Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Is repetition really necessary?

Someone has recently made modifications to the Criticism section as a result of which its prose is now even more turgid than it had been before. Please note the sentences I have marked in bold in the following paragraph: The second bolded sentence is a virtual repetition of the first! I am putting this text here to give the person who created it, or some other editor, the opportunity to revise it. Please do so expeditiously, because writing of such poor quality cannot be allowed to linger long in a Featured Article. --Polaris999 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Though he has been labeled by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including most of the Cuban exile community as well as refugees from other countries under communism, view him as a killer and terrorist. They point out that he ordered the execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons and peasants against the Cuban Revolution in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”. Other US newspaper critics have made similar remarks. These critics point out that Che Guevara was "personally responsible" for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. They also believe that Guevara was a blundering tactician, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [3] ,[4], [5], [6], [7],[8],[9] Guevara founded Cuba's forced labor camp system, establishing its first forced labor camp in Guanahacabibes to re-educate managers of state-owned enterprises who were guilty of various violations of "revolutionary ethics".[73] Many years after Guevara's death, Cuba's labor camp system was used to jail dissidents of the Revolution.

<humor>Perhaps this could be improved by adding another sentence later in the paragraph, "All right-thinking people agree that Che Guevara personally tortured and and killed hundreds of innocents in Cuban prisons, hunted peasants from horseback, and cheated at chess." </humor> Oh, and for balance: <humor>"As we all know, only an incomprehensible bias among recent popes has deprived Che Guevara of a justly deserved beatification." </humor>- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you think that the rules of chess should be the same for bourgeois imperialists as they are for honest proletariats? Please see WP:NPOV. Dasondas 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the criticism section is a bit of a mess, Polaris. Much work to be done by all to restore it to some level of credibility. These sections tend to get very shabby very quickly and are almost impossible to maintain. But I recommend an effort to identify the three or four key recurring criticisms of Guevara, and then attempt to write them using the standard of sourcing the rest of the article has reached. In my mind these key points are;

1. failed or dubious military strategies
2. failed economic policies
3. Obstinate, narrow dogmatic world view
4. brutality of methods both pre and post revolution--Zleitzen 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. I agree 100% with your assessment of the Criticism section, but am not optimistic about the prospects for substantial improvement. If you decide to tackle the project, however, I will support your efforts enthusiastically. By contrast, the matter of having two sentences that say the same thing in the same paragraph is an error that has a relatively simple solution -- and one that I will apply if no one else takes action. Polaris999 05:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with both of you about both the quality of the writing in this section and the basic themes of criticism that should be addressed. Time permitting, I'm willing to help you rework this section with the caveat that in a wider sense I think the whole section should be made obsolete as the various points of criticism are woven into the article in the appropriate thematic/chronological places. I think the whole idea of a "Criticism" section is a cop-out to begin with, but: 1) It's better than nothing, 2) working the various critical aspects into the main body of the article is a large job that could take a lot of time and involve a lot of negotiation about POV, etc., and 3) It's a fairly non-controversial intermediate step that could (one can hope, no?) pave the way for a future attempt at integrating the discussion more organically into the rest of the text. Dasondas 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Eulogy"

The page carries the below (unsourced) paragraph in the legacy section.

Even liberal elements that had felt little sympathy with Guevara's communist ideals during his lifetime expressed admiration for his spirit of self-sacrifice. He is singled out from other revolutionaries by many young people in the West because he rejected a comfortable bourgeois background to fight for those who were deprived of political power and economic stability. And when he gained power in Cuba, he gave up all the trappings of high government office in order to return to the revolutionary battlefield and, ultimately, to die.

To me it reads like original research - and quite frankly a eulogy rather than an accurate encyclopedia entry. Would anyone object if I removed it? --Zleitzen 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen. The sentences you cite seem to have been in the article since "time immemorial" and I have no clue who contributed them, although I suppose it would be possible to track him down via the History page. I personally wouldn't have any problem with your removing them provided you add something to "fill the gap" their deletion would leave. It might be interesting, however, to try to track down the original contributor and see if he would like to "cite his sources", if they exist ... What do you think? -- Polaris999 04:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: A few hours ago I left a message about this matter for User:172 whom my browsing through the "History" pages leads me to believe was the original author of the paragraph you are referencing. Perhaps we could give him a day or so to reply? -- Polaris999 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: It seems that User:172 does not intend to respond to the message I left him re sourcing for the sentences under discussion since my message has been on his User_Talk page for more than 24 hours and, although he is actively editing other pages, he has not posted a reply to it either there or here. Therefore, Zleitzen, why don't you proceed with whatever changes you have in mind? -- Polaris999 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in Che Guevara's euology it should be pointed out that many were glad at his military incompetence and his arrogance which lead, through myriad miliatry blunders (he even got the language wrong in Bolivia), to the death of many vicious terrorists and himself. Still that does not bring back the rebel friend of mine who was killed. El Jigue 10-3-06

As far as I am concerned, the deaths of all the Bolivians, Cubans and individuals of other nationalities who perished in, or as a result of, that most peculiar operation -- whatever role they may have played and whichever side they may have fought on -- are lamentable, and not a cause for celebration.

