentence or clause), but to retain the link to the past time that was being described. Example: "He opened the fridge, put in the meal which his son would later eat for dinner, closed the fridge again, turned to the other person and spoke." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly I have left it where it correctly indicated a past future tense, a will/intention or a habit. I have only rmoved the places where it was used instead of ordinary past tense.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding lack of inquiries or trials

Hey. Thanks for taking part in this discussion to see if consensus has changed. My issue with this article is the apparent lack of critical reporting of the subject. Through my own college education, I've learned that Guevara was a controversial figure, often either a recipient of positive propaganda or a victim of negative propaganda. This article barely touches on it, other than to say he was controversial (at the bottom of the article), which may give readers the impression that he was either infallible or universally accepted (except, of course, to those he was directly in opposition with). History is still very undecided as to whether he was a true revolutionary or someone who latched on to a movement that promised him authority and/or notoriety. The source material I included indicated that his execution victims rarely saw inquiries, much less trials, and were often executed for the mere appearance of impropriety, or lack of confidence, by Guevara or his seniors. The article is clear this occurred during his Cuban period, so I felt it most relevant to put the statement in there. As I intend to start developing some of the counter-balancing facts that are only suggested at in the article's current conclusion, I thought this was a good way to unbiasly (<--is that a word?) introduce aspects of his historical character that are not yet represented in the article. I'd like to see what the consensus is, so, while I look forward to your POV, I'd prefer we wait and remove my statement only after we've given others some time to weigh in here with a consensus that this knowledge is not relevant in the article about Guevara. Your consideration on this matter is appreciated. Thank you. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been involved in editing this page. I saw this edit and at first glance it looks fine to me, but I haven't had time yet to look at sources or read the previous discussion. Please discuss and get consensus rather than repeatedly reverting. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
LeyteWolfer, as the editor who reverted your initial addition, I wanted to explain my reasoning. At the outset let me say that I do not dispute the accuracy of the statement "often without trial", my sole reasoning for the revert was the sourcing which is to a Sunday Times online article, about a recent book written in French entitled "The Hidden Face of Che" by author Jacobo Machover (a Cuban exiled in France since 1963). The aforementioned article describes this book as a "revisionist biography", and a search in the peer reviewed literature does not turn up any reviews of the text (unlike for say the 3 major biographies on Guevara by Anderson, Taibo II, and Castañeda). I believe that the sentence would carry more weight and credibility if it were referenced to one of these biographies, which describe many of the same summary executions in detail. For instance Anderson describes the execution of Eutimio Guerra in detail on pages (237-238). A further point of interest is the phrase "trial", considering that many times - like with the case of a man named 'Lalo' (Anderson pg 282-283) summary "trials" were held in the Sierra Maestra to determine one's fate - in the aforementioned instance Che argued that the man should be spared. Other such hasty "trials" during the guerrilla campaign are described by Anderson on pages (195, 285, 326, and 371). However, since the phrase uses the term "often" and not "always", I believe it could stand as accurate. LeyteWolfer and others, what would be your opinion of referencing this statement to one of the 3 definitive and peer-reviewed biographies, instead of an article about a little known book in French, that I believe no one editing this article has read ? (My French is ok/sub-standard, but this book also seems difficult to obtain or locate online).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course - the better the sources - the better the article. Please go ahead and add the Anderson source for the claim (removing the sunday times source is probably a good idea)·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You should be aware that the article is curretly being reviewed as a GA at this location:Talk:Che Guevara/GA1 - for the review to succeed the article needs to be more or less stable (this article will of course always attract conflicting opinions). I do not think that there are curently any serious POV problems with the article - in fact I have lauded it for theneutral and matter of factish style in which it is written at the talk page. The article describes Che's life and his actions without trying to secondguess or judge them them. Value judgements does not belong in the body of a biograpjy article -except for when describing the reception or legacy of those facts by the public, and I think the article does so very well. I also believe that Leytewolfe is incorrect suggesting that history is undecided as to whether Che was a "true revolutionary" - I have not encountered this viewpoint as more than the odd mention by an anti-communist spokesperson. I think there is a pretty wide consensus that Che was a bonafide revolutioanry spirit - the conflict, as I understand it, is whether being a true revolutionary is an admirable or a detestable quality. Having begun the review of the article I think it does very well in maintaingn a balanced view between these two extremes, in that it mentions both the laudable humanitarian actions of Che as well as his actions as an icecold ideological warrior - without judging those actions. I have no objection to the addition of "often without trials" - this seems to have clearly been the case (as it would be in most cases of warfare). Also please note that the only two sections to specifically mention the admired/detested dichotomy is the Lead and legacy sections - this is exactly as it should be, the body of the article should be dedicated to facts sourced to reliable sources presented without judgement. The judgement by others of his actions as good or evil all pertain to his legacy and should be confined to that section. If there are facts that you believe should be incorporated I suggest that you present them here on the talk page before introducing them directly into the article - this will make it easier to judge whether the consensus is that the article is sufficiently neutral as is or whether it could still be improved in that respect - and consequently it will be easier for me to conduct the review. i think it would be a shame to have to fail the article only on the stability criteria. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, Che was (and still is) a controversial figure. Having said that, when I first read this article, I was surprised to see that it lacked any criticism and/or controversy section. I’ve read the archive relating to this issue, and I cannot see why the phrase often without trials should not be included. As far as I know, the threshold for inclusion is reliable sourcing; and the edit seems to comply well with that requirement. Likeminas (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the wording "often summarily" instead of "often without trials", since that leaves open the possibility of some sort of summary trial. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that would work as well Coppertwig.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Sections named simply "controversy" or "criticism" are not generally encouraged. It is preferred to have, as in this case, a section with "legacy" or "reception" to include conflicting viewpoints. As stated above bare facts like "often without trials" may of cours be included if they are well sourced and deemed to be relevant by a consensus. I have no objection to the inclusion of this phrase - but I think the matter of the proposed RfC is slightly broader issue of perceived imbalance by Leytewolfer. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that controversy or criticism sections are not encouraged. Is there are a guideline or policy supporting that? I ask because it seems like biographies of other (living and dead) controversial figures such as Fidel Castro, Noam Chomsky and Milton Friedman all have a criticism sections. Likeminas (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
iT is not prohibited but WP:NPOV#Article structure states "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[6] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can sometimes result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other." I think the current article is a fine example of integration of both viewpoints into the main narrative rather than segregating them into a controversy section. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with Maunus’ analysis and add for Likeminas that a "Criticism" section was scrapped long ago during the FA process under the premise that Maunus alludes to. Since a "criticism" section would ultimately need a "praise" section per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV - "Legacy" is much more befitting and inclusive of both sides of the coin.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you guys are correct, then, you've found a major problem with Wikipedia since featured articles such as the ones for Albert Speer, Roe v. Wade and Søren Kierkegaard all have Criticism or Controversy sections.
By the way, my edits on any article can certainly be moved or modified but I would really appreciate it if my edits to this talk page stay as I leave them.
Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is a major problem - it is basically a question of what to name the section where differing viewpoints about the meaning, importance or legacy of the articles topic is contained - not that important in my opinion. As Redthoreau says the legacy section of this article is basically a combined praise and criticism section under a less conspicuous name. I have moved around your signature a little bit because your habit of placing it to lines under your comment caused me to accidentally post my comment between your comment and your signature. I did not mean to change the letter of your contribution, i apologize if I inadvertently did so. However if you sign at the end of the comment it self as is customary the threads will be easier to follow.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, a few thoughts related to your post. -[1]- Per Roe v Wade, comparing an individual to an event is probably not entirely analogous. As for Speer (-1 per Godwin's Law jk) his section first begins with the word "Legacy". Moreover, we would need to know the condition of the particular article at the point in which it was granted featured status, not the present condition of the article - while it would also be important to know at which point an article was granted FA status, as wiki protocol is an ever evolving process as we go along. Lastly, remember that each article exists on its own, and it often is not enough to point to the layout of another article (which may be wrong) to justify the layout of an article in question. Additionally, there are endless variables to consider per your minor example of 3 articles such as the overall Wp:Weight of FA's - do most of them have "criticism" sections, or are these outliers? -[2]- Per your agitation at having your posts adjusted for spacing, I would point toward WP:Talk which allows for = "page formatting", "moving a comment", "adding a header", and "creating subsections if helpful". Moreover, if your comment was in reference to me placing a subsection, or condensing your comment into a paragraph instead of the random line breaks and indentations for your signature or a new sentence: -[a]- I would first apologize for any offense caused (and add that I would certainly never alter any of your actual words), -[b]- make it known that I will refrain from doing this in the future as I now know you don't like it, and -[c]- politely ask that you consider maybe following the usual practice of placing your signature right after your comment, instead of on a new indented line (as is usual MOS). --- Let me add as well Likeminas, that I hope this does not come off as adversarial, as I have found my previous work with you to be fruitful and rewarding and believe that you are a productive member of the overall Wiki project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a searchable archive box for the talk page archives

Resolved

Can an editor who is good with how these work - please place one on the talk page here? Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Vision Thing.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Statements from The Motorcycle Diaries

Alleged racism, antisemetism and homophobia quotes from The Motorcycle Diaries:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."

"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."

"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."

Isn't this something we should possibly bring attention to? Jacob Richardson (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. If a published source points to such quotes as example of racism, we may be able to use that information (if due weight applies). If we search out such quotes ourselves, perhaps not. Do we know that he was more racist than others at the time where he lived? Do any scholarly biographies (e.g. ones with lots of footnotes, etc.) mention this sort of thing? Also, wasn't he relatively young when he wrote Motorcycle Diaries? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I assumed and thought the same thing. I still believe it should be brought attention to, based upon the fact it has be used as criticism in order to defame Che by his detractors. Still withstanding their refutations. Jacob Richardson (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:NOR. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We can only use it if it can be sourced to a secondary source. If it has been used by detractors it can be used by sourcing it to some publication written by them.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This has been brought up in past archives but it might be helpful to bring the matter up again now that more editors are involved. First to the "RACISM" allegation. -(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? -(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks? I will address both of them to the best of my ability and encourage others to weigh in as well if they have further insight.
-(Q1)- First, yes a 24 year old Che did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952, during his continental trip which would later be entitled and encompassed in his 150 + page memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. The full context of this statement is addressed by biographer Jon Lee Anderson on [page 92] of "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life." According to Anderson, Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado had just arrived in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, which at this time was "swollen with migrants" as a result of the nation’s oil boom. As a result the hillsides were draped with "squalid worker slums" comprised of a mostly Afro-Hispanic (black) population. Anderson goes on to state how Guevara up to that point, except for a few brief instances in his life, had never "been around black people" (which were a rarity in his native Argentina) especially for someone of Che’s economic & social class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local "barrio" (slum) made a written "observation" that Anderson states was "reflective" of the "arrogance and condescension" of a "stereotypical white Argentinean." The full diary passage that Anderson includes is as follows:
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations."
A few things of importance in reference to this observational passage. (A) Inclusion of this "observation" would be more applicable to the article The Motorcycle Diaries (if anywhere). (B) Anderson notes two pages later [pg 94] how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time (30 days in Miami), directly after he made this observation, Guevara complained to friends about "white discrimination against blacks" that he witnessed. Thus it is somewhat unclear how Guevara viewed blacks in relation to equality of treatment, although yes he made a statement that I would personally deem offensive months earlier. (C) At the end of Guevara’s journey 3 months later, he states that he "is not the man he once was" and declares himself a transformed individual. Thus it is not clear if Guevara’s views on blacks were altered in that short amount of time based on his trip or how much longer he continued to hold this "observation" on blacks.
What is known about the later revolutionary Che Guevara, which I believe addresses question -(Q2)- are the following points. In reference to "was Che racist against blacks?" – it would obviously depend on what time in his life you are speaking in reference to. Up until age 24, one might be able to state that indeed he was, although his biographers do not expressively do so. What we do know about his later life once he became "El Che" 4 years later is the following. (1) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the United States. (2) Che's friend and personal bodyguard shown here (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks glowingly of Guevara to this day shown here. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964 (as the article notes), he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S. (which still unfortunately existed), and against the white South African apartheid regime (long before it became the Western 'cause de jour'). (4) Che was also heralded by Malcolm X during this trip to NY and in contact with his associates to whom he sent a letter, and later praised by Nelson Mandela as the article currently mentions. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of mostly all Afro-Cubans (blacks) shown here including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. This resembled the fight in Cuba, where Che's units were also made up of mostly mulattos and blacks. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique shown here & here, for their independence from the white South African apartheid regime.
Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still "been racist against blacks?" I guess so, but these actions (as his biographers note) especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate and offensive early "observation" by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che. Now is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I don’t believe so. However, it may be worthy of inclusion in The Motorcycle Diaries article, if presented in the appropriate context.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think redthoreau makes a good case that we Che was possibly slightly racist in his youth (which was btw much more commonplace at that time than it is now) but that he exchanged that for an activist antiracist stance later in life. I think it would be a benefit to the article if this change could be shown by including sourced statements about his viewpoints during the motorcycle journeys and his later actions and statements.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Jacob Richardson (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don’t believe that the question is whether or not this information should be in article, but rather how it should be included, as clearly it should be. A worthy example of how this information can be presented can be found in the article on Harry S. Truman.

