Miscellaneous desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15

The fate of Che Guevara's partisans

The source says El 8 de octubre de 1967 en el combate de la Quebrada del Yuro, en Bolivia, el comandante Ernesto Che Guevara fue herido y capturado. Al día siguiente, asesinado en la escuelita de La Higuera. La muerte del comandante Guevara estremeció a los progresistas del mundo. Allende le tributó un combativo homenaje en el Senado de Chile. Soldados bolivianos, asesorados por militares y agentes estadounidenses, iniciaron una cacería contra los guerrilleros que habían logrado sobrevivir. Lograron eludir la persecución en el difícil territorio boliviano y ocultarse en ciudades como Cochabamba. Los primeros en ofrecer ayuda concreta fueron Allende y los comunistas chilenos. El 17 de febrero de 1968 cinco guerrilleros, tres cubanos y dos bolivianos, lograron ingresar a Chile. Fueron detenidos por carabineros y enviados detenidos a Iquique. Salvador Allende, entonces presidente del Senado, se dirigió a ese puerto nortino. El 22 de febrero los guerrilleros pidieron asilo político. Allende, junto con otros dirigentes de Izquierda, se entrevistó con Edmundo Pérez Zujovic, ministro del Interior de Frei Montalva. El gobierno democratacristiano decidió expulsarlos del país, facilitando así el viaje de retorno a Cuba. Pero surgieron dificultades: ningún país de América del Sur ni de Europa Occidental les concedió visas de tránsito. El vuelo debió hacerse vía Tahiti y Nueva Zelandia. Allende decidió acompañar a los guerrilleros del Che. Dijo: “Esto es lo menos que puedo hacer en memoria del Che Guevara”. Question: does this mean that only 5 partisans survived and they fled to Chile, or does it mean that more partisans survived and they hid in Bolivia itself? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, there were 17 combatant partisans, an unknown number of whom were killed. The back cover blurb of the book Escape a balazos: los sobrevivientes del Che talks about the odyssey of the six survivors. Due to snippet view I cannot figure out whether – according to this source – one of the six did not make it, or all six reached Chile, or yet something else. Since some of the partisans were Bolivian, I guess it is possible some survivors hid successfully. The non-Bolivians would have stood out by their non-Bolivian accents, making it very difficult to hide in Bolivia. --Lambiam 17:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighter killed by a jumper on 9/11: accident or homicide?

On September 11, a firefighter by the name of Danny Suhr was struck and killed by a person falling from one of the towers (some sources say it was the South Tower, but I digress). What I'm wondering is, would his death be a homicide committed by the terrorists, or an accident caused by being in the wrong place at the worst possible time? Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the jumper for his death, not at all. It was all just circumstance that the person landed on him, but at the same time they wouldn't have jumped if the hijackers hadn't flown a plane into their building... so I'm just curious if his death would be considered murder or not. Hmm1994 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would maybe call it "accidental murder" or an "accidental killing"... but I didn't do any research on this so don't take my word for it. Helloheart (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely ruled an "accidental homicide" in medicolegal terms. It would be possible for Suhr's death to be a felony murder charge against the terrorists. Also I could see a reckless homicide charge against the jumper but a duress defense would likely counter it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They could be called "Schlemiel / Schlimazel" deaths. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL and this is not legal advice. I think that in many jurisdictions an unlawful act indirectly and unintentionally leading to someone's death will not be considered murder but only, possibly, manslaughter. Moreover, I think that, additionally, causation will be required. In particular, the death should be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the unlawful act. How would this play out in a hypothetical court case? The defendant's attorney would presumably argue that their client did not intend to kill any first responder and could not reasonably foresee that a jumper would kill a first responder. Who can tell if the hypothetical jury would accept the argument? --Lambiam 07:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But in some jurisdictions there is also the felony murder rule to consider. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it?

What the crap is this place? what is the deal with a Wikipedia reference desk? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right up there at the top it says, "Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context."DOR (HK) (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn't attempt to answer every single question anyone might have about anything. The references and sources at the foot of most articles may guide you towards the information you may be looking for. The various sections of this Reference Desk, staffed entirely by volunteers, are a resource for asking questions that perhaps aren't answered by reading the articles. Some of the most knowledgeable and helpful people you will ever come across tend to hang out here. Chill, dude: you will get it in the end. Have a cuddle anyway. MinorProphet (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking us whether you get it or not? How else are we to understand your question mark? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers. MinorProphet (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question mark in the statement, "I don't get it?" is there to emphasize his confusion regarding the subject. It's superfluous, but I myself sometimes add question marks to the end of remarks like that for the exact same reason. Hmm1994 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see? All is clear now? Thank you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those three examples are really comparable. The context of the sentence "I don't get it" implies confusion or uncertainty about something, hence why someone might want to emphasize it with a question mark at the end (which, in casual conversation, can be used to inflect a sense of confusion), no matter how incorrect the punctuation of it is. In that sense, none of those examples are similar. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the page Wikipedia:Reference desk: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." --Lambiam 07:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most valuable mission of the RefDesks is to find reliable sources for editors who are writing or expanding Wikipedia articles, or who find unreferenced statements already in place. Answering random general knowledge questions is rather secondary. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try to direct questioners to Wikipedia itself, encouraging them to find information there. Therefore I try to base my answers on existing articles whenever possible, providing appropriate links. If the editors contributing to the RefDesk (in my view there is one RefDesk that has several topical sections) could be made to work together in the same spirit as when contributing to the main encyclopedia (NPOV, RS where available, but also not "owning" individual contributions but just trying to collectively construct the best answer possible), the RefDesk has the potential of becoming the go-to place for seeking answers while also boosting awareness of and goodwill for Wikipedia. Another point is that questions may reveal lacking or confusing encyclopedic content and a consequent need for improvement. --Lambiam 12:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relaxing, pleasant corner of the internet, largely unspoilt by tourists or redevelopment. Card Zero (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relaxing?^{[citation needed]} Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]