-- Polaris999 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guevara and his men went to Bolivia to kill to suppress all who opposed them, and establish a dogmatic marxist regime. I regret the deaths of those they killed, perhaps 150 by some counts. I feel some sorrow for Tania, as she was betrayed by her own for their own partisan purposes. Yet she was as ruthless as any other of that group. Guevara's partisans, never showed that kind of regret, and it never crossed the mind of Guevara to show mercy when dealing with those who he considered enemies or rivals. One reflects on the irony of it all, that we are expected to feel regret for the death of someone who thought of mortal hate as a virtue and is never reported to have shown mercy when he had the opportunity to kill. El Jigue 10-5-06

Humberto Fontanova quotes Guevara today ""If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City," Che Guevara confided to the London Daily Worker in November 1962. "We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims. ... We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm."" [1]. El Jigue 10-5-06

I've had a tinker around in the legacy section - and attempted to covey 172's writings by quoting sourced material such as the immediate report by Latin American advisors. User:Dasondas has actually expanded the discusion of the U.S. State Department report citing the specific date and providing fuller quotes. I would argue that this isn't necessary - that we just need to get a general flavour of the comments - and we can reduce it to a few lines again. Any thoughts?--Zleitzen 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the State Dept. quote because I thought that it had previously been mis-represented. It was not the case that Hughes (the State Dept. analyst) thought that Guevara would be universally eulogized. It is important to note that he thought the lionizing of Guevara would come primarily from communists and would concern primarily Guevara's Cuban activities. Furthermore, it is essential to note (if we are to continue using that source) the "other side of the coin" that discusses how Guevara's death would be discouraging to other like-minded revolutionaries in the region. I think my changes to that quote and some others in the section brought some much-needed balance to the "Legacy" section which, IMO, had been outside the acceptable boundaries of WP:NPOV. None of this is to say that my edits can't be improved upon, they probably could be, but I feel quite strongly that the sense of what I did and why I did it be maintained in the section. Any thoughts? Dasondas 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the new version, with the additions located in bold

One Latin America specialist advising the U.S. State Department immediately recognized, on October 12, 1967, that the defeat of “the foremost tactician of the Cuban revolutionary strategy at the hands of one of the weakest armies in the hemisphere would discourage "those Communists and other[s] who might have been prepared to initiate Cuban-style guerrilla warfare", also noting that Guevara would be eulogized in Cuba "as the model revolutionary who met a heroic death” and that "communists of whatever stripe and other leftists [would be] likely to eulogize the revolutionary martyr – especially for his contribution to the Cuban revolution – and to maintain that revolutions will continue until their causes are eradicated.”

The differences are adding the date of the report, adding "as a model revolutionary", and the mention of communists as well as leftists. The point that Hughes makes about discouraging Cuban style guerrilla warfare was perhaps questionable as it continued immediately throughout Latin America and Africa. We'll never know if groups were discouraged by Guevara's death, but we certainly know that leftists of all stripes eulogized Guevara - which was the key point of the paragraph. I'm not sure if these changes are necessary on what is already a large article, or that they radically alter the POV, but that's just my opinion.--Zleitzen 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit that might be said here, but let me focus on two points. First, the phrase "Communists of whatever stripe and other leftisits" is substantially different than "leftists of all stripes", your apparent contention to the contrary notwithstanding. Second, you neglected to mention (and, indeed, you obscured the fact) that it was my edit that made clear how Hughes mentioned that Guevara would be eulogized in Cuba as opposed to other places in general. Rather than trying to illustrate my edits by selectively providing boldened text, you should have just provided the diff to the edit under discussion, like this so that readers could see the whole issue. Dasondas 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's overly important as your additions were expansions of a good source, but wouldn't "leftists of any stripe" include Communists? And wasn't Hughes speaking about Guevara being eulogised by leftists in Latin America in general rather than Cuba? It was in the section about responses to his death in Latin America, after all. On another issue, you added that Guevara was seen as a "villainous demagogue". I've no doubt that many would agree, as no doubt many would agree with the paragraph I removed to talk at the top of this talk page section also. But we really need to be adding sourced views to convey the legacy - to keep it tight and get to the stage where everything is pinned to a notable source. --Zleitzen 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you recognize that I was only trying to expand a good source to provide balance. Of course "leftists of any stripe" includes Communists, but my point was the converse -- that "Communists of whatever stripe and other leftists" does not include all leftists. On your second point I wanted to let Hughes speak for himself; if he didn't want to specify Cuba, he wouldn't have done so. As for villainous demagogue, I included it only in an attempt to balance the pre-existing "contemporary hero". Generally speaking (although certainly not always) I prefer to include material rather than exclude it unless the pre-exisiting material manifests a blatant violation of policy (such as OR or POV). If you want to reword that sentence to remove both "contemporary hero" and "villainous demagogue", it's fine with me -- I'm just looking for a balance of POV; I'm not particularly stubborn about how we go about getting there. Dasondas 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to get those legacy and criticisms sections up to standard if you're interested in continuing work on the page, as they are by far the weakest sections of the article. In an ideal world both sections would be combined to contain good sources that weigh up the arguments of both the eulogising and critical camps.--Zleitzen 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As to "Cuban style guerrilla" warfare, Guevara never did apply that for he never found, let alone developed, the multi-class, multi-ideological, infrastructure that existed in Cuba during the war against Batista. In Cuba he parasitized such infrastructure, and often he killed those he should have considered allies, to try to purge it of all who thought differently from him. In Bolivia, as in Africa, he never knew how to cooperate, not even with the Bolivian communist party. Of course you cannot cite this because this is from my personal experience and observations; and such is not allowed in Wikipedia. So you are just going to have to wait until my book comes out xe xe El Jigue. 10-11-06