CIA quote "fairly intellectual for a Latino"

On a side note, am I the only one who sees the double irony of this discussion in the fact that the following sentence is in the article immediately before the section on The Motorcycle Diaries? “Years later, a February 13, 1958, declassified CIA 'biographical and personality report' would make note of Guevara’s wide range of academic interests and intellect, describing him as ‘quite well read’ and offering the racist proclamation that ‘Che is fairly intellectual for a Latino.’” My apologies to all, but it did make me chuckle... Hammersbach (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersbach, as someone who enjoys irony I noted the same thing, although I really wouldn't compare the ruminations and diary entry of a 23 year old on a road trip to an official CIA report (which should have a much higher threshold of professionalism). I am not averse to inclusion of this material (as it is commonly parroted by detractors to incorrectly imply his lifelong racism), however I am still researching the quotes and context of the quotes on being "Jewish" and "homosexual" to see if he ever really addressed the matters in written form later in life. It is well known (and documented in biographies) for instance that Latin American "machismo" at the time, did not lend much sympathy for homosexuality - and that Guevara himself saw sleeping with women as a necessary precondition to "manhood". Per the "Jewish" issue, Anderson notes how Che was staunchly anti-Nazi as a youth growing up during the second World War, and that he even openly called out a pro-Nazi teacher in his high school in front of everyone – however it may take some more time to dig up how much Anti-Semitism was a part of Che’s anti-fascist beliefs via the Third Reich.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I do think the rather irrelevant detail about the CIA memo and certainly the POV "racism" remark should be removed.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus, are you saying that you think the word "racist" should be removed from the sentence, or that the entire description of how the CIA described him should be removed? Of note, the CIA's remark is fairly notable as it was cited in the trailer for The Motorcycle Diaries and is the tagline for the book Che Guevara and the FBI which contains many of the declassified memos. Is it your belief that it is "irrelevant" how the CIA viewed one of their primary foes?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am arguing for either or. I don't think the memo adds anything important to the article in the context in which it is currently used. It possibly could be relevant if it was put into a context of describing how the CIA (who eventually contributed to che's death) viewed him, but it is not put into that context at present. The description of their memo as racist makes the quote look like a way to make the reader take a pro Che anti CIA viewpoint - if that was removed the quote would just look out of place, but not as implicit POV.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus, I see what you are saying and would agree. I would concur with removing the term "racist" (although I feel that it is personally as I imagine you would) and possibly we could remove the quote altogether until I (or someone else) has time to create a paragraph on all the CIA memos from Che Guevara and the FBI a book that I have and that others can easily acquire if interested. Does that sound reasonable? If so, then please go ahead and remove it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to me yes. However I am not going to remove it myself, lets see what the editors who originally voiced the concern say. I am also not going to fail the GA review for it if a consensus forms to keep it. I was just chipping in my opinion. I also don't think an entire section of FBI material is necessary to establish a context, it could simply be a paragraph about how the BI started paying specific attention to Che in ne of the other paragraphs in the history section. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that despite appearances, I did not add the title that splits the edit I made above and nor did I attempt to start this conversational thread. The sole purpose of my previous comment on the sentence in question was really just to point out an irony that I found rather humorous, nothing more. However, it seems I have been drawn a bit further into this discussion so, briefly, 1) I concur that the quote is out of place and a touch POV, 2) I wouldn’t spend too much time researching anti-homosexual issue. At that time in history champions of homosexual rights were few and far between so for anyone to now wag a disapproving finger at Che on that score is a bit unfair, and 3) I wouldn’t spend too much time researching the anti-nazi route either for two reasons; the first is that I believe it may be rather difficult to convince anyone that statements made in the 40s override statements made in the 50s for views that may or may not have been held in the 60s, and secondly, one can be staunchly anti-fascist and still be quite the anti-Semitic, (the Moustache being a fine example). Anyway, I am still of the opinion that the information should be presented, possibly in the same manner as similar information in the Harry S. Truman article. Hammersbach (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"GAN error" category ?

Resolved

At the bottom of the talk page here there is a red link category of "GAN error". Does anyone know what this is for and how to fix it?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone misspelled the topic parameter. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice work Viriditas.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mass executioner" label in lead

I need to bring this edit by AVM (talk · contribs) up for discussion before this escalates into an edit war. I believe putting "mass executioner" label on the lede section violates WP:NPOV, WP:Terrorist, and WP:UNDUE.  Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It definitely violates WP:UNDUE if it's placed within the lead. Please see entry on Encyclopedia Britannica to note what a balanced lead should look like[21]. I would also advice user AVM (talk · contribs) against possible WP:CIVIL violations on his edit summaries [22] Likeminas (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Nubiatech & Likeminas. AVM has already been reverted on this particular edit 3 times by 3 different editors. Setting aside the fact that AVM (Wp:SOAPBOX) is clearly not interested in the consensus of editors (evidenced by the fact that he/she would disregard the reverts of 3 different people) his/her WP:OR usage of the term "mass executioner" in the lead and as a "profession" violates WP:Undue & WP:NPOV (not to mention it is a hyperbolic term of opinion, not fact). It would be analogous to listing the euphemism "freedom fighter" in the first line, which you actually could source to a number of biographies, but would still be inappropriate from a pov standpoint. Moreover, AVM is trying to link the title of "executioner" to his/her recent edit where he/she unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official "executioner". AVM's declaration of "bullshit!" also doesn't do much in the realm of WP:Civility. Lastly, what is clear is that none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner (which would be our threshold for inclusion).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Preliminary Response
Regarding the above very respectable commentary by the also very respectable editor Redthoreau, I feel I must affix this preliminary response, as for the upcoming weeks I won't be able to build a properly documented reply.
First. You say that I 'unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official "executioner".' Not true, I did supply a reference from a reliable source (Behind Che Guevara’s mask, the cold executioner Times Online (from The Sunday Times) September 16, 2007) that I later displaced downward. Yes, I am clearly not interested in the consensus of blatant leftist editors who regard Ernesto "Che" Guevara as their personal hero, or idol, or totem, who believe he should be thought of as an exemplary human being. If user Nubiatech feels offended by the word 'bullshit', I may also feel offended when he/she childishly calls 'POV' my qualification of mass executioner, which by the way is an historical fact, as many sources prove, and which should be familiar terrain to Redthoreau. With all due respect, when he states that "...none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner", one wonders if he has gone through the immense mass of documentation available, for example, from Cuban exiles? The qualification to use should be mass murderer, which is what Guevara was, instead of the milder executioner. To display respect or deference toward an overt criminal is not only unjustifiable, it is plain hypocrisy.
Second, the WP:NPOV guideline states:
  • "Balance
  • Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.", etc.
Let's briefly examine what the lead section states about "El Che", to see if all viewpoints are represented:
  • he was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, (sounds respectable enough, perhaps chic, even classy)
  • (he was a) politician, (respectable enough)
  • (he was an) author, (sounds very respectable)
  • (he was a) physician, (very respectable indeed)
  • (he was a) military theorist, (respectable enough)
  • (he was a) guerrilla leader. (respectable for some)
It should be obvious that there is no balance at all in the above qualifications; they all depict a character who ought to attract admiration, to say the least, hiding the "insignificant" fact that he was a three-hundred-fold manslayer, even calling POV a reference to it. This is the logical consequence of the diligence with which leftist editors quickly delete anything that might mar their hero's image, and even cry foul (like Nubiatech above) when anyone doesn't abide by their rules. This user even writes "POV (not a fact) mentioned with due weight elsewhere on the article" in his reverting edit summary. Question: if it already is mentioned elsewhere, why it's not considered 'POV' there, while within the lead section it is? The marrow of the discussion is that we are not talking of viewpoints here, we are talking about facts.
Third. I've been following the WP:Ignore all rules rule, mentioned by Redthoreau in a prominent location in his user page, toward the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth, which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it). I will come back, promise. Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
AVM, I’ve been around this article long enough to realize the potential futility in debating these issues with an impassioned individual whose personal hatred for Guevara, Fidel Castro, the Cuban Revolution etc (probably justified) leads them to embark on a near vendetta – and who will merely toss aside all contrary evidence that sways from their accepted or experienced narrative. Your past modus operandi of dismissing those you self-diagnose as "leftist editors" or "leftists" who "deny history", doesn’t allow much room for debate nor intellectual corroboration towards a mutual understanding. You yourself have previously lamented in reference to the WP:NPOV rules that they "protect bastards from being called bastards" which unfortunately for someone with your personal views on these matters - is exactly what WP:NPOV does. In the aforementioned instance you referred to Fidel Castro as a "criminal, murderer, ruthless dictator, liar, thief, and rotten bastard." Now I would support your right to hold these views personally, but such language would not be an appropriate introduction for a neutral encyclopedia article. That is not a "leftist" conspiracy, but rather a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Now I can even empathize with your situation as you have described yourself or the views you hold as being those of = "a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the firing squad, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good." Nonetheless, your personal experiences however tragic, are not only WP:OR, but irrelevant to constructing a neutral encyclopedia based on WP:Verify, WP:Reliable, WP:Weight - (this would be just as true for the family member of a 9/11 victim that wanted to edit Bin Laden’s article with how they truly feel about him as well). Now AVM, as to the specific allegations of your response:
-[1]- The "unilateral naming" that I was referring to, was in reference to your post on the List of executioners article, where you listed Guevara as an "official" executioner without providing a source.
-[2]- As for the Times Online article that you included in this article, I approved of its inclusion in the relevant Legacy section per appropriate weight. It would be ideal to utilize the actual book that the article is in reference to, but the article will do in light of not having the primary source.
-[3]- Nobody here has declared Guevara their "hero", "idol", or "totem" ... please do not confuse following Wikipedia policy with relation to weight, as hagiographic hero worship. We are here to reflect the majority of reliable sources, regardless of what they mirror.
-[4]- You have declared Guevara a "mass executioner" and described this as an indisputable "historical fact". However, this moniker is disputed and not found in the majority of sources. It is indisputable that Guevara personally shot individuals during wartime and a "revolution". Anderson notes several (around 10) documented examples of men who were shot personally by Guevara or on his command for a number of "crimes" in the Sierra including desertion, stealing rations, raping a peasant, being an informer (chivato) etc. Anderson also notes the 55 executions at La Cabana carried out in instances where Guevara had the final appellate say on whether to suspend or lessen the death sentences handed down by the revolutionary tribunals. As not to drag this response on forever, I will point you to a previous archived discussion ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#La Cabaña & Executions. With all that said "mass executioner" is a judgment call and matter of opinion. For starters who defines "mass", more than one? Also "executioner" is a weighted term for the first line of an article. Is a U.S. Governor who refuses to commute a death sentence an "executioner"? What about a soldier who shoots deserters close range during war time? Or someone who orders others to shoot people, but doesn't do the "executing"? However, the article does note that Guevara "unhesitatingly shot defectors" "executed" individuals, and that certain people consider him an "ruthless executioner", "butcher" – these are all acceptable in the article, but not as a declarative statement in the opening remarks. For example, President Harry Truman ordered the nuclear incineration of 150,000 + Japanese. But it would be POV to open up his article by describing him as a "mass executioner", because none of the major sources do. Yet one can still mention in his article the facts surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb, or mention how some consider that a "war crime". To press the issue, you seem to be taking a "fact" and wanting it automatically in the first line irregardless of weight. Example: George Washington owned slaves (this is a fact), but starting off his article with = "Washington was the First President of the United States and a large slave holder" would be WP:POV. No Encyclopedia would begin his entry that way, just like no other online Encyclopedias would begin an entry about Guevara with describing him primarily as a "mass executioner". Likeminas has provided the Britannica link above if interested for comparison.
[5] As for your issue with "respectable" terms, they are merely neutral ones that don’t lay judgment (see WP:Words to avoid). You view them as overly positive, because your personal view of Guevara is highly negative to begin with, and we’ve seen above how you would like Fidel Castro to be described. Of note a POV way to describe Guevara (which would be inappropriate and the paradoxically opposite of your own view) would be to say "Che Guevara was an Argentine brave freedom fighter, liberator of the poor, hero to those who strive for justice everywhere, and prophet against the brutality of Capitalism." Now of course such an introduction for an Encyclopedia would be absurd, but I am sure that if this article was the work of those who as you said view Che as their "totem", that is how it would read.
[6] To conclude AVM, and I apologize for the length, the article presently mentions an array of unsavory aspects about Guevara, including that he executed people and shot them without hesitation. The issue seems to be your desire to describe him as a "mass executioner" in the opening of the lead, which has been unanimously rejected thus far in the past and present based on Wiki policy and the overall weight of material on the subject.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
AVM, regarding your statement above:

"If user Nubiatech feels offended by the word 'bullshit', I may also feel offended when he/she childishly calls 'POV' my qualification of mass executioner,[...]"

I want to bring to your attention the "No personal attacks" policy, which clearly urges: "Comment on content not on the contributor". Describing my edits as you did above is clear violation of that policy. Keep in mind that:
  • I did not make any reference to your edit summary, neither did I express any offense taken on my part.
  • Tagging an edit as POV is not a personal attack, per the policy above.
  • In my previous 3 edits dealing with this article so far (2 reverts, and this talk section above) I never mentioned, critiqued, idolized, attributed, asserted, stipulated, deified, vilified, glorified, or touched the subject of the article or contributed a single word to the contents of the article.
  • All I am talking about so far are WP:NPOV, WP:TERRORIST, and WP:UNDUE; and I'd rather the discussion stays on topic and not get personal. Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 11:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) AVM, per your recent response which I am listing below:

"I inserted the words "mass executioner" in the lead of the Che's article. One of my motives for doing it is that nowadays in Venezuela, as you probably are well aware of, that criminal is being hailed by chavistas as a hero and "Liberator", in the same ranks of Simón Bolívar, which is not only preposterous but nauseating!"

