This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is Archive 6 covering approximately 30 May 2006 - 29 June 2006
Marxist
Che is repeatedly called a "Marxist" in the course of the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. As far as I know, Che called himself "Communist", not "Marxist", and "Marxist" is therefore OR. Additionally, his authoritarian politics are more in line with quasi-fascists like Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong than Karl Marx, who influenced anarchist thought. Article should definitely be changed to say "Communist", but I have no doubt there will be opposition so I'm raising the idea here. --Switch 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Addition to the dicussion: The topic to distinquish between Marxist and Comminist has been discussed before, this from the archives:[1]
--Dakota~ 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Che continually described himself as a "Marxist", a "Marxist-Leninist" and, less frequently, "a communist", as can be observed in the following excerpts from a few of his speeches and writings:
Porque hay que recordar siempre que el marxista no es una máquina automática y
fanática dirigida, como un torpedo, mediante un servomecanismo hacia un
objetivo determinado. De este problema se ocupa expresamente Fidel en una de
sus intervenciones: «¿Quién ha dicho que el marxismo es la renuncia de los
sentimientos humanos, al compañerismo, al amor al compañero, al respeto al
compañero, a la consideración al compañero? ¿Quién ha dicho que el
marxismo es no tener alma, no tener sentimientos? Si precisamente fue el amor
al hombre lo que engendró el marxismo, fue el amor al hombre, a la humanidad, el
deseo de combatir la desdicha del proletariado, el deseo de combatir la
miseria, la injusticia, el calvario y toda la explotación sufrida por el proletariado, lo
que hace que de la mente de Carlos Marx surja el marxismo cuando precisamente
podía surgir el marxismo, cuando precisamente podía surgir una posibilidad
real y más que una posibilidad real, la necesidad histórica de la Revolución
social de la cual fue intérprete Carlos Marx. Pero, ¿qué lo hizo ser ese intérprete
sino el caudal de sentimientos humanos de hombres como él, como Engels, como
Lenin?»
Esta apreciación de Fidel es fundamental para el militante del nuevo partido,
recuérdenlo siempre, compañeros, grábenselo en la memoria como su arma
más eficaz contra todas las desviaciones. El marxista debe ser el mejor, el más
cabal, el más completo de los seres humanos pero, siempre, por sobre todas
las cosas, un ser humano; un militante de un partido que vive y vibra en contacto
con las masas; un orientador que plasma en directivas concretas los deseos a veces
oscuros de la masa; un trabajador incansable que entrega todo a su pueblo;
un trabajador sufrido que entrega sus horas de descanso, su tranquilidad
personal, su familia o su vida a la Revolución, pero nunca es ajeno al calor
del contacto humano. "Obras escogidas", pg 251 (Prólogo al libro El partido
marxista-leninista, publicado por la Dirección Nacional del Partido Unido de
la Revolución Socialista de Cuba, La Habana, 1963.)
========================================
Estos dos momentos difíciles de la revolución, que hemos analizado
someramente, se obvian cuando los partidos dirigentes marxistas-leninistas
son capaces de ver claro las implicaciones del momento y de movilizar las masas al
máximo, llevándolas por el camino justo de la resolución de las contradicciones
fundamentales. "Obras escogidas", pg 95 (Cuba Socialista, septiembre de 1963.)
========================================
El militante del Partido Unido de la Revolución es un marxista; debe conocer el marxismo
y debe aplicar consecuentemente, en su análisis, el materialismo dialéctico para poder
interpretar el mundo cabalmente.
...
Por eso el marxismo es solamente una guía par la acción. Se han descubierto las
grandes verdades fundamentales, y a partir de ellas, utilizando el materialismo
dialéctico como arma, se va interpretando la realidad en cada lugar del mundo. Por
eso ninguna construcción será igual; todas tendrán características peculiares, propias
a su formación.
"Obras escogidas", pg 270 (Discurso en la asamblea general de trabajadores de la Textilería
Ariguanabo, 24 de marzo de 1963)
========================================
Agradezco al señor Stevenson su referencia histórica a mi larga vida como
comunista y revolucionario que culmina en Cuba. Como siempre, las agencias
norteamericanas, no sólo en noticias, sino de espionaje, confunden las cosas. Mi
historia de revolucionario es corta y realmente empieza en el Granma y sigue
hasta este momento. No pertenecía al Partido Comunista hasta
ahora que estoy en Cuba y podemos proclamar todos ante esta Asamblea el
marxismo-leninismo que sigue como teoría de acción la Revolución cubana.
"Obras Escogidas", pg 405 (Tomado del folleto Ha sonado la hora postrera del colonialismo,
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores)
========================================
I will be glad to provide many more examples, if someone considers those presented above to be insufficient.
Okay, I didn't know he had called himself a Marxist. Okay then, never mind. That's good enough for me. --Switch 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"his authoritarian politics are more in line with quasi-fascists like Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong than Karl Marx, who influenced anarchist thought." Not only is this comment not backed up with fact, it's simply not true. 82.176.194.151 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the new crit. intro?
If you don't like it, improve it, don't revert it!
--71.141.100.105 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Professional title, etc.
The article begins with a few mistakes:
"... was an Argentine-born physician, Marxist revolutionary, politician, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas."
First, the words "Argentine", "Marxist" and "Cuban" have not reason to appear in caps.
Second, Ernesto Guevara was a doctor (dermatologist), not a physician.
Third, the word "guerrillas" could be changed for "revolutions".
Hola, just concerning medical practitioner status, physician/doctor are the same as in "the physician, Dr. Foo" with one being the profession the other the title.[2]--Dakota~ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello User: 201.253.80.77 -- I would like to thank you for your contribution here on the Talk (Discussion) page of the Che Guevara article. The question of exactly what medical diploma Ernesto received, and what his correct professional title was, is a puzzle I have been trying to find the answer to ever since I began working on this article. Some time ago one person posted a lengthy document on Wikipedia which he claimed was a copy of Ernesto's transcript in the UBA Medical School. I asked for help from anyone familiar