And indeed we are waiting. Hope it's coming soon! -- Polaris999 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

P: Thank you. I can see it now, at the edge of the dying fire the wolves of the academe gathered in a circle, their eyes wide, their tongues dripping toxic saliva in anticipation of the joys of rending their prey. Still as long as you pay for it xe xe. While you are waiting to make me rich (or infamous, despised and poverty stricken) by buying or not buying my book (:>), you can find a wide variety of opinions at the discussion section of "Aleida Guevara vs Gen. Gary Prado" at [2]. Of course nobody gets rich selling an academic book but still I can dream. El Jigue 10-11-06

In the absence of your book EJ, do you have any leads on the net about the help the M-26-7 got from local escopeteros. I can't find anything in the printed sources I have to hand. --Zleitzen 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the most compelling comes from the words of Raul Castro himself as he describes the take over of El Segundo Frente from the escopeteros in Castro, Raúl 1969 Diario de Campaña. Travesía de la Sierra Maestra al Segundo Frente “Frank País” In: La Sierra y el Llano. Casas de las Américas Havana pp. 201-257. Then there are los Muchachos de Lara, Anonymous 2005 Organización de las Luchas Armadas Revolucionarias. El Crisol July 18 2005 recovered from cache. These links are no longer functional [3] [4] this one is brief, but seems to still work [5] then there is Lara and teniente Mathius (traidor) (accessed 10/12/2006)This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.baibrama.cult.cu/municipios/calixto/efem12.htm as retrieved on Jul 15, 2005 02:38:36 GMT. Apparently something went "wrong" and Orlando Lara went into disfavor. There is even mention of escopeteros being wiped out in the narrations of Massetti senior. This may well be the reference, but I have not rechecked it Masetti, Jorge Ricardo 2005 Los que luchan y los que lloran Publicado digitalmente: 8 de junio de 2005 [http://rodolfowalsh.free.fr/article.php3?id_article=0839[ It would seem that many escopeteros, such as the Brothers Beaton, also fought in the different risings which are often lumped into "La Guerra Contra los Bandidos" and thus have been erased from official histories. By the way Corzo, Pedro 2006 Ernesto Guevara, alias "Che, "LiberPress. Buenos Aires- 8 de octubre de 2006. liberpress@gmail.com has a number of very critical things to say about the Che. You should be able to find that with a google search El Jigue 10-12-06

Thanks EJ, I'll follow those leads up. Whilst surfing the net I've discovered bits and bobs of accounts of the era from yourself if I'm not mistaken. One in particular was most moving and has stayed in my mind, so I hope you manage to get your book out for greater exposure and do reap some benefit. I guess writing it must be a welcome relief from the strict impositions of wikipedia's checks and balances. I might give it a go. Though a youth spent being harrassed by Irish nuns in post war England would be of significantly less interest ;) By the way, when you mention the Beaton brothers, would that include Manuel Beaton?--Zleitzen 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article needs some formatting

The article needs some reworking. Since it was featured, it has lost its shape and may need a featured article review. Some of my concerns (some are more serious than others, in no particular order):

In case anyone might wish to compare the version of the Che Guevara article as it was when it received its "Featured Article" star with the current version as of 22:28, 15 October 2006, I have created the following page to facilitate this: Comparison Page -- Polaris999 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• A lot of style problems (mdashes don't need to have spaces around it, dots and commas should go before closing the quotes, date inconsistences, sometimes dd mm yyyy, sometimes mm dd, yyyy, etc).