— AVM to SandyGeorgia on July 18, 2009

I would remind you of the wiki policies WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:TEND. Wikipedia is not the place for you to take out your political frustrations towards the regime in Venezuela. The above seems to be a text book example of a wrong motivation for wanting to alter a wikipedia article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, your contribution above in this section was highly interesting and educational, and hence was very appreciated. I have accepted most of your reasoning and as a result have decided not to repeat my sins and leave this article alone. But this last paragraph of yours (on those three Wikipedia policies) is nothing else than a spanking. All I did was to try to involve a very notable editor, fluent in Spanish, and familiar with current Latin American affairs, into this small controversy. Whatever the motivation, 'altering' (that is, editing) a Wikipedia article by adding true content is an absolutely legitimate endeavor, hence deserving respect. Which reminds me of an old itch, the scandalous contrast between fact and opinion in this encyclopedia. In Wikipedia opinions (sustained by references, namely, by other's opinions) seem to be valued better than facts, an impression that is frequently reinforced by the language used in discussions like this one. I remind you of the small detail that you have still not addressed the Third item in my preliminary response: (sic)"...the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth, which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it)." As an aid in a presumably desirable quest for the truth, I'd recommend the article The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand by the notable writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa, besides, of course, some of his books, which in all likelihood you are already familiar with.
Regards, --AVM (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia -for better or worse- is not that concerned with truth.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.Likeminas (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. Then, very regrettably, Wikipedia is crippled from its birth, suffering from an inherent, incurable disease: its disregard for truth. Such policies theoretically allow the building of articles comprised mainly of false contents, simply by providing ample references that in turn are false, claiming they are "reliable sources". And that is just what might be happening right now to a sizable proportion of the 3-million-plus articles, making Wikipedia unreliable per se. That's very saddening indeed. I just knew Wikipedia was too good to be true: now, evidently, it is true that it is not that good after all. It's more than disappointing, more than dismal: it's just nauseating. After more than 2,500 edits, I feel like quitting: I have stopped being a loyal believer. --AVM (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way but its been in our core policies all along. Anyway, "truth" isn't as clearcut as you seem to think - there are (at least) two sides to every story you know.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

Resolved

I think that much of neutrality concerns over the lead would we alleviated if it was noted in the fourth paragraph that "Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years" and that "he remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community" (from Legacy section). -- Vision Thing -- 10:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the first phrase about "che inspired revolutions reinforcing etc" is that this is an opinion not a fact and it would have to be attributed to a very good source and it would have to be agreed that it is such a significant viewpoint that mentioning it in the lead does not give it undue weight. The problem with the second is that it rather goes without saying that he is hated among exiled cubans - I think we could find a better way to phrase this. And it would need a source.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources for both claims are in the 'Legacy' section. -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, the problem becomes that if we bloat the lead with how many Cuban exiles feel negatively about him then we would also have to mention his positive portrayal on the island itself. If we include that he is a "butcher" to many in Miami, then per Wp:Undue we have to mention how he is also "Saint Ernesto" in Bolivia and a "hometown hero" in parts of Argentina. The end result is a lead far too long per WP:LEAD & WP:MOS. Right now the lead mentions that he reviewed the appeals and firing squads, unhesitatingly shot people, has been occasionally reviled, and is controversial. I would wager that these are all true, and satisfy the requirement of both sides on the matter per Wp:Undue (remembering that are job is to represent the worldwide view of Che, not just the American one). Lastly, I would contend that we will probably never be able to produce an article that someone who loathes Che to the core would approve of (especially if we honored WP:NPOV). There is no amount of barbarity that we could portray that would satisfy those who view Che as nothing more than a cross between Hitler, Stalin, and Vlad the Impaler. Likewise we will probably never be able to write an article that would satisfy an extreme admirer of Che, who has whitewashed all of his faults, believes that he never hurt a fly, and finds him more akin to John Lennon than Vladimir Lenin. With this in mind, I feel this article does a good job at reporting the occurrences without passing editorial judgment. Do you disagree?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In the lead we have "As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a new man driven by moral rather than material incentives, Guevara evolved into a quintessential icon of leftist-inspired movements." and "He has been mostly venerated and occasionally reviled in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films." In my opinion these two sentences are most problematic. First sentence talks why he is an icon of the left. We should also have one sentence that explains why he is despised/hated. Second sentence seems to be OR. -- Vision Thing -- 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, would your concerns be alleviated if we moved the "As a result ..." sentence down to the legacy section? As for the second sentence that is nearly indisputable (even amongst his detractors who despise the fact that it is so). The statement itself links to the article List of works related to Che Guevara displaying the vast list of "biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, and films" dedicated to Guevara, while this section has a detailed list of the various songs of tribute. In fact there have been entire documentaries just about the aforementioned phenomenon itself (most recently "Chevolution" and "Personal Che") and entire books written about his dissemination across all of these mediums (namely "Che's Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image" by Michael Casey & "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon" by Trisha Ziff). Even Che detractors have written extensively on how he has been widely praised in the majority of mediums (although they obviously wish this weren't the case, and belief it to be misguided). However, our only job here is to merely reflect the reality (i.e. that Che has been represented mostly positive and occasionally negative across a wide range of mediums) - not to comment on whether such positive coverage is justified, warranted, etc. --- My primary goal here is to allow Maunus to continue his/her GA review, which is being placed on hold while we discuss this matter – thus would your concern of the lead by alleviated if we move the first sentence down as I mention above, and keep the second one as is ? - (I can even source it to a number of books, but usually they request that we avoid over ref’ing the lead). Additionally, what are others views on the matter and this proposal?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope I am a sufficiently reliable source to support the POV that I am male. One can also go overboard with neutrality.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ;)·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are against sentence that explains negative views, I agree with your proposal to move down "As a result ..." sentence. While I agree that it can't be disputed that Che Guevara has been a subject of a large number of works, there is no way to check that he has been mostly venerated in them. Such claim should be supported by a reliable source. Would "He has been a subject of…" work for you? -- Vision Thing -- 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, I have amended the article according to your suggestion and agreement to my proposal. I hope that you will now acknowledge that the lead is now sufficiently npov (although it will never be perfect with such a polarizing figure) to give Maunus the green light to continue his GA review.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, after reading the results of my last edit I felt that now the "Notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors..." line was out of place without the previously removed “icon for his poetic invocations to class struggle etc" --- before the two of them sort of acted as a point/counter point to explain his legacy. As a result of my fear that the lead could now be criticized as overly critical (for mentioning his ruthlessness for shooting but not his adoration for his ideas) I decided to make one more additional edit where I went for more of a basic line on him being "revered" and "reviled" without getting into specifics of why (hence what the legacy section and separate article should be for). Hopefully this will prevent further debate on how many positive and negative attributes of his legacy to place in the lead. What are your thoughts? Thoughts of other editors?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I made one more adjustment [23] to the lead. It is not perfect, but I think that the lead looks pretty good now. -- Vision Thing -- 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Vision, I made one additional edit as well, with relation to your edit. I figure that both the Bay of Pigs & Missile Crisis should be included together from a historical point, and I added a ref to his role in training the militias of the former. If you believe it is at least "pretty good for now", then would it be appropriate to place a "resolved" tag on this subsection of the thread? To demonstrate that we worked it out.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tania's role?

Explain? Former Stasi operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", who had been installed as his primary agent in La Paz, was reportedly also working for the KGB and in several Western sources she is inferred to have unwittingly served Soviet interests by leading Bolivian authorities to Guevara's trail.[132][133]

I don't understand this. The Soviets might have not wanted political disturbances in South America, but they didn't (one thinks) want Che killed.--andreasegde (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the book - Tania: Undercover in Bolivia with Che Guevara could be of assistance not only for this brief section, but for her article as well. I have not yet read the book, but will certainly add it to my (unfortunately long) reading list :o).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Andreasedge, the text is presumably referring to the fact that following Guevara's 1965 speech in Algiers (where he denounced Soviet complacency in their own form of "Imperialism"), many officials in the Soviet Union began to view Guevara as an ally of Mao's China in the Sino-Soviet split.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Spanish and Basque descendent"

Resolved

In the article it is said that: "Ernesto Guevara was born to Celia de la Serna and Ernesto Guevara Lynch on June 14, 1928[1] in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of Spanish, Basque and Irish descent."

I think it is redundant to say that is Spanish and Basque descendent, since the Basque country is a "Comunidad Autonoma" inside Spain. With only one of the terms (Spanish/Basque) would be clearer. Furthermore, the source of the reference [15] is not given, so his basque ascendency is not demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.117.145.84 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 163, your post raises several issues. [1] Your average Basque citizen of Euskal Herria would not describe themselves or view themselves as "Spanish" (not to mention that the Basque country extends into France). [2] The utilized ref points out that:

"Che's last name "Guevara" derives from the Castilianized form of the Basque "Gebara", a habitational name from the province of Álava."

Thus Che's primary last name (Guevara) is Basque, his father's second last name (Lynch) is Irish and his mother's last name (de la Serna) is Spanish. Hence he is described as being of Spanish, Basque, and Irish descent. [3] Is it your contention that “Basque” does not merit a separate distinction from Spanish, or are you disputing the fact that Guevara has any Basque ancestry? (a point acknowledged by Che's father himself)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, keep both in; and I like your explanation.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
I agree with Redthoreau, keep the Basque reference. Basque is not currently a nationality but a distinct ethnicity or cultural heritage. I would treat this as, for example, the Sean Connery entry, which calls him Scottish in the opening sentence despite Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.Yooper2bee (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. You might as well say Frisians are Dutch if your going to call the Basque Spanish. --Mike Oosting (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I am marking this matter as resolved per above consensus.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To many "Marios"

Resolved

The executioner was Mario Terán, a half-drunken sergeant in the Bolivian army who had requested to shoot Che based on the fact that three of his friends named "Mario" from B Company,.. should be corrected or at least made clear that all three were named "Mario" and all form B Company... --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the above matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Christ-like

I suggest deleting these words: "described by Almudevar of the San Francisco Chronicle as "Christ-like"". Reason: undue weight on a comment by one reporter. If there are other sources also calling him something similar, however, it might be OK to keep this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Any bearded man, beaten down (probably wounded), malnourished in some sort of serene state can be said to be "Christ-like", since this is the physical aspects most people extract from iconic representations o Christ, especially the most "popular" one of Christ on the cross. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but it's not clear to me whether you support or oppose deleting "Christ-like". In any case, what you express seems to be your own opinion; the article has to be based on material from published sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Copper & IP89, I have gone ahead and expanded the description with an additional reliable reference and position of a more notable individual. I hope this alleviates your initial concern Copper, if it does not - then please include your further concerns.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the undue positive connotation of the term. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk)

I agree it's a positive connotation. "Undue" sounds like an allusion to WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced it's undue in that sense. I think a lot of very positive material has been written about Che. Redthoreau would be able to comment more authoritatively on that. Now that an additional reference has been provided, I think it's OK to leave the reference to "Christ-like" in. It's a balance: we've left out the stuff about him hugging lepers, etc.; such other positive material adds, in a sense, to the weight of this: that is, we select a certain amount of positive information to be representative of all the positive information written about him. Similarly for the negative. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

9 bullet wounds ?

Quote from this article:

In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.[149]

Photos in Wikipedia show this is nonsense. Where is the evidence of the nine entry wounds? 75.19.40.173 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP 75, the statement is referenced, and the fact of multiple bullet wounds is noted in all biographies. You simply looking at a post-mortem photo on Wikipedia (nearly all of which were taken the day after upon public presentation in Vallegrande - after the body was cleaned, drained, embalmed etc) would be considered WP:OR and not relevant for Wikipedia. Do you have a published WP:RS that calls into question the amount of bullet wounds which we could investigate?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover story of execution ?

Forgive me if this is already addressed, I was just skimming thru the article and may have missed it. However while it's apparent from the article that the government planned to claim that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army it's not clear if this was the actual story they released and if it was, how the truth was uncovered. From the refs, it's apparent it's been known since 1970 at least Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nil Einne, to answer your question - the alleged "killed in action" story was first officially debunked publicly by French journalist Michèle Ray, who traveled to Bolivia shortly after Che's execution and was able to interview many of the primary players involved along with campesino witnesses. Her findings were included in her March 1968 cover story entitled "In Cold Blood: The Execution of Che by the CIA" for Ramparts Magazine. I have the original magazine in my possession (and it is cited in the present article), but am not sure if it can be accessed online. If you are really interested in its contents, then perhaps I could scan them and email them to you (just let me know) & nice to meet you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Name of page

Just out of curiosity, the name is Ernesto Guevara, why is the name of the page Che Guevara, che being only a nick name? I know most people wouldnt be able to tell the name, as everyone knows the man as Che, but this is supposed to be a encyclopedia. Shouldn't it at least be Ernesto Che Guevara? Patrick Ouellet 13:46, 29 October 2009 (EST) Lazypete (talk • contribs)

Hello Lazypete, to answer your question, the policy of WP:COMMONNAME states that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." For instance wikipedia uses Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"). Thus, Che Guevara would be the articles title, as it is the most common name used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Che"

Section 2 "Guatemala, Arbenz and United Fruit", third paragraph erroneously states that in Argentine colloquialism, the word che is "slang casual speech filler used similarly to "eh" or "pal." This is incorrect - "che" is primarily used as "hey" in English - Example "Che, que haces? = Hey, what are you doing", secondly as "pal" ex = "Como estas, che? = How are you, pal?" see [24]. I recommend the article be changed accordingly. Alex79818 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Add'l note: Could it be that the "Eh" in the article refers to "Hey"...as in the Canadian "Eh Buddy"? If so it would be accurate but confusing as Argentine colloquialism also has an "Eh" that corresponds to the English "Ummmm". So in that context, while "Eh", "Oy", "Ey", etc would all technically be accurate, I'd submit that "hey" is more universally known and therefore clearer.Alex79818 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alex, many of these issues are covered at Che (Spanish). "Che" can be used at the start or end of a sentence and could be compared to a wide array of words in the English language.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The origin and meaning of his nickname would be of interest to many readers. Shouldn't it be mentioned briefly in the article itself with a Wikilink to Che (Spanish)? Irv (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Irv, currently the article states:
During this period he acquired his famous nickname, due to his frequent use of the Argentine vocative interjection che, a slang casual speech filler used similarly to "eh" or "pal."[39]
Che (Spanish) is also linked in the above statement. Do you believe additional elaboration is warranted?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Films

Is it worth having a section which briefly mentions the films made about him? They all have their own articles, but I thought it might be worth having a mention in this article. If this has been discussed before and rejected, could someone let me have a link to the discussion? The films (and articles) are: Che! (film), Che Guevara (film) and Che (film). I am aware that they are all mentioned on the disamb page. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

PhantomSteve, there are an array of theatrical and documentary films which look at aspects of the life of Che Guevara, not to mention movies which feature his historical character. I am personally torn on whether this article should have a brief section on these works, but could see the benefit of a minor mention (of the more notable films with their own Wiki articles) in the Legacy section. What did you have in mind?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I didn't have anything particular in mind! This issue came up on the Help Desk, and I thought I'd ask here, as people reading this would be more likely to have a reasoned/insightful opinion on this. After thinking about it now (i.e. a few seconds' thought!), I think that any major films and documentaries should have a brief mention in the Legacy section - but as to which ones would be 'major', I wouldn't be able to hazard a guess! Again, that's something which is best left to those who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Source changed by bot

Resolved

Hi all, I cannot change it myself as the page is semi protected and I have not yet 10 edit on wiki:en (I write mostly on wiki:fr). In the "Legacy" part, the reference sourced for Nelson Mandela quote "referred to him as an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom" has been changed mistakenly by a bot (see [25]). I checked the new Anderson reference and it's not on that page. Please confirm that the reference erased by the bot "Guevara, Ernesto (2009). Che: The Diaries of Ernesto Che Guevara. Ocean Press. ISBN 1920888934. p11" is OK, as I am re-using it on the Nelson Mandela article that I am writing on wiki:fr. Thanks in advance Apollofox (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Apollo, and welcome. I believe I have fixed the issue. The page number is actually "II" as in two capitalized Roman numerals, not the number eleven ("11"). I can attest to the source being accurate as I have the book in front of me.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another cropped version of the famous photograph

Resolved

- as image was deleted.