Re "mdashes don't need to have spaces around it", please note the following copied verbatim from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes)#Dashes_and_hyphens_used_on_Wikipedia:

The em dash (—) the em dash is a doubled en dash, just as the letter "m" is like a doubled letter "n". The em dash is twice as long as the en dash and about the length of the capital "M" in any particular font. The em dash is used in much the same way as a colon or set of parentheses: it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak. An em dash can have spaces on either side or not, depending on the writer's preference or in-house style rules; and many writers prefer to use the en dash (spaced) for this parenthetical use, with many of those also preferring a spaced en dash as a colon substitute.

-- Polaris999 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re "dots and commas should go before the closing quotes", please note the following copied verbatim from WP:MOS#Quotations:

Punctuation In most cases, simply follow the usual rules of English punctuation. A few points where Wikipedia may differ from usual usage follow. Quotation marks With quotation marks, we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the double quotation marks "..." for most quotations — they are easier to read on the screen — and use single quotation marks '...' for quotations nested within quotations. When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "scare quotes" to indicate a phrase used ironically, the comma or period always goes outside. Double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph in a quotation of multiple paragraphs, though at the end of only the last paragraph. Examples: Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (Only a fragment is quoted; the full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.) Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.) Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (Inside when quoting a question.) Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (Outside when there is a non-interrogative quotation at the end of a question.)

-- Polaris999 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed all occurrences of quotation marks followed by dots (periods) and commas that I could find in the Che Guevara article and, in my opinion, they are all in conformity with the Wikipedia rule presented above. If you have particular instances that you wish to raise for discussion, please post them here. -- Polaris999 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a red link about foco. [please see reply below]
• There are embedded "hidden" external links that should not be there (in example, El Cristo de Vallegrande at the Capture and execution section, Cuban banknotes at the Cuba section). [please see reply below]
• Some references should be converted to inline references (the Criticism section has 7 references that should be inlined, in example). [agreed, and this is being addressed; please see comment below]
• The Websites section is not necessary. Please link to the exact article used as reference, linking to the home page of a site is not really helpful.

While it may not be necessary, it is acceptable per the paragraph Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" of Wikipedia:Citing sources (reproduced below). In the Che Guevara article, the complete link to the exact webpage that is being used as a source for a particular statement is included in the corresponding source note.

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" It is helpful when footnotes are used that a References section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

• The Guevara's published works section should use {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}.

Re use of templates in the Guevara's published works section, WP:CITE#Templates says this:

Templates The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE, and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus.

While it would probably be desirable to use {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} in this section, it does not seem to me to be a major issue.

-- Polaris999 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is at least one unreferenced statement: and the whole Cauto Plains campaign that followed probably had more military significance. [agreed, and this has now been addressed]

That was a quick review, hopefully someone will be able to fix it, as I am currently too busy outside Wikipedia to help. -- ReyBrujo 03:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the "hidden" external links around El Cristo and the banknote, and removed the red link around foco. But, I'm not sure if it's a problem to have a red link around foco, isn't it merely drawing attention to an article that hasn't be written yet? --Zleitzen 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, EJ wrote the statement and the whole Cauto Plains campaign that followed probably had more military significance, so perhaps he will provide a source for it; or, if not, it can be removed. -- Polaris999 08:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The clause in question is although the bloody series of ambushes first during la ofensiva in the heights of the Sierra Maestra, then at Guisa, and the whole Cauto Plains campaign that followed probably had more military significance which is discussing the Cauto Plains campaign together with Sierra Maestra and Guisa as having more significance. I found this [6] reliable transcription of a Castro speech discussing the importance of Sierra Madre, Guisa, and how the strategic positioning of the revolutionary forces along the Cautillo River placed them between the armies at Bayamo and Santiago, allowing them to prevent the former from consolidating forces with its surrounding units and giving them a launching place from where to attack the latter after taking Palma. Should we footnote the disputed clause with this speech for the time beint? Do you think it's enough? Dasondas 12:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dasondas -- I think that you have found an excellent source and hope that you will use it to create a source note for the sentence in question. Perhaps you might choose to include an excerpt from the speech itself in the source note, or make a content note for it? -- Polaris999 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. The source note is kind of long, but I think it's interesting -- and briefly summarizing a Castro speech isn't exactly the easisest of editing tasks ;) Feel free to edit the note down if you think it would be better. Dasondas 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Dasondas. I doubt that anyone could improve on the note you have created. Your discovery of that source is a very welcome contribution to the CG article since the statement re Guisa et al. has existed here without a source note for many months and I had not wanted to remove it because I had the feeling that it was probably correct despite the fact that I hadn't been able to find documentation for it. -- Polaris999 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Polaris999. Making relevant contributions is what we're all trying to do here (well...most of us, anyhow). And thank you for your very kind words; they are much appreciated. Dasondas 21:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS has this to say about embedded external links:

External links Main article: Wikipedia:External links Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article. The standard format for a list of links is to have a header named == External links == followed by a bulleted list of links. External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. For example: *[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news] When wikified, the link will appear as: AIDS treatment news External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example: Sample text. [http://www.example.org] When wikified, the link will appear as: Sample text. [7] An embedded external link should be accompanied by a full citation in the article's References section.

Therefore, I do not understand the objection to the external links that were embedded in this article. To the best of my knowledge, all of those embedded links were in the article when it achieved FA status and no one mentioned them as a problem during the review process. -- Polaris999 09:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand the objections except the lack of inline references on the criticism section, Polaris. In fact almost all of the above complaints including the unsourced statement and the red link around foco were present in the FA version. Feel free to re-insert the imbedded links - I thought that the above user had some higher authority on policy but it seems I'm wrong. --Zleitzen 11:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen -- Thank you for your reply. I have restored the embedded links to the photos since they link to important images available only on external sites. As you note, the one place in this article where embedded links are used where they shouldn't be is in the Criticism section -- i.e., the string of links following the assertion that Guevara did not graduate from medical school, in which instance they are being used instead of source notes. I believe that by now it should be clear to everyone working on this article that the referencing system being used here is m:Cite/Cite.php. What do you think we should do about this? I would be in favor of allowing until Monday for the person who inserted them, or someone else who may wish to undertake the task, to convert these source notes into the inline (m:Cite/Cite.php) format; if they are not converted by 2359 UTC Monday 16 October 2006 then anyone wishing to remove them could do so. Your thoughts? -- Polaris999 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one replied to my query (above), I have moved the sentence in question and its references over here so that some decision can be made about what to do with it and its non-standard references. I think that most of these references are included in the "References" section of the CG article, in which case perhaps converting each of them to an op. cit. using the m:Cite/Cite.php format would suffice? -- Polaris999 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [8] ,[9], [10],[11],[12],[13],[14]

Of interest to me was one of the links from something called "the New York Sun", entitled "Che Guevara : An Icon of Evil". Good lord! No sitting on the fence there then. Isn't the doctor business covered in the article anyway, Polaris?--Zleitzen 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zleitzen, the "doctor business" is covered in the article in considerable detail, and I can provide more detail if pressed, but it seems to me that what is already there is adequate. However, the above sentence with its string of references is from the "Criticism" section and I believe that the intention of those who have created that section is not so much to inform as it is to display derogatory statements regardless of however dubious the sources may be. What is your take on it? -- Polaris999 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would remove it as unnecessary duplication and unwarrented polemic, to be honest. But balanced out by the removal of physician from the lead. The issue is certainly contentious and therefore only a good sourced discussion of this in the main body of the article can suffice. --Zleitzen 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the "doctor thing", but fwiw I took a quick look at the seven sources (external links) above and the only one I saw that mentions the issue is this one which is ultimately sourced to Enrique Ros, who apparently was given the run-around by the University of Buenos Aires when he went looking for proof of Guevara's credential. I scanned fairly rapidly, though, so I may have missed something. Otoh,the CIA biographic register on Guevara from 1964 [15] which is used as soure #17 in the article as a source documenting Guevara's perceived "courage" mentions in another section that he "reportedly" received his medical degree in 1952. Again, I have no dog in this fight right now; I'm just trying to help sort things out. Dasondas 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Polaris that thing on Guisa was referenced to hard copy often to the detailed account in:

Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0-87855-576-5

Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN 0-262-02065-3

Other useful references to this period are:

Chapelle, Dickey 1962 How Castro Won. In: Modern Guerrilla Warfare Fighting Communist Guerrilla Movements (Franklin Mark Osanka editor). Free Press of Glencoe (Macmillan) NY. pp. 325-335. Dickie took a photograph of Lieutenant Cipriano (almost certainly Cipriano Beaton firing at Maffo).

Matos, Huber, 2002. Como llego la Noche. Tusquet Editores, SA, Barcelona. ISBN 84-8310-944-1

Puebla, Teté (Brigadier General Cuban Armed Forces) 2003 Marianas in Combat: and the Mariana Grajales Women's Platoon in Cuba's Revolutionary War 1956-58, New York Pathfinder ISBN 0-87348-957-8

These had hardcopy references somehow (:>) became "delinked" Most references on Guisa are from big wigs who like Castro were hiding first behind the concrete walls of Mon Corona's Hacienda miles from the fighting, and then then went to even more inaccessible Cuevas de Santa Barbara, buried in eastern wall of the lower canyon of the Guisa River. The fighting officials were sidelined Victor Mora died poor but free in Miami, Orlando Rodriguez Puerto was charged with Castro's body guard and Universo Sanchez who as far as I know was distant from the fighting most if not all the time, and of course Braulio Cureneau was killed in the fighting. Some were killed as the fighting continued, Huber Matos of course was imprisoned......El Jigue 10-14-06.