While somewhat grainy, I would say its much better than the version we use currently, which is highly contrasted. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, in my view this photo is of much lesser quality than the one currently utilized - it is not only "grainy" and of a poor resolution, but looks like it has been darkened (as the original photo displayed the bright contrast seen in the image currently used). I am open to other's views though.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have increased the photograph's brightness and contrast. The main difference being that Che's features are far better defined on this version than the current. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc

I've added some sentences, concerning commercial connections with eastern states. An important and undesireable consequence of isolation within the western world was consequentially a growing economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc. This should be mentioned in the article. --Henrig (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I've made minor edits to it. I suggest deleting the last sentence, though: "Such agreements helped Cuba's economy to a certain degree but had also the disadvantage of a grewing economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc." This doesn't seem to me to be NPOV. There's a theory that Cuba was acting essentially as an agent of the Soviet Union when giving aid to Africa for example; but there's also a theory that Cuba was acting on its own initiative there. I don't know whether there's any solid evidence of dependency or of any objectively disadvantageous results of such dependency (or of what would have been disadvantageous in Che Guevara's opinion). Perhaps from some points of view, dependency on the Eastern Bloc (if verifiable) was advantageous in some way. Gaining benefit from something is not the same thing as creating a dependency on it: the need may have existed regardless. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest to rephrase this sentence, such as "... but some people suppose, that ...whereas ..." The issue is an frequently mentioned aspect. If it's possible to handle or touch it in one or two short sentences, this could be the best solution. Maybe you find an appropriate phrasing on second thought. If you see no satisfactory possibility for a short phrasing, a deletion of this sentence maybe convenient. The other way round would be better. Just my opinion. --Henrig (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you find a reference for a statement like that? Phrases like "some people" are usually to be avoided per WP:WEASEL. If you can find a quote from a source, I can try to think of wording that I think could be justified by the quote. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You write about different theories and for these theories there are sources for sure. But at the moment they are not at hand. I just feel, it would be not bad, to touch this topic too. But maybe after someone delivers some sources. --Henrig (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out because I am not entirely familiar with the process for nomination. I think that the photo of Che, as one of the most iconic images I can think of, should be a featured image. --Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it myself a while ago and it wasn't passed, for not being of a high resolution or quality enough. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The uncropped version of the original Guerrillero Heroico photograph is listed as a Valued Picture here on Wikipedia. As for being a featured image on our sister site of Wikipedia Commons that decision would need to be debated and made there.   Redthoreau -- (talk) -- (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article

Collapsing: Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. TP is for proposing specific sourced additions, not for listing personal opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As someone who has read many books on Che Guevara, I must say that I am very impressed with this article. It is obvious that the editors who compiled it have researched the subject well. Bravo. 66.229.231.189 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

+1 on the enthusiasm. Can't claim to be an expert on him, but have just read the entire article in one go. Well done, Wikipedians. --84.44.248.179 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
One go for me as well. Kudos Cryptonio (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I also enjoyed reading the article and found it a very nice and objective read. Nice work guys. This should be a FA. 170.170.59.133 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The article is an objectively written one, that addresses the criticisms and defences of all varying sides. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with the above I.P. address. With some more work, this article could easily qualify for to be a FA. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with the objectivity, although the opening statement seems a bit overly positive in comparison to the actual article and the history of the character. 96.39.166.159 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is an excellent example of revisionist history, also known as a complete and utter fallacy. I understand now why so many people think Mr. Guevara is a swell guy...they don't know anything about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.127.66 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not an excellent article. It is a false tale of Che Guevara, meant to make him look like some hero. Wikipedia needs to change this article to reflect the true occurrences of Che Guevara's life and actions. People must not continue to practically worship this man when their entire reasoning is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.77.185 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 January 2010

Last words variations?

User:Mark K. Jensen made the following addition to the article as a sub-section:

Slavoj Zizek lists six additional "variants of Che Guevara's 'last words'": (1) "Aim well. You are about to kill a man." (2) "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, you are only going to kill a man." (3) "Know this now, you are killing a man." (4) "I knew you were going to shoot me; I should never have been taken alive." (5) "Tell Fidel that this failure does not mean the end of the revolution, that it will triumph elsewhere. Tell Aleida to forget this, remarry and be happy, and keep the children studying. Ask the soldiers to aim well." (6) "Don't shoot, I am Che Guevara and I am worth more to you alive than dead."< ref >Slavoj Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes (New York and London: Verso, 2008), pp. 433 & 515n.16.< /ref >

Do editors believe that inclusion of these variations is appropriate? Or perhaps could it simply be mentioned that variations exist and then list a few (or all) in the references and not the article's body? What are other's thoughts? Moreover, variation #6 is never listed as a last statement, but is usually alleged to have been said upon capture (with execution occurring the following day) so if indeed Zizek reports such a thing, I believe credibility and accuracy would be a concern?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK either way, as long as there's a reliable source for them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mao caption, Sino-Soviet Split

The caption with Che meeting Mao is wrong. Che was not a Maoist. He was natural in the Sino-Soviet split, he tried to bring both sides together. Also he even had a east German supporting him in Bolivia, that shows support from the Soviet Union. --Scudster17 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Hello Scudster, and nice to meet you. The picture caption in question states:

"Guevara took a pro-Chinese stance on the Sino-Soviet split."

For starters, the article is very careful not to declare Che a "Maoist", as his views on Marxism were complex and ever evolving. In fact as the years went by he was accused of being everything from a "Leninist", to a "Maoist", to a "Stalinist" or a "Trotskyite". However, on the matter of the Sino-Soviet split his position seems to be fairly clear and undoubtedly pro-Chinese. Biographer Jon Lee Anderson writes about this schism fairly extensively in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life ...
[1] On page 580 for instance, Anderson notes that: "In direct contradiction to the policy of ‘peaceful co-existence’, his ceaseless calls to armed struggle, his emphasis on rural guerrilla warfare, and his stubborn determination to train, arm and fund Communist party dissidents – even Trotskyists – over the protests of their national organisations had led to the growing suspicion in Moscow that he was playing Mao’s game."
[2] Then again on pg 615, Anderson notes how Korionov, deputy chief of the USSR Central Committee’s America’s Department, remarked that: "The Argentine was determined to push ahead with the armed struggle in Latin America, he distrusted the Kremlin’s policy of peaceful co-existence, and in the Sino-Soviet schism, he was on the Chinese side."
[3] Lastly, Anderson on pg 585 includes the views of CPSU CC member, Metutsov, who went to Cuba and met with Che and concluded that although he thought Che was a sound "Marxist-Leninist", "... one could truly say that, yes, Che Guevara was contaminated by Maoism because of his Maoist slogan that the rifle can create the power. And certainly he can be considered a Trotskyite because he went to Latin America to stimulate the revolutionary movement".   
For an array of reasons Guevara seems to have taken the Chinese position in the split, although it seems that he always hoped that the sectarian divisions between the two sides could be forged, with the Soviets relenting to his and Mao's position on the necessity of guerrilla warfare. Do you have any sources which contradict the above material?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any material to support my claim off hand. My professor, in my World Topics: Latin American Revolutions and Revolutionaries class, was discussing the Sino-Soviet split and I asked him how Che was not a Maoist then what side did he align with. I think that because Che emphasized agency over structure that it did not really matter if he seemed to be supporting one side or the other. Also there should be some information showing that Che's "New Man" theory was influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre's claims on his view of existence precedes essence.Scudster17 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Scudster, if your professor has published any of his work per WP:Verify then we could possibly include it here, however personal testimony would be considered WP:OR and not be permissible. In addition, there is no doubt that Che's ideas were influenced by Jean Paul Sartre's theories, and if sources can be found, then you should feel free to add that material to the article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article

One of the best articles written on Wikipedia, escaped from anglo-saxon perspective, very neutral and informative. Congrats! --201.79.115.42 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Family? Descendents?

The article is outstanding and exhaustively researched, except for one odd exception: in this text of thousands of words, Guevara's two marriages are barely noted, and his five children are not mentioned at all. One exiled grandson is named. I understand that the life of a great revolutionary must be consumed in deeds that achieve his ideals (just as his name, Ernesto, was consumed by his nom de guerre, Che). Still, there is no question Guevara's family would have had significance for him, and they should be mentioned. I would also like to know if the legend is true, or false, or unverifiable, that Guevara spoke about his children a few hours before his death, with the young soldier who'd been assigned to guard him. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)younggoldchip

Younggoldchip, I agree with your contention and will attempt to increase the amount of information regarding his immediate family (perhaps a family photo of Che with his children could be included as well?). As for the question of his last statements, I know a few biographies mention such a thing, thus I will see if I can locate them specifically.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "nombre de guerra?" 98.114.208.181 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CIA racism

"Che is fairly intellectual for a Latino." 24.80.113.143 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 24, are you objecting to the inclusion of the remark altogether or stating that it should be labeled as "racist"? At one time it was, but a few editors on the TP believed it was more neutral to merely list the quote and let the reader make their own conclusion.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Che's "black is indolent" remark

Although this matter has been dealt with in the past on the talk page (with no rationale for inclusion), yesterday's Fox News feature by Glenn Beck prominently featured the aforementioned diary remark by Guevara (unfortunately without any surrounding context) and predictably has already led to a new user attempting to insert the statement as being representative of Che's personal views. Thus, -(in the absence of an article FAQ which would normally address this sort of thing)- I figured I would rehash the matter so that potential editors wishing to discuss the remarks could decide on whether they (now) merit inclusion. First to the obvious questions: -(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? -(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks and should that view be presented in his article per Wp:Undue, WP:RS etc? I will address both of them to the best of my ability and encourage others to weigh in as well if they have further insight.

-(Q1)- First, yes a 24 year old Ernesto (he was not yet christened "Che") did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952, during his continental trip which would later be entitled and encompassed in his 150 page memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. The full context of this statement is addressed by biographer Jon Lee Anderson on [page 92] of "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life." According to Anderson, Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado had just arrived in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, which at this time was "swollen with migrants" as a result of the nation’s oil boom. As a result the hillsides were draped with "squalid worker slums" comprised of a mostly Afro-Hispanic (black) population. Anderson goes on to state how Guevara up to that point, except for a few brief instances in his life, had never "been around black people" (which were a rarity in his native Argentina) especially for someone of Che’s economic & social class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local "barrio" (slum) made a written "observation" that Anderson states was "reflective" of the "arrogance and condescension" of a "stereotypical white Argentinean" (especially in 1952). The full diary passage that Anderson includes is as follows:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations."

A few things of importance in reference to this observational passage. (A) Inclusion of this "observation" could be more applicable to the article The Motorcycle Diaries (if anywhere). (B) Anderson notes two pages later [pg 94] how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time (30 days in Miami), directly after he made this observation, Guevara complained to friends about "white discrimination against blacks" that he had witnessed. Thus it is somewhat unclear how Guevara viewed blacks in relation to equality of treatment, although yes he made a statement that I would personally deem offensive months earlier. (C) At the end of Guevara’s journey 3 months later (after the "indolent" remarks), Guevara then states that he "is not the man he once was" and declares himself a transformed individual. Thus it is not clear if Guevara’s views on blacks were altered in that short amount of time based on his trip or how much longer he continued to hold this "observation" on blacks.

What is known about the later revolutionary Che Guevara, which I believe addresses question -(Q2)- are the following points. In reference to "was Che racist against blacks?" – it would obviously depend on what time in his life you are speaking in reference to. Up until age 24, one might be able to state that indeed he was, although his mainstream biographers do not expressively do so. What we do know about his later life once he became "El Che" 4 years later is the following. (1) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the Southern United States. (2) Che's friend and personal bodyguard shown here (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks glowingly of Guevara to this day shown here. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964 (as the article currently notes), he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S. (which still unfortunately existed), and against the white South African apartheid regime (long before it became the Western 'cause de jour'). (4) Che was also heralded by Malcolm X during this trip to NY and in contact with his associates to whom he sent a letter, and later on behalf of his actions in Africa - praised by Nelson Mandela and the Black Panther's Stokely Carmichael as the article currently mentions. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of 100 Afro-Cubans (blacks) shown here including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. This resembled the fight in Cuba, where Che's units were also made up of mostly mulattos and blacks. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique shown here & here, for their independence from the Portuguese.