Hello El Jigüe -- Thank you for the reference to the Bonachea books; if you happen to have a page number for the reference to the Guisa campaign, we should add another source note referencing one or both of them. I do not own either of those books, so am not in a position to find the page number(s) myself. -- Polaris999 06:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actions at Guisa

Actions at Guisa are described in Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN 0-262-02065-3 pp. 439-442. Here T-17 heavy armored cars are described as tanks...BTW The Sierra Maestra is in Cuba, La Sierra Madre "nice pair of boots you have there" is in Mexico. El Jigue 10-15-06

Yes, please don't think that I didn't see it as soon as I posted it. It was a slip of the keyboard, so to speak. Please note the other times when I typed correctly, thanks. As long as you've got your red pencil out EJ, you might want to do me the kindness of correcting my source note where I spelled Batista with an extra "t" in the first syllable. I've been meaning to correct that one as well, but perhaps you will get to it first. On the more important topic of citing, it would be great if you had the time to provide an additional footnote in the article for Bonachea, et. al. The more (good) sources the better. Btw, since this is the first time we've been communicating with each other, let me take the opportunity to tell you that your commentary is very instructive and I much enjoy your contributions to the discussion. Dasondas 05:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, rather, the second syllable. You see, it never stops... Dasondas 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, El Jigüe, for posting the page numbers for the Guisa reference in the Bonachea book; I have just added a source note for it. -- Polaris999 07:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Would it be appropriate for me to use the Bonachea pages you have referenced as a source for the statements in the "Guerrilla Fighter" section of Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution which I tagged some time ago with "Citation Needed"? -- Polaris999 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

P: One of the problems of descriptions of relatively recent Cuban history is the false coherence of "official histories," and the fragmentation of data and lack of access to archives of "non-official" participants. For instance it is a false conceit that the war against Batista was minor, since non-communist rebel contributions are minimized in official Cuban government sources. Thus the Cuban government is forced to attribute full authorship of events to Che Guevara while this is nowhere near the truth. The contributions of even major actors like Sotus, Matos, Lara, Vega, "Daniel," Frank Pais, and the Mora brothers are minimized or omitted, minor actors in exile or with low status in Cuba are ignored. In later events the contributions of such as Father John McKniff who was stunned by El Coubre explosion while providing first aid are completely ignored, and the Che who was not on the ship is given implied credit. "Ignored data is fragmentary or not commonly accessed, For example [16]; Ball, Ann 2001 Rogelio "Francisco" Gonzalez Corzo 1932 – 1961 Cuba. In : Faces of Holiness II: Modern Saints in Photos and Words Our Sunday Visitor Publishing. Division, Huntington, Indiana ISBN 0879734094 pp. 222-229. [17]. Data in material published in Cuba for the main part ignores even the "loyal" dead with rare exceptions e.g. Castillo Bueno, Reyita: The Life of a Black Cuban Woman in the Twentieth Century, as told to her daughter Daisy Rubiera Castillo, translated by Anne Mclean, (Durham: Duke University Press; London: Latin American Bureau, 2000) where there is only a note that Rayita's son is killed no context is given. The losses among the Abakuá dockworkers, can merely be inferred given that that most of the dockworkers were by long tradition members of that secret society, for so far I have not found available sources for names of the dead. Such lists, other details, access to witnesses, etc. are usually only provided to writers with a clear record of supporting the Cuban government and who can be relied upon not to criticize that government; e.g. Bertuccioli, Marie-Dominique 2004 (accessed 9-27-06) La Coubre : un bateau français victime du terrorisme contre contre Cuba [18]. El Jigue 10-16-06

Thank you very much, EJ, for sharing the above information. The first-hand account of the La Coubre disaster for which you have provided a link is extraordinary; even assuming that the interview was filtered and re-filtered by censors before being broadcast by Radio Havana, it is still the most vivid description of the event that I have ever read and I have therefore placed it on the Talk page of the La Coubre article. Re Fr. McKniff, I don't think that we can mention his assistance to the victims unless/until we find a source for it. I read the links you referenced but fail to see any mention of his efforts to provide assistance to the victims of the La Coubre incident in them. Perhaps information about his rescue efforts will become available if the petition to begin his process of beatification is made public. -- Polaris999 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

D: none of us are perfect, that is why there is need of proof readers. Still as you know I am not happy with Wikipedia procedures, since my loyalty is to what I perceive and can test as approximations of truth. Thus such errors are merely pointed out with a minimum of academic sarcasm. etc Xe xe Nobody noticed my mispelling of the name of the brave fighter commonly known as Braulio Coroneaux, the correct spelling of his name (I am told) also is incorrect according to payroll information. El Jigue 10-16-06

Borba journal

I have some notes I've found, they are concerned with a piece in the Communist Yugoslav journal Borba. Borba's reporters had vistied Cuba in 1966 planting the failure of Cuba to industrialize its agricultural economy within five years firmly at Guevara's feet, noting "the many half-completed or empty factories". This would be a really good source for the legacy/criticism section in dealing with Guevara's economic failings - and would neutralise any dissent from leftists due to the source itself. But I can't for the life of me remember where I got it from. Does anyone know what I'm talking about here or could anyone assist?--Zleitzen 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Che Guevara

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine

As we now have a far more vivid description of the 1959 trial process sourced to José Vilasuso, where it is patently clear that the trials were summary, is the Time magazine sentence "The trials he conducted were "unfair", in the opinion of Ariel Dorfman" essential to the article? Ariel Dorfman?--Zleitzen 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had considered this as well. If there is some concern about concision, the reference could be removed for being superfluous. On the other hand it is only one sentence, and from a stylistic point of view it works fairly well as an introduction to the material that follows. Also, it corresponds to the Time cover photo immediately adjacent. On balance, I say leave it in -- but if anybody chooses to remove it I won't object. Dasondas 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Time quotation, I have no idea who originally added it and think it could better go than stay. To the best of my recollection the statement in question was not part of the article that accompanied the "Che" cover on Time back in 1960; in fact, I do not believe that Ariel Dorfman was even one of the authors of that article -- he just wrote the "blurb" to accompany the recent "Hero" story.

However, my greater concern is that IMHO this paragraph now reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia: It contains an excess of quoted text. Most of the direct quotes should go into a footnote, as Dasondas so skillfully did with the Guisa information. I have the same concern about the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section. Couldn't the essence of the quotations in both cases be summarized in the article itself and then, if desired, the direct quotations can be put into associated source or content notes? If this is not deemed possible, I would favor transferring the newly-added sentences re La Cabaňa over to the Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution article (which is probably where they really belong) ... -- Polaris999 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I could take a stab at reworking the La Cabaña reference based on your reasonable criticism above. The Legacy section is a bit more problematic right now because while I generally agree with you (and Zleitzen, who made a similar critique several days ago), I still think the larger issue in this section is WP:NPOV -- so I suppose my thinking is that the whole section (together with criticism) needs to tackled somewhat integrally. While I'm working on the La Cabaña quotes, would you mind terribly if I changed the sentences in the lead which read "Guevara died at the hands of the Bolivian Army in La Higuera near Vallegrande on October 9, 1967. Participants in, and witnesses to, the events of his final hours testify that his captors executed him without trial." to read "Guevara was summarily executed by the Bolivian Army in La Higuera near Vallegrande on October 9, 1967." ? IMO it would be more concise, more direct, less stylized, and less POV. Dasondas 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dasondas, and thank you for your reply. First, I would like to say that I would be absolutely delighted if you were to re-write the sentences about La Higuera as you propose. My first "iteration" was very much like your version, but then it got repeatedly challenged by various critics, so in an attempt to put an end to their nit-picking I inserted the additional material, hoping thereby to give it more clarity and resilience. But please do remove the superflous verbiage and we shall see what happens.

Second, I think it would be excellent if you would re-work the La Cabaña reference as you suggest. With respect to the "Legacy" section, it is true that it and "Criticism" are more or less disaster zones (as they have been almost since their inception), so problems in those sections aren't as critical. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that you and Zleitzen will one day succeed in either working a miracle there, or eliminate the need for those two sections altogether ... -- Polaris999 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Better? Dasondas 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Great improvement in both cases. Thank you!! -- Polaris999 05:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual Polaris999, it's a pleasure working with you. Dasondas 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dasondas, the pleasure is mutual! -- Polaris999 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the additions are a real improvement. In regard to working on the criticism/legacy sections, such pieces are rather like doing open heart surgery in a hurricane, and not a task to relish!--Zleitzen 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet, Zleitzen, look at the bright side -- if we wind up killing the patient we can always blame the hurricane. As soon as I find an old, rusty spoon I'll sharpen it down and we can start our surgery. (Seriously, I'd really like to find the time to do a major rework of those two problem sections. I have no idea when -- or if, unfortunately but honestly -- I'll do so. If and when the time comes, I will look for both of you to collaborate as we go along and would be honored if you were to do the same with me. ) Thank you for your vote of support regarding my last edits; when I started in with this article I had braced myself to be doing lonely battle. It has been an unexpectedly happy surprise to find myself working with folks such as you and Polaris999. Dasondas 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating a red link