(7) Lastly, as the article currently notes, in August 1961 (9 years after his "indolent" remark), Guevara attacked the U.S. for "discrimination against blacks, and outrages by the Ku Klux Klan", which matched his declarations in 1964 before the United Nations (12 years after his "indolent" remark), where Guevara denounced the United States policy towards their black population, stating:

"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"

Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still "been racist against blacks or secretly found them indolent?" I guess so, but these actions (as his biographers Anderson, Castaneda and Taibo note) especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate and offensive early "observation" by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che. Now is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I don’t believe so, although I am open to countering arguments. However, it may be worthy of inclusion in The Motorcycle Diaries article, if presented in the appropriate context. As always, other's views are encouraged and more than welcome with corroborating sources for those views obviously appreciated.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:38, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Although this matter has been dealt with in the past on the talk page (with no rationale for inclusion)...", Really? How was it "dealt" with? Your statement seems to imply some sort of consensus was reached. Was there a consensus reached? Was there a rationale for exclusion of his clearly racist comments? Hammersbach (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hammersbach, I believe that you may be misinterpreting my remark of "dealt with" to imply "resolved" which I agree it was not. The matter was briefly discussed in August 2009 and earlier in October 2008. However, there has never been any Wp:concensus for inclusion (the usual threshold) or exclusion. I am not against including the remarks, although I believe that per Wp:Undue that we would need to devise a way to present them in their proper historical and situational context. For instance, many times this quote is parroted by Che’s ideological detractors to imply a lifelong stance of racism, but as I believe the above information demonstrates (and seconded by all of Che’s mainstream biographers) they were actually the unfortunate private musings of a young man with an interest at the time in anthropology who had encountered blacks in a slum for the first time --- and more importantly nearly every action by Guevara from the following year until his death 14 years later --- was if anything anti-racist or at the very least pro-black (especially considering this was at a time when it was still illegal for whites and blacks in many parts of the American south to share a water fountain). Moreover, per this --> BBC article we have the recent remarks by Che's black Swahili interpreter in the Congo (Dr. Freddy Ilanga) that Guevara "showed the same respect to black people as he did to whites." Now this was obviously in 1965, rather than in 1952 when the "indolent" diary remark was made, but is still relevant when considering whether these remarks are worthy of inclusion (or how to present them). Additionally, we have the issue of whether these remarks belong in this main biographical article, or the sub article on The Motorcycle Diaries from when they were written? I am open to all ideas, what do you (or others) think?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was kind of hoping that someone else would offer a comment but since no one else has, let’s take another look at the two questions above:
-(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? The answer is, as addressed above, “yes a 24 year old Ernesto… did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952…” It should also be reiterated that these “unfortunate private musings of a young man with an interest at the time in anthropology” were accompanied by a few other anthoropological observations that were homophobic and anti-Semitic.
-(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks and should that view be presented in his article per Wp:Undue, WP:RS etc? This question is actually a bit of a two-parter, so, -(Q2a)- Was Che thus racist against blacks? The answer to this is… we don’t know, not for certain, one way or the other. As Redthoreau writes above, “…could Che have still ‘been racist against blacks or secretly found them indolent?’ I guess so…” One of the real points of interest here is the conflict between his public actions which, as interpreted above, “(were) if anything anti-racist or at the very least pro-black”, and the racist thoughts expressed in his private writings which, as Che’s daughter Aleida Guevara explains, “Che had not intended … to be published.” So which version of Guevara do we believe, the public one or private one? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else really does either. But what we do know, and with dead certainty, is that “Chancho” was caught with his hand in the racist cookie jar. -(Q2b)- Should that view be presented in his article per WP:Undue, WP:RS etc? WP:RS – There is no trouble on this score. There is virtually no doubt that Guevara authored these passages and if there is a reliable source that does I have been unable to locate it. WP:Undue – Were these just some questionable allegations being made solely by some right-wing radio talk show host I could maybe understand the complaint being made that this was undue. But this isn’t the case. These are Guevara’s own words written in his private diaries and they represent what can only be termed as a significant departure from the legend that is “Che”. As such I find it difficult to argue against their inclusion, in either article, as being undue. They are both factual and relevant to the topic and are worthy of inclusion. Hammersbach (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hammersbach, I appreciate you taking the time to address some of the above matters. I also share your same wish that other editors will opine and join us in the discussion, but until then, I figured I would [R]espond to your reply and offer up a few comments.
[R1] You state that the indolent remark was "accompanied by a few other anthropological observations that were homophobic and anti-Semitic". The only such statements that even come close to this in The Motorcycle Diaries are one's where Guevara states "The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each" and "The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort." Whether these diary remarks constitute homophobia or anti-Semitism in the cultural context of 1952 would certainly be up for debate, and none of the 3 major Che biographers (per Wp:Verify) seem to believe they do. What we do know from biographer Jon Lee Anderson pg 33-34 is that the young Ernesto belonged to an "anti-fascist" cell during WWII with his Jewish friend Raul Melivosky and that Ernesto was the only student to stand up to a "notoriously pro-Nazi history professor". As for his view on homosexuality, nearly all Che's biographers note that he exhibited the prevalent Latin American machismo of the era, but there aren't any public-or-private remarks on record where he addressed his views on the topic.
[R2] Per your referencing of Che's daughter's remark that "Che had not intended (for his diaries) to be published", I am not sure that I would attach the same sort of suspicion that you do to such a declaration. Nearly all people, don't intend for their private diaries to be published for the world to see. However, to his daughter's credit, these diaries were published per their families decision, and the remarks towards blacks mentioned above was not "scrubbed" or censored, as could have easily occurred.
[R3] I disagree to some extent that the dilemma before us is the paradox involving the "public" versus "private" Che. For starters all of the above remarks stem from a time in his youth before he was "Che", and thus as his biographers note, none of these actions do contradict the public persona he exhibited later in life once he had become not only a well known revolutionary but a public figure who espoused anti-racist views. As already mentioned above, for the last 8 years of his life Che entrusted his protection and life to Harry "Pombo" Villegas, an afro-Cuban, and it is unlikely that he would have decided to give such a task to someone whom he viewed as "indolent" or "inferior" vis-à-vis his race. Plus we have Che's private diaries from his time in the Congo (13 years after the "indolent" remark in 1965), where he is openly critical of the black African forces there - but does not attribute any of their short comings to their race or make any racist remarks.
[R4] Wp:Undue does not necessarily have to do with who is making the accusation (as you state above i.e. "right-wing host") but whether it merits inclusion based on the overall relevance and importance to the readers understanding of the topic. Guevara wrote thousands of pages of work (and we obviously can not include everything), thus we as editors are supposed to narrow down that dearth of information into the most prescient points as to help the reader grasp the topic at hand. For instance, if these remarks were used to display Guevara's ultimate evolution on his views towards race - then they could be deemed relevant, however if they are thrown out there to "demystify" the "legend" of Che and say "see he was secretly a racist, what a hypocrite!" then that would be an WP:OR charge that is not supported by the overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence. Our job here as editors is to echo the prevailing WP:Reliable sources on Guevara, and not to unilaterally combat any "legends" (were they to exist).
[R5] To reiterate, I am not against the inclusion of his "indolent" remark, however I believe that with such a polarizing and controversial figure that it is important that we present the issue in relation to how his biographers do, and not draw our own conclusions. Lastly, Hammersbach, do you believe the quote is more relevant to The Motorcycle Diaries or to this general article? I apologize for the length and again appreciate your efforts towards discourse and collaboration.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied some of the points in the above to a new article, Che Guevara and racism, and linked to it from this article. Bayle Shanks (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayle Shanks, as the author of the portion that you copy and pasted to its own article, I would object under the basis of WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV for the title (which assumes a "racist" stance) etc. Any of these points that are relevant I believe should be in the main Che Guevara article (and most in fact are). Under your rationale we could have articles on every one of Che's views i.e. "Che Guevara and Capitalism", "Che Guevara and Feminism", "Che Guevara and Environmentalism" etc, which I believe would be unwarranted. I have also nominated that article for deletion as a result of the above rationale.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Added political viewpoints section

This article was currently almost entirely chronological, and didn't provide a way to quickly grasp what Che's opinions and philosophy were. There were various other main articles about his "legacy" and similar, but these only peripherally discuss his own opinions. Therefore, I added an atemporal (by which I mean, not that items within this section should not report the dates at which evidence for Che holding the various viewpoints; they should report these dates, although they don't right now) "political viewpoints section", and added some information on Che's views on racism and homosexuality. Clearly, there is room for inclusion there on many other types of political issues, and I'd like to encourage their addition. Bayle Shanks (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayle Shanks, I have reverted your large additions of a new "political viewpoint" section with the WP:Undue and WP:POVFORK sub-sections of "imprisonment of dissidents", "due process" and "homosexuality". To summarize the totality of Guevara's "political views" (via WP:OR) to one cherry picked quote on racism, homophobia, and imprisonment of dissidents without due process, is also WP:POV. Guevara spoke extensively on dozens of topics including imperialism, capitalism, Marxism, socialism, dependency theory, industrialization, colonialism, neo-colonialism, monopolies, the theory of value, means of production, voluntary labor, international finance, the Vietnam war, guerrilla warfare, foco, dictatorships, race relations, gender equality, importance of literacy etc. Thus, not only do I believe that a section with your four criticisms utilizing out of context quotes is misleading - but per WP:Summary, it would necessitate a full inquiry into all of his views, which would be better suited possibly for the article on Guevarism or inter-spliced into relevant portions of the current article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that there was an article Guevarism, I feel it should be more prominently linked from the main page. I have linked to it and moved the text I had added here to the Talk page over there, copying this. Bayle Shanks (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the intro with "radical"

In the intro the following sentence is clear bias:

"This belief prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow solidified Guevara's radical ideology"

It is assuming Guevara's ideology is radical, that is not a fact but rather an opinion, I suggest the removal of the word 'radical'. --A Gooner (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello A Gooner, and nice to meet you. "Radical" can be defined as "favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." In this instance it is not being used pejoratively or as a critique, but rather an accompanying term to signify that his ideology at this time had become crystallized and in its post-Arbenz state, was indeed "radical". Che himself never shunned away from acknowledging the "radical" nature of the transformational Marxist world revolution which he believed was necessary, and in fact saw the term if anything as a compliment. Do you have sources or reasoning for questioning whether Guevara's ideology fits the definition of being "radical"?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not actually a physician, suggest removal of that phrase

Che Guevara never actually practiced medicine, nor did he complete any formal clinical training as would be required to do so. From wikipedia definition of "physician: A physician—also known as doctor of medicine, medical doctor, or simply doctor—PRACTICES'(emphasis mine) the ancient profession of medicine..."

As such, the phrase "physician" is erroneously applied and should be struck from the article, instead clarifying that he merely held a medical degree. See New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Che_Guevara

"In 1948 Guevara entered the University of Buenos Aires to study medicine. After a few interruptions, he completed his formal medical studies there in March of 1953 and received his diploma in June of that year. However, it is not clear whether he ever fulfilled the clinical training required to practice medicine (italics mine)." Captainmerv85 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

CaptainMerv85, a few things of note:
[1] The "New World Encyclopedia" is a Unification Church site which mirrors Wikipedia and 95 % of that Che article there was copied from this Che Wikipedia article - with some adjustments being made per --> "Unification values". Proverbially, you are using the "cart" to direct the "horse".
[2] The matter of Che as a "physician" has arose several times in the past and there has never been any WP:Consensus to adjust or remove the phrase.
[3] Your statement that Guevara "never actually practiced medicine" is potentially dubious. What we do know from the reliable sources is that Che  [a] Graduated from Medical school at the University of Buenos Aires and was certified as a medic  [b] Worked as a volunteer physician in a leper colony  [c] Worked in the allergy section of the General Hospital in Mexico City and gave lectures on medicine as a member of the medical faculty at the National Autonomous University of Mexico  [d] Served as a medic and dentist in a guerrilla war with numerous accounts of instances when he treated wounded men in the course and aftermath of battles  [e] Diagnosed as a physician scores of illnesses and provided some treatments to campesinos during his time in the Sierra Maestra, Congo and Bolivia.
[4] Note that he is not referred to as a "doctor" (i.e. "Dr.") even though during his life, and since his death, many reliable sources have done so. In my opinion "physician" is sufficiently vague to describe the role he played at various points in his life, but I am open to suggestions as well.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mahrooq, 9 June 2010

Resolved

It is stated: "the newly empowered government carried out executions "without respect for due process."[94]". This is subjective. Perhaps "some historians have stated that the executions... etc" would be more appropriate? Mahrooq (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahrooq, the quote has been attributed to the specific biographer (i.e. Jorge Castañeda Gutman) who made the statement and whose work was already being referenced. Thanks for pointing out the issue.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References in Splinter Cell

Resolved

Should it be noted that Suhadi Sadono in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is based off of Che Guevara?—Smithx807 Talk 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Smithx807, a mention was added to the appropriate section at Che Guevara in popular culture.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias with phrase "CIA-slain Patrice Lumumba"