Hello all -- Someone has just "wikified" the name of CG's father in the "Family Heritage and Early Life" section. Since there is no WP article about him, this creates a red link. Does anyone see any justification for this, or should it be undone? -- Polaris999 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Red links should only really be made to indicate an article that is likely to be written. There is simply no call to write an article on Guevara's non-notable father. His mother, perhaps is of more substantial interest but his father doesn't pass the notability test. I say remove it.--Zleitzen 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Critics Section

Hello,

It begins with this : Though he has been labeled by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including most of the Cuban exile community as well as refugees from other countries under communism, view him as a killer and terrorist.

That's funny no ? I quote Including most of the Cuban exile community its a joke or what ? This community, in New Jersey and Florida, are true terrorist, you need some name perhaps ? (Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch for the most popular) some facts (October 1976, flight's explosion of Cubana Airlines, 73 killings) It's so amazing to read critics about torture when nobody say anything about the regime of Batista, and somebodys spoke about propaganda ? Let me laugh ;)

Bye and thank you for your attention.

.TSM.

Hola, I would think that the place for that would be [19].--Dakota 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

TSM If those remarks of yours, which smear a whole ethnic group for alleged but not proven crimes of a few individuals are allowed to influence this section, this as close to a condemnation of this entire Wikipedia page as I have ever seen. For crying out loud, this is the "criticism section". Heck why the Che killed far more than Posada is ever said to have done. El Jigue 10-26-06

Legacy rewrite

OK. I've completed a new draft of the Legacy section. What I've tried to do is combine the legacy and criticisms sections, as discussed above. When comparing writing such sections with performing surgery in a hurricane as I have above, I should have added that it is rather like performing "Frankenstein" surgery - using bits of body parts, snatches of sources, quotes and used material etc! So I apologise if the reading is slightly disjointed and that could be something to work on. Also, on re-reading the tone it may seem overly cynical to some, perhaps betraying my own POV. A few thoughts on my own rewrite.

1. My latest version is 933 words long to the previous version's 975 words.
2. There are two unsourced pieces, 1. Referring to Cuban policy after CG's death which I'll stand by even though I don't have a direct source. I've tried to summarise of a number of years' history - which is difficult but can be confirmed if necessary. 2. The tourist figures at Santa Clara, which were carried over from the page version, but I couldn't find a source for.
3. I've added a legacy in Cuba section, though Che is very much seen as an international figure, I believe his impact on Cubans both as a hero or a villain deserves some airing and respect.
4. Apologies to Dasondas for taking a knife to that State department piece again, it's simply a result of a desperate need to cram as much as possible into as few words.

Any thoughts are welcome. And, of course, improvements to this draft are not just expected, but demanded!--Zleitzen 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen, I wanted to stop by and say that your efforts are not unnoticed. My attentions have been elsewhere for the past days, but I do intend to come back and work on this article. (This isn't a threat :) You, Polaris and EJ are very enjoyable company and make working here a welcome affair.) You are to be vociferously commended for taking on a thankless task, one that I was loath to attempt even though the need was so clear. I don't want to lay in too heavily right now because I've only read it once, but I will say that structurally and stylistically it is a huge, dramatic improvement while contextually the first impression on my ear is still a bit POV. There can be no denying the rock-star-like cultism that the icon of Guevara engenders in some circles; on the other hand I find myself wanting more balance in the discussion of his manifest brutality, his military ineptitude, the questionable soundness of his theories on revolution and the pathologies of his personality that alienated him over time from even his closest supporters. Anyhow, when I find the time to dig in these are the points I will likely be trying to address -- but thanks to your efforts there is now a sound formal basis with which to work. Dasondas 01:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE I just came back to read it again, and the POV was less bothersome to me rather than more so. A good sign. (And, btw, I don't mean to imply that any POV is necessarily **your** POV -- I see it more as a "legacy" from the prior versions of the article). There are still a few points I'd like to re-emphasize and perhaps a couple I'd like to de-emphasize, but all-in-all a very fine effort. Dasondas 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dasondas, I think that section is the hardest to coordinate, I don't expect my efforts to last long and any improvement is welcome. Again, apologies for taking the knife to various pieces that we'd discussed before, but my motivation is the presentation of succinct information rather than POV. Having no POV other than a mild disdain for Guevara's persona, but an ongoing academic and personal connection with Cuba and the Caribbean, I hope that I've managed to provide a grounding for future improvements.--Zleitzen 04:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)