Resolved

The main page about Patrice Lumumba states that the CIA, while wanting Lumumba dead, did not have anything to do with his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.121.222 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at first glance it would appear that this particular edit may be at odds with both WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable. Perhaps it would be best if the editor who made this edit were to respond. [26] Hammersbach (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
IP 208 & Hammersbach, setting aside the obvious fact that the Patrice Lumumba article (or any for that matter) should not be used to gage the accuracy of another article, the issue of whether Lumumba should be described in this way is a legitimate question. As to that particular addition, I added the phrase "CIA" to slain because the source I was adding at the time (i.e. Keller) used similar terminology. However, setting that aside, what we do know from an array of sources and what is generally agreed upon (or acknowledged in recent years) by both sides is that:
[a] In 1975 the Church Committee went on record as saying that CIA head Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba’s assassination as "an urgent and prime objective".
[b] The CIA sponsored an earlier assignation attempt to poison Lumumba using toothpaste.
[c] CIA station chief Larry Devlin not only urged the "elimination" of Lumumba, but helped direct his capture and transfer to where he was eventually executed.
[d] The CIA base chief in Elizabethville was in direct contact with the killers the night Lumumba was murdered.
[e] A CIA agent had Lumumba’s body in the trunk of his own car and presumably disposed of the body.
[f] "Lumumba was placed under house arrest in what was widely assumed to be a CIA supported military action" per this ---> NYT source.
[g] That the CIA used the covert program "Project Wizard" to funnel money and equipment that was used to capture Lumumba and hand him over to his killers, while also paying Kasavubu 4 days before he ousted Lumumba, and paying Lumumba’s killers 3 weeks after the execution (per author Godfrey Mwakikagile in Africa 1960-1970: Chronicle and Analysis pg 80-81).
[h] Sources such as the Encyclopedia of the Developing World by Thomas Leonard state outright on pg 309 that "The CIA assassinated Patrice Lumumba in 1961".
[i] While the African authors Ikechi Mgbeoji and Agwuncha A. Nwankwo in their books state that Lumumba was "killed with logistics supplied by the CIA" and "slain by Mobutu at the behest of the CIA" respectively.
[Q] Now to the main question ~ should an agency that wanted Lumumba dead and then through funds and material helped topple, find and capture Lumumba – and then transferred him to his killers who were on their payroll, followed by disposing of Lumumba’s body driven in the trunk of one of their agents ~ be mentioned as being culpable for the "slaying"? In all honesty, I’m not sure and I guess could argue either way (semantically). Obviously we could go into unnecessary exhaustive detail or find a better way to portray that the adversary of Lumumba and his movement was primarily funded, supplied, and supported by the CIA – even though an official card carrying member of the CIA may not have literally pulled the trigger in one of the 3 teams of firing squads that supposedly killed him. I'm open to: suggestions, removing CIA altogether from the phrase, adjusting the wording, or keeping it as is. I also realize this is a minor detail of this particular article. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Briefly, 1) I would like to point out that it is, at best, incorrect to assume that when an editor refers to another article on Wikipedia that they a) did not review the references for that article and b) are not including those references as part of their reference to said article.
2) Bias can not only be expressed by what is put in, but also by what is left out. In this case, no where is any mention made above of the involvement of the Belgians who, from an array of sources and what is generally agreed upon, were the main perpetrators of this sad affair. In an Associated Press article written June 21, 2010, Slobodan Lekic writes that, “Historians generally agree that top Belgian officials and officers conspired to overthrow him, and that they organized and carried out his execution on Jan. 17, 1961.”
3) Given the generally acknowledged primary culpability of the Belgians it difficult to accept the “main question” as you are attempting to frame it. The main question is really whether or not it is bias to refer to Patrice Lumumba as “CIA-slain”. Regardless of the answer, given what we know about Belgian involvement it is factually inaccurate to use the term “CIA-slain” so I am deleting it. Hammersbach (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hammersbach, I would dispute your contention that it is "generally agreed upon" that the Belgians bear the majority of culpability. Nevertheless, I am ok with you removing the phrase "CIA-slain" as the matter is (I would contend) equally disputed - and the amount of detail necessary to hash out the nuances, gratuitous to this particular article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Che's Chilean stop

Resolved

I'm just curious why this article barely mentions the Chilean phase of Che's motor bike trip of south america. If my history is wrong please let me know, but im quite sure that many historical accounts and films mentioned a Chilean phase to Che's motor bike trip, not to mention his trip to the atacama mines in chile's north. To my information the Chilean phase started from the south of Chile and then north to Peru which contradicts a map in this article which claims he started from Buenos Airs and then straight to Peru thus avoiding Patagonia and Chile all together. Can someone please clarify this ... thank you. (202.138.9.10 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Hello IP 202, the details of Che's visit to the Chuquicamata copper mine in Chile is included in the article on Guevara's memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. However, your comment points out a possible confusing detail of the article at present. The map of Che's 1952 trip ---> shown here can possibly be confused with the similar looking map of Che's travels from 1953-1956 ---> shown here. To alleviate this possible confusion, I have incorporated both maps in this article, instead of only the latter. Moreover, a brief mention of his visit to the mine is likely warranted - and thus I have added one.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Some of the word usage and punctuation in this otherwise stellar article is lame. See comma for further info. --- signed User:86.217.154.43

number of survivors of the attack on the Granma ?

In the section Cuban Revolution (1st subsection: Invasion, warfare and Santa Clara) Regarding the attack on the Granma as it landed, it states that only 22 survivors were able to find each other afterward.

The first step in Castro's revolutionary plan was an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma, an old, leaky cabin cruiser. They set out for Cuba on November 25, 1956. Attacked by Batista's military soon after landing, many of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture; only 22 found each other afterwards.[58]

On the page for the 26th_of_July_Movement linked from here (1st section, top of page), in the section "Role in the Cuban Revolution" it states:

The landing party was split into two and wandered lost for two days, most of their supplies abandoned where they landed. Of the 82 who sailed aboard the Granma, only 12 eventually regrouped in the Sierra Maestra mountain range.

This page (Che Guevara) has a citation, where as the other does not. I have not located or verified if this source is correct or a credible one. This may be simply a typo in one of these two pages (22 vs 12), or there is an actual dispute on the number of survivors who were able to reunite. This should be clarified and rectified between the two pages. --LaLunaNegra (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hola LaLunaNegra, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is best not to generally use other Wikipedia articles as barometers for the accuracy of Wiki pages. With that said, the discrepancy you point out here is a valid one, with several explanations and varying results depending on the source and time frame in question. First to some of the reasons: [1] In the popular "mythology" of the Cuban Revolution (as takes place with any revolution) the "12" survivors is often repeated and thus parroted. Its origins are both a nod to the religious iconography of the twelve disciples and usually given as the number of Granma passengers who survived through the entire 1957-1959 revolutionary period. Thus, both could be correct, in the sense that 22 of the 82 men survived the landing and early stage, and of those 22, 12 survived till January 1, 1959. [2] However, you will often find sources that don't utilize this contextual nuance and will simply state that "12 men survived the Granma" - along with many others that don't even acknowledge that this difference exists. [3] Leading Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, speaks of this briefly in this ---> interview where he states that only "17" men survived, but makes note of the "Apostolic twelve" being used for historical purposes. [4] In reality, sources could be provided for "22", "17" and "12" - and in the grand scheme, I am not sure that such differences really matter, or if there is a definitive answer. I am open to possible suggestions of how to address the matter, but believe that we shouldn't spend too much article space on what would otherwise be a somewhat trivial issue.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Redthoureau, thank you for the response and information. I agree that little to no space should be spent on the various numbers as it may not prove significant in the larger scheme of things, especially if there is not a definitive consensus. I was unaware of the 'nod to religious iconography' and the intentional utilization of symbolism of the 12. That might warrant a small line or two as it's rather interesting. Or, at least I found it so. Thanks for sharing that. :-) LaLunaNegra (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Che's Religion ?

It is correct for Guevara's religion to be described as "None". The consensus against it being "Atheism" or linking "None" to the atheism article is that atheism is not a religion, and that None does not necessarily mean atheist. However, "None" is fairly ambivalent. It could indicate to the reader that Che was apathetic toward religion, an agnostic or somekind of deist or pantheist, rather than the strongly anti-religious atheist he was. I would personally favour: "None (atheism)". Sir Richardson (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, I believe your concern has merit, however there is not consensus amongst biographers that Guevara remained an atheist rather than an agnostic throughout his life. Although he has several "anti-religious" statements on record, he also has several statements (including but not limited to Debray's post-mortem remarks about Che as he neared his demise in Bolivia) that suggest a possible "spiritual" composition. What is known for sure is that Guevara: [a] was baptized Catholic as a baby, [b] kept out of religious classes as a child (because of his parent's atheist views), [c] played on the "atheist" soccer team as a youth (when they divided sides between those who believed and who didn't), and [d] made antagonistic statements with regards to Christianity. However, in The Motorcycle Diaries (book) for instance, Guevara (who studied Buddha as a youth) makes several "spiritual" / "humanist" statements about fate, fatalism and destiny, while throughout his later writings, he often spoke of morality and life having a purpose. He clearly was not religious and vehemently disliked organized religion (particularly Christianity), but I am not sure there is full agreement that he could be described as being an "atheist" throughout his entire life (rather than an agnostic atheist). Do you agree, disagree? Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I see, thank you for clarifying. I do think that it would be very much worth incorporating such information such into the article itself. Also notable is his family's protest of his image and legacy being used by Islamic fundamentalists in their agenda. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3 technical requests for a capable editor

Resolved

Seeing as I can't figure out who to do the following tasks, can an editor who knows how - please do the following:

  1. Lessen the size of the signature in the info box.  Done
  2. Insert a line under the info box image caption, separating it from the rest of the box.  Not done
  3. Make the first Che template at the bottom of the page expanded, while leaving the "Socialism" and "Communism" templates closed how they are now.  Done

Thanks   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To address your concerns:
  1. I've uploaded a smaller version of the signature, since the image size is fixed in the infobox. The signature seems rather atypical, but if there are others like this then it may require a proper fix at {{Infobox person}}.
  2. That would require a change to {{Infobox person}}, although I don't personally see why a line is necessary.
  3. I've added a parameter to the navbox, so you should be ok now.
Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
PC78, first thank you very much for the assistance. The signature size is perfect and the box now expanded. Of note, perhaps a "signature_size" line (like exists for the main box image) should be added to the {Person} info box to prevent future occurrences of this problem. As for the dividing line between the caption and other information, that was probably a result of my own neuroticism, since that line was previously there in the {Revolutionary} info box. To me it just looked a little neater that way.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly Capitalism or Capitalism in lead ?

Resolved

This isn't a huge issue, but don't you think it would be more accurate for the first time user? Maybe Che did talk about all forms of capitalism converging into a final form of monopolism, but how would a new user know this? (For example, I didn't know he said that!) Tell me what you think? ValenShephard (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Valen, a potential problem with simply using "capitalism" is that Che didn't believe such an economic structure was ever really possible, arguing that it would always mutate into monopoly capitalism. Che rarely used the term "capitalism" without including a mention of "monopoly capital" or the "oligarchy" that he argued would always develop within a capitalist economy. Che disputed the fundamental ethos of the capitalist model and believed it to be a mirage, thus it would be somewhat inaccurate to list "capitalism" itself, as he never believed this really existed. Che argued that a "free market" has never really existed, and couldn't exist, as he contended that the state would always merge and collude with with the capitalists who control the means of production to create either a fascist, corporatist or oligarchical model (and thus become what Lenin described as monopoly capitalism). The only solution to this Che argued was Marxist world revolution. I understand your concern and argument; however I'm not sure of the best way to display this nuance. Have any ideas?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well put. I am just trying to see it from the eyes of reader who doesn't know much about the subject, what impression would they get if they click on the monoply capitalism article? I think they wouldn't really grasp the issue, because the monopoly capitalism article is quite specialised, written mostly as a Marxist perspective. I feel that a new user wouldn't be able to grasp it, without first having some kind of understanding of capitalism in the first place. Would it be misleading of the facts to simply use capitalism? Or maybe a compromise of some kind, such as: we use the link to 'just' capitalism, then in brackets put (which he thought would eventually...) to explain what you just detailed. I think that might be the best of both worlds; the new user gets the link to something which would be educatative and not too specialised or narrow, and others would be able to get an understanding of Che's ideology (and some could just ignore that extra detail). How does that sound? ValenShephard (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a possible resolution, although I'm not sure about it. I would suggest we wait a few days and see if anyone else has additional ideas, and we can both also think of further solutions.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
These two concepts, although related, are not the same. Therefore if Guevara used the marxist view of the hypothetical final stage of capitalism then this is the link we should provide. Trying to simplify this for a hypothetical reader is slightly on the OR side and can also be misleading. It is also not a hard concept to grasp. As a result we might even educate a reader or two. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would be misleading if we said: "capitalism (which he thought would always degenerate into monopolism etc etc)" and for "monopolism", we link to monopoly capitalism. I've read text from Guevara, and I have seen him use simply "capitalism" frequently. I am not fully convinced that he mostly used monopoly capitalism as his words of choice, but even so, doesn't monopoly capitalism fit under capitalism? I think it would be best to offer both, with an explanation for people who want to grasp his ideology on a more complex level, are catered for also. ValenShephard (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering what you would think of putting: "capitalism (Which he believed would always lead to monopolism)"? For monopolism we link to the article of Monopoly Capitalism. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Valen, I would be ok with putting:

His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of capitalism, monopolism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution.

Thoughts? Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with that. I'll wait a couple of days or whatever to see if anyone else has any opinions, then I'll implement this change. Thanks for the discussion. ValenShephard (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

State capitalism

Can anyone say when Che learnt that Cuba was taking the path of State capitalism? Did he comment favorably or negatively about this?86.42.193.47 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, Guevara favored the elimination of all "material" incentives in favor of "moral" ones, and thus disagreed after leaving as head of the National Bank, with the Cuban government adopting certain aspects of state capitalism. However, Guevara's criticisms of this "mutation" (mostly in private) were primarily aimed towards The Soviet Union. In Guevara's essay "Thoughts on the Transition," he theorized that the troubles of the Soviet economy went back to the introduction in 1921, under Lenin's leadership, of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which "opened the door to the old capitalist production relationships", noting that "Lenin called these relationships state capitalism" ---> see this article. An excellent book if you are truly interested in the subject, is the 2009 work Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution by Helen Yaffe. She briefly discusses the topic in this ---> 2006 article. Possibly there could be an article that solely examines the "Economic Philosophy of Che Guevara" one day on Wikipedia, and Yaffe’s book would make a good initial foundation.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that's interesting, but Yaffe ignores all the Soviet subsidies into the Cuban economy. I was a Soviet citizen, now living in "the west", and I prefer the banal slavery of the supermarket to the Soviet slavery that I lived under. Che was preparing a more refined slavery, or so it seems now. You have no idea what it was like, how it crushed you, to be made to live daily towards an ideal that was never, ever realized. Che's system would still have relied on coercion, ultimately, and somehow the article should make that clear. Otherwise people will only consider the nice-sounding parts of his theory and forget the "downside".86.42.223.139 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
IP 86, remember Che left Cuba in 1966, long before the Soviet subsidies became a mainstay of the economy. Moreover, although I have empathy for your own personal situation, it would be considered WP:OR and is ultimately irrelevant to the construction of this Wiki article. It is our mission as editors to echo the reliable sources and how they present the information, not to WP:Soapbox with considerations to our own personal history, out of fear that others might be drawn to certain ideas that may have caused us personal tragedy (this would be the same if an editor moved "to the West" and wanted to espouse on how much they disliked living under Capitalism as well). Specifically, as for this article, it does mention how Guevara implemented his system of moral incentives, which was ultimately unsuccessful, and eventually abandoned (as the article notes). Lastly, as a possibly ironic side note, near the end of his life Guevara spent 5 months in 1966 living clandestinely in the Czechoslovak village of Ladvi before departing to Bolivia, and expressed disillusionment about the "Soviet model" that had been implemented there – reportedly telling his friend Ulies Estrada, that "Everything is dull here, grey and lifeless. This is not socialism, it is its failure."article Thus you and Guevara might be in somewhat agreement on the realities of life in the Soviet Union, although you would disagree on the ultimate "cure".  ----  Now, hopefully we can move on from an albeit interesting discussion, which unfortunately doesn’t really have a place on an article’s talk page per WP:Forum.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that coercion and force would have been used by Che, and those like him, and that is very relevant. Talking about soapboxes, you come across as a fan of his, but shouldn't we all be as neutral as possible on Wikipedia? I'll leave it here.86.42.194.80 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
IP 86, of course he used "force", that is usually what armed revolutionaries do. As for "coercion", the article points out that:

... each worker was now required to meet a quota and produce a certain number of goods. However, as a replacement for the pay increases abolished by Guevara, workers who now exceeded their quota only received a certificate of commendation, while workers who failed to meet their quotas were given a pay cut.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the article fails to acknowledge these two aspects. As for neutrality, and as a historian, I take the policy of WP:NPOV very seriously, and do my best to remain as objective as possible. My own personal nuanced views on Che are irrelevant and I try to keep them from tinting my edits - but I can tell you that most of the unflattering aspects in the article were added by myself. However, I recognize that to some people, anyone not universally and hyperbolically denouncing Che as a "Commie-terrorist-butcher-killer-murderer-scumbag" is obviously "a fan", but there is not much I can do to assuage these people and still follow Wiki policy.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Corpse photo not appropriate

imho corpse pictures are not appropriate for biography articles. just my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.222.130 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP 198. The ---> utilzied corpse photo in question, is a well known post-mortem image of Guevara. Moreover, if it offends your sensibilities, I would point out that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and that the picture itself is not bloody, obscene, or shocking at first glance (if you didn't know better, you might not even realize he is dead in the photo). There are some instances where a particular post-mortem photo may be inappropriate or tasteless in an Encyclopedia, but I would contend that this is not one of them.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Using Humberto Fontova

The tone of this article strikes me as a bit too hagiographic. I added the following to the single paragraph of criticisms of his legacy:

Humberto Fontova describes his apparent thirst for killing: (1)

"When you saw the beaming look on Che's face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad," said a former Cuban political prisoner Roberto Martin-Perez, to your humble servant here, "you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara." As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che's second-story office in Havana’s La Cabana prison had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his darling firing-squads at work.

This was removed within a day or so by User:Redthoreau, who cited WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue as the policies justifying removal. I suggest that the highly negative view of Guevara presented by Fontova is neither the view of only a tiny minority (WP:Undue), nor a conclusion that could not be reached objectively (WP:NPOV). On the claim of WP:Fringe, Fontova is something of a polemicist, but even his critics acknowledge (as cited in his own Wikipedia entry) "that 'taken in selective doses', [Fontova's] book puts 'some well-placed holes in Che’s presumed humanism and military competence." I suggest that the Fontova quote injects some much-needed balance into the article. At the very least, it illustrates a very negative and not uncommon view of his legacy -- and this section was, after all, about his legacy. Yaush (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)'

WP:VERIFY ---> Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
  • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Hello Yaush. As the editor who reverted your insertion of information from a Fontova web editorial calling Guevara a "Guerrilla Doofus and Murdering Coward" in the title, I wanted to address an array of issues related to Humberto Fontova's exclusion as a source for this article. Of note, the below comes from someone who is very familiar with Fontova's work and owns/have read his books and writings on the subject:
(a) Previous WP:Consensus ~ The issue of including Fontova in the article pops up once every year or two when an editor comes across one of his web essays and thus arrives here at the talk page upset that this article is obviously "hagiographical" in comparison to Fontova's unashamedly negative editorials. However, Fontova's works, which are almost universally written in an hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone, have been repeatedly rejected in the article and on the talk page going back as far as ---> June of 2005. Moreover, long time established editors such as Jmabel compared it in August of 2005 to "citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon" - while Polaris999 ---> shown here, a key early author of this article, noted in 2008 that Fontova's "bombastic tone" with "puerile" book title (i.e. the useful idiots who idolize him), would make it "a travesty that he would be cited as an authoritative source in any encyclopedia."
(b) WP:NPOV ~ Fontova writes in a bombastically polemic and editorialized style, while referring to those people whom disagree with him as "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", and "boobs" etc. His near weekly anti-Che editorials are written solely on hyper-partisan right-wing blogs and websites for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context that is contrary to that narrative. Another tactic Fontova employs is to take an accepted fact about Guevara, and then lace it with a barrage of sophomoric insults and innuendo - unbecoming of anyone who would be utilized as a encyclopedic reference. For instance, Fontova's barrage of hyperbole leads him to specifically describe Guevara as an "assassin", "sadist", "bumbler", "fool", and "whimpering-sniveling-blubbering coward" who is "revered by millions of imbeciles." Other descriptions that Fontova often lobs against Guevara is that he was "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid", "a fraud", a "murdering swine", an "intellectual vacuum", and an "insufferable Argentine jackass ---> article. Now admittedly, a fair number of objective criticisms can be lobbed against Che Guevara (and are in the present article), without having to frame them in an overtly subjective manner with large doses of profanity, ad hominems and sarcasm. Fontova is literally the textbook epitome of violating WP:POV and more importantly, is not considered one of the "main scholars and specialists on the issue" per Wiki policy.
(c) WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE ~ Setting aside his immature vernacular and the fact that Fontova (---> pictured here on c-span wearing his crossed out Che t-shirt) has previously described himself as being ---> "incorrigibly incorrect" on his own website; Fontova often reports on unverifiable events whose only source is himself. As someone who has tried to track down sourcing for some of his more "exceptional claims" per WP:Verify, it is frustrating as he'll often send you in a circle by citing his own book, which will then cite his own web essay, which will not have any citations at all. There are also dozens of unsavory quotes that Fontova exclusively attributes to Guevara, which do not appear in any other publication before 2005 when he began writing on the topic (38 years after Che's death). Predictably these quotes are now parroted by an array of writers who dislike Guevara, but their original sourcing always leads back to Fontova, with no original primary source given. Furthermore, almost all of the biographies on Che Guevara cited in the article have been peer reviewed in academic journals by scholars in the field, while Fontova's work has not. This is important because many of Fontova's claims do not appear in any of the other 120 + books on Guevara = (his argument of why this is would be that there has been a conspiracy of silence amongst 90 % of the World's press and publishers) - but Wikipedia does not grant Historically revisionist conspiracies the same coverage as other sources.
(d) WP:Reliable & WP:SOURCE ~ To those who may question whether I (along with Rolf Potts & Dow Jones Newswires' Michael Casey who have written on Fontova's style) am merely misrepresenting the facts out of context, or that maybe Fontova's work hasn't gone mainstream simply because of low exposure, it might be relevant to ask if his work fits the description of someone to cite in an Encyclopedia? What is indisputable is the fact that as a blogger Fontova has done all of the following:   uploaded ---> spoof mocked posters of Che,   posted pictures of a dead Guevara coupled with the offer that we ---> "celebrate the picture above!",   made fun of Che's daughter Aleida Guevara for being overweight by saying that she ---> "oinks" instead of speaks,   uploaded a t-shirt with President Barack Obama's face morphed as Guevara with the title ---> "I’ve Chenged",   posted an execution photo of Guevara with the description ---> "Murdering, Cowardly, Bumbling Swine",   referred to himself as a ---> "raving crackpot" in relation to his work with the "No Che Day" campaign - held on what he describes as "the glorious anniversary of Che's whacking",   referred to the day Guevara was killed as ---> "a GLORIOUS Anniversary!!",   and lamented that it was ---> "Too bad Cuba had a Batista instead of a Pinochet in 1958" - who in his words (with relation to Pinochet's suppression of opposition) "managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead" - which is ironically about 2,800 more deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project even attributes to Guevara.
(Question) ~ Now with all of that said, would any editor like to provide rationale for why the above would not disqualify him from being used as an authoratative Encyclopedic source on the general topic of Che Guevara?
Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In the context of the Iraq war, there are many well written and thoroughly researched essays describing George W Bush, Tony Blair, and my own country, Australia's, Prime Minister, John Howard, as murderers and war criminals. Many of these have been written by well known writers. None of this material is in their respective Wikipedia articles. Why do it for Che? HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The linked Fontova essay, which I acknowledge was highly polemical, was my first exposure to Fontova's work. It was not, however, my first exposure to writings critical of Guevarez, and I found the Martin-Perez quote interesting and relevant. I thought it nicely encapsulated the brutal side of Guevarez. Do you disbelieve that Guevarez had a brutal side, or that Martin-Perez actually said what was attributed him by Fontova, or that Martin-Perez really believed it?
I'm also not quite sure what George Bush, Tony, Blair, or John Howard have to do with it. If there is a credible argument that they are war criminals or murderers, seriously advanced by a non-tiny intellectual community, then shouldn't that appear in their biographies? Or are you asserting that the highly negative view of Guevarez reflected in the quote is not serious held or is held only by a tiny intellectual community? Yaush (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see well attributed positive AND negative comments about all the people listed above. I simply know that it's not going to happen any time soon with the Bush, Blair and Howard articles. I guess this is at partly because of WP:BLP. For it to appear in this article seems a classic example of the intrinsic biases in Wikipedia. We can say nastier things about dead people, can't we? Maybe the other articles will swing that way after their deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yaush, if this was your "first exposure" to Fontova's work, then I would suggest in the future being a little more familiar with an author before you just uncritically accept their views and insert them into a public Encyclopedia. It would also help your case if you didn't continually misspell the subjects name 3 times in one paragraph (i.e. "Guevarez"). As for this particular Fontova quote and remark attributed to Martin-Perez, the fact that Che's office (now open to the public) was on the first floor in a one story building, makes the rest of the quote highly suspect. But this is the problem when you have an author such as Fontova who has not set foot in Cuba in 49 years and never set foot in La Cabaña, writing about the topic. As for the former political prisoner Roberto Martin Perez, he was (according to the New York Times) the son of a high-ranking Batista officer who was jailed in Cuba from 1959-1987 for "his involvement in a conspiracy against Fidel Castro organized by the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo" ---> article. Yet somehow Perez escaped the "brutal Che" that he claims just wanted to shoot everyone like him - ironically this is the same for Fontova's own father who was imprisoned briefly and released as well. Furthermore, Perez's wife since 1987 is Ninoska Pérez Castellón ---> article a notable anti-Castro exile and radio host for Radio Marti & Radio Mambi, along with a founding member of the Cuban Liberty Council, whose goal is the overthrow of the Castro regime - i.e. hardly a disinterested party. Lastly, to answer your specific question, yes Fontova's "highly negative views" are only "serious held by a tiny intellectual community". There are around 100 books on Che Guevara, and Fontova's synopsis severely differs with ALL of them (Fontova proudly acknowledges this fact, and like most historical revisionists - prides himself on being the only one with the previously unreported and usually unreferenced "truth"). Moreover, his unprofessional screeds and vernacular are the textbook definition of WP:Fringe from a Wiki standpoint - because of both style and content. Fontova's even makes extraordinary claims that the anti-Che writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa (cited in the current article's 'Legacy' section) won't touch. If you are truly interested in expanding your knowledge on Che Guevara, I would recommend one of the three definitive biographies on him ~ Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda, or Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II. All contain an array of both positive and negative aspects in their portrayals.
HiLo48, the specific articles on "George Bush, Tony, Blair, or John Howard" would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not really be relevant here. The only analogous parallel that could possibly be drawn is the fact that Guevara signed an estimated 156 death warrants after reviewing the appealed convictions handed out by 3-5 person revolutionary tribunals --- while --- George W. Bush as Governor of Texas signed 153 death warrants after reviewing their last appeal ---> article. Of note, you would be hard pressed to find any Wiki editor who would support using words like "fanatical terrorist", "butcher", or "killing machine" for Bush in his article (myself included) ... terms that are present in this one with relation to Che.
Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Che Guevara and race

Anyone want to incorporate this section or information from Che Guevara and race into this article? Should it at least be in the "see also" section? People seem to think he was a mean ol' racist so they can just read and decide for themselves. Richard Cane (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Hasta la Victoria Siempre"

As far as I know, the translation of Che Guevara's motto on the Che Guevera article page is incorrect. The current translation reads "Until the everlasting victory always". The literal translation is actually "Onward to victory". Can anyone (preferably someone who's first language is Spanish) confirm this? Apoorva.karan.rai (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The literal translation would be "Until Victory, Always (, Che)", as this was the signing of a letter. I used a capital "V" for Victory, as he was referring to the "everlasting victory" of the current translation. In any case, I think the idea is quite clear and the "everlasting" addenda can be dropped. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Apoorva & IANV, as I am sure you both know, precise linguistic conversions are hard to come by when translating from one language to another, and sometimes merely lining the words up and translating them in sequence causes some of the ‘texture’ (for loss of a better word) to be lost. For instance, if you were literally translating the phrase "Hasta la Victoria Siempre" it would most closely resemble "Until (the) Victory Always". However, depending on the surrounding context and intent it could also mean "Until the Everlasting Victory" or "Ever Onward to Victory". In Guevara’s case, he used the phrase as a signoff for his letters to denote two separate commands (1) To always strive towards (what he saw as) the final victory over global imperialism & capitalism & (2) The proclamation that this victory if achieved would be an eternal (i.e. everlasting) one. Thus, comes the nuance of whether to mention the singular "Victory" and reaching for it "Always" (until it is no longer needed) or the victory’s "Everlasting" nature. The argument could be made that incorporating them both and using "Until the Everlasting Victory Always" is closest to the ultimate idea that Guevara was conveying with the phrase, although yes if you used an Español-English dictionary you would not get both meanings simultaneously. However, I am open to others ideas on how best to express this, as it has been something I have pondered in the past.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
1) I understood the "Everlasting Victory" translation as a means of signfying the ultimate nature of the victory Che referred to. And I agree with this translation, although I think it is somewhat unnecessary.
2) But, if I'm understanding your comment right, Thoreau, you are suggesting that "Everlasting Victory" can also be a translation for "Victoria Siempre", which is not, in any case or context. It simply has no gramatical sense. So the nuance (2) is mistaken. (Add: "Everlasting Victory" would be "Victoria Sempiterna" in Spanish.)
3) Although I do not master the English language, it seems to me that the phrase "Ever Onward to Victory" can be inferred without difficulty as a nuance of the phrase "Until (the) Victory, Always", as it is the case in Spanish. In that case, the most "literal" translation would be fine enough.
4) Not a serious proposal. Think of it as a signoff: the absolute contextual translation would be "Until victory, Yours"
Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
IANVS, I appreciate your reply. For clarification, my (2) was not in respect to the literal translation, but from the larger context of when and how Guevara would use the phrase (which in addition to signing off with it, he utilized it in speeches, writings etc). He is not technically using the word “Everlasting”, but I would contend that he knows that for instance in his farewell letter to Fidel (where he signs off this way), that Fidel is aware of how he is using the phrase (in a larger context). For instance, had he said "continue marching always", he would obviously not literally be suggesting that people keep walking, but that they forge forward through the obstacles in their way. It seems that we both agree that “Until Victory Always” is the most precise, and I am not against changing it if others share our rationale. However, do you feel that we would be preserving the full meaning?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't doubt about the everlasting nature of the "Victory", as used by Che. But that's me. I'd prefer to simply use a capital "V" for Victory. And a capital "A" for Always (in fact, both are words plenty of significance in context, as you pointed out). But, if you consider it is appropriate to underline the "everlasting" aspect explicitly, for people not familiar with the context, I'm not against it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Che Guevara - "Intellectual" ?

Isn't the characterisation a tad far-fetched? (in the introduction) Now I am a scholar of critical theory, which always comes with a healthy serving of Marxism, but I don't think we could really qualify Guevara as a person of intellectual standing. Just putting it out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvaix (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite dying in his 30s, Guevara did write several published books including some on economic and military theory, some on contemporary history, and also a ton of memoir. He also had a noted interest in philosophy, languages, and education. He was educated as a doctor, and had jobs ranging from Military leader to Minister of Industry to head of the National Bank. While not a classic tenure-track academic intellectual, he would probably be acknowledged by most as a person of at least some "intellectual standing". Had he not made the decision to quit politics and return to armed revolution back in 1965, ten bucks says he would've eventually quit politics and settled down as a professor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.57.26 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Marxist Humanism a religion?

Recently an editor attempted to add Marxist Humanism to the info box for Che under the header for religion. The question here is very, very simple, is Marxist Humanism a religion? If it is, then the info box should simply state “Marxist Humanism”, not “None. Marxist Humanism.” If Marxist Humanism is not a religion, then the info box should state simple “None.” When I attempted to remove “None. Marxist Humanism.” (twice), I was accused of edit warring with the admonition that there were three, count ‘em up, three references. But do any of three references offered up by this editor refer to Marxist Humanism as a religion? Just because one can spew forth a gaggle of tangential references about a subject in no way means that any of them are necessary applicable. But in any case it’s irrelevant. Marxist Humanism is not a religion, certainly not in the classical sense (if it is please, please do show me the source), and therefore does not belong in the info box, as info boxes are currently configured. Anyway, as I stated in one of my edit summaries, “Explanations can, and should, be done in the article, not the info box, nicht wahr?” Please do so there. Hammersbach (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a religion to me. The one source we can all see doesn't exactly call it a religion. It's more a matter of overblown prose. The other two sources are inaccessible to most of us. On the other hand, do we actually have a source confirming "none" as his religion? He would have been raised a Catholic, but if and where that faded away is unclear. Is there really any point to this entry in the Infobox at all? User:HiLo48 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I would dispute your contention that the question is as simple as you state. However, to answer it: No "Marxist humanism" is not a religion. However, it is not listed as Che’s religion, which is listed as "None" and then includes "Marxist Humanist" in parenthesis to add some context to the "none" – as obviously a Marxist humanist would not adhere to any organized religion. Moreover, the previous info box before switched to this state, said "None (atheist)" in parenthesis as a way to assumedly add context to the "none" designation – thus, all I did with the Marxist humanist distinction is get even more specific. I would also dispute your contention that one’s philosophical beliefs are irrelevant to the unfortunately very narrow "religion" info box question. For instance, if someone were Agnostic or Confucian then obviously they would not have a "religion" per se, but it would be helpful for a potential reader to know that the aforementioned ethos’ serve in a similar fashion. As for Che, he was baptized Catholic as a infant, but raised atheist, and in the last 5 years or so of his life (where I would describe him more as an agnostic) he began to take on and espouse many Marxist humanist beliefs – which almost have a quasi-religious connotation because of their idealism, concentration on secular morality, and devotion to self-sacrifice etc. As for references, Michael Löwy has written extensively on Che’s Marxist humanism – particularly in his book - The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Peter McLaren has also written about it in his book Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution. If you read both/either of these texts (as I have) then you would realize that "Religion = None (Marxist humanist)" is the most accurate way to classify Guevara – in an admittedly imperfect info box category.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's always the option of not using that "admittedly imperfect info box category" at all, and including much of what you have written above in the article text. Let those readers who really do want to know this stuff find it in the text, rather than see a shallow distortion in the Infobox. (Can anyone tell that I'm not exactly a fan of Infoboxes?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible misquote in the account of Guevara's execution.

In the article: Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked by a Bolivian soldier if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No", he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."

I lived in Bolivia at the time, and Guevara was quoted in Bolivian newspapers at the time as having replied "...la imortalidad del burro." (burro means donkey, NOT revolution. I remember it well, because I was intrigued by Guevara's statement and asked my father, a US State Dept. Foreign Service Officer stationed in La Paz in 1967, what the quote meant. At the time I was told that "La imortalidad del burro" is a cliche in spanish. 184.4.209.151 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation 139 about the use of atomic war

I have read several postings on the internet that are referring to citation 139 of the Wiki article. Many people who do not like Che Guevara are using this quote from the article and expanding on it dramatically. Here is the quote directly from the Wiki page: "While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression", would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims."[139]" Well, I have the book from that citation, (Guevara, Ernesto; Deutschmann, David (1997). Che Guevara Reader: Writings by Ernesto Che Guevara on Guerrilla Strategy, Politics & Revolution. Ocean Press. ISBN 1875284931.), in my hand and no where on pg.304 or pages near it, does it discuss the possibilities of atomic war. In fact, this section speaks to Cuba getting fair prices in the world market for its sugar. This sentence from the Wiki page should be deleted as it's reference is false. People are expanding on this false citation and combining it with citation 138 over the internet in various articles with statements such as "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba), we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims." Stop disinformation and prove your statements with legitimate facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.198.118 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP 71, and nice to meet you. According to --> this link via Google books, the passage is indeed on pg 304 of the aforementioned book. Perhaps you have a different edition? Now I don’t doubt your assertion that Che’s ideological foes utilize this passage to present him in a negative light, but he never specifies whether these "millions" would come from Cuba's own missiles ... or from retaliatory "imperialist" atomic aggression by the U.S. upon Cuba/The Soviet Union (thus there are several ways to read the sentence). For instance, the year before on August 8th 1961 during --> his speech to the ministerial meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (CIES), in Punta del Este, Uruguay - Guevara stated: "Cuba hopes that her children will see a better future, and that victory will not have to be won at the cost of millions of human lives destroyed by the atomic bomb." Moreover, as the current article already states, Che was particularly horrified in 1959 upon visiting Hiroshima, Japan – where the U.S. had in fact detonated an atomic bomb – so it is not clear to what extent he believed the U.S. would be willing to do the same again against Cuba for instance.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello IP 71, and nice to meet you. While I also don't doubt your assertion that Che’s ideological foes utilize this passage to present him in a negative light, I equally have no doubt that Che’s ideological admirers are doing their best to mitigate the damage of such an eye-opening statement. An example of this can be taken from the reply above where two different events are related in an attempt to show Che’s aversion to the nuclear option. But it is important to point out that both these public events occurred before the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. Che’s statements after the event shed a bit more light on “whether these ‘millions’ would come from Cuba's own missiles ... or from retaliatory ‘imperialist’ atomic aggression by the U.S. upon Cuba/The Soviet Union…” Sam Russell, a writer for the socialist publication Daily Worker, conducted an interview with Guevara a few weeks after the crisis. In this interview he quotes Che as saying that “if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have been fired.” Of note, while Castro is alleged to have written to Kruschev requesting that the nuclear weapons be used if Cuba was invaded, Che does not offer any such qualifier to his declaration. Russell goes on to say that Che was extremely critical of the “peaceful parliamentary strategy for power” of western communist parties. Russell concluded that Che was “clearly a man of great intelligence, though I thought he was crackers about the way he went on about the missiles.” So we are presented with two different Ches, pre-crisis and post-crisis. Perhaps we should add the salient elements from the Russell interview to the article and let the reader determine where Che believed these "millions of atomic war victims" would come from, victims whose lost lives he felt “the victory of Socialism is well worth”. Hammersbach (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

propaganda

The article reads much like a Communist propaganda piece and is not from a NPOV. --41.151.153.169 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Such criticisms are pretty useless without specifics. What exactly reads like communist propaganda, and what facts (if any) do you think are omitted which warrant inclusion? -R. fiend (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
IP 41, without any specific objections backed up by WP:Reliable sources per our additional policies of WP:Undue & WP:NPOV etc – your drive by denunciation of "communist propaganda" simply appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would also recommend you check the search box of archived talk pages up above, to see if perhaps your concerns have already been addressed or discussed in the past and possibly rejected. Now obviously as with most polarizing figures, internet editorials can be located that cast a range of polemical aspersions – but our objective here is to utilize the academic journal articles, mainstream biographies and news sources in order to present the material in as neutral a fashion as possible. Those possessing passionate politically-driven opinions about a subject (from either end of the political spectrum) can usually find this Wiki practice frustrating, as our material won't in their view "accurately" tell the "real story" about the aforementioned hero/freedom fighter-villain/terrorist.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This information should be a part of the analysis of Che's life. He personally ordered the execution of many of his opponents, and others. Redthoreau - Since you are a Wikipedia "God" of enormous power and influence, and since you have a phD, perhaps you should consider the non-inclusion of information like this as part of 41.151.153.169's criticism that the Wikipedia entry for Che reads like a Communist propaganda piece. 99.113.217.30 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 99, first off nobody here is a "Wikipedia God", I am simply a committed editor of the overall Wiki-project like everybody else. Any "power" I may hold exists only in your imagination, and any "influence" I may wield would only be derived from others appreciation of my attempts to imperfectly uphold Wiki policies. Now to the actual content of your suggestion, I appreciate your specifics and agree that this should be included in the article. However, it doesn't take a "Ph.D." (or divine powers) to have read the article and see in reference --> #103 that we already included the 2005 version of this pdf from the Cuba Archive (via Armando Lago) seen --> here which documented "216 victims". Thus, all you have done here is give us the 2009 updated version from the Cuba Archive which actually decreases Che's "victim" total from the former number of 216 to the new total of 144 (22 in the Sierra Maestra + 17 after Battle of Santa Clara + 105 at La Cabaña). As a result, the article which presently states "with Guevara's jurisdictional death total at La Cabaña ranging from 55 to 164", will now have to be corrected and updated to "55 to 105". Thus, in your attempt to support IP 41's contention that the article reads like "communist propaganda", you have given us a new version of an already utilized source that actually lowers Che's maximum death total by 59 people at La Cabaña and 72 overall (216-144). Now IP 44 might contend that you just made the article read MORE like "communist propaganda", but I won't, because my only concern is for representing the published figures from reliable sources in accordance with Wiki policy.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anderson quote

I do think there are two sides to Che, but I do think the quote-box in the "La Cabaña, land reform, and literacy" section by Jon Lee Anderson should be worked into the text. As a lone text-box, I think it gives undue weight to the position that he played a small, judicious role in the judicial and extrajudicial executions there. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Anderson's quote gives the impression that Che's role was "small"; in fact he isn't even addressing the size or scope of the executions, but rather the novelty of them under the circumstances and the reasoning behind their usage. Nobody denies the executions took place, but the issue seems to revolve around whether capital punishment was warranted for the condemned. Anderson, who spent five years researching the issue and who has written what most find to be the definitive biography on the subject, is the ideal source (I believe) for a pull-quote on the matter, if anyone would be. The quote format also lets the reader know that this isn't Wikipedia editorially taking the stance, but Anderson himself.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
* * * * *



  1. ^ BBC News May 26, 2001
  2. ^ see also Che Guevara (photo)
  3. ^ Lacey 2007b.
  4. ^ BBC News 2007.
  5. ^ a b O'Hagan 2004.
  6. ^ BBC News May 26, 2001
  7. ^ see also Che Guevara (photo)
  8. ^ Lacey 2007b.
  9. ^ BBC News 2007.
  10. ^ Anderson 1997, p. 376.
  11. ^ Taibo 2003, p. 267.
  12. ^ Niess 2007, p. 60
  13. ^ Gómez Treto 1991, p. 116).
  14. ^ Niess 2007, p. 61
  15. ^ Taibo 2003 p. 267.
  16. ^ Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Anderson (1997) gives the number specifically at La Cabaña prison as 55 (p. 387.), while also stating that as a whole "several hundred people were officially tried and executed across Cuba" (p. 387.). This is supported by Lago who gives the figure as 216 documented executions across Cuba in two years.
  17. ^ Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley. Exploring revolution. p. 63.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara/All-16to20&oldid=1181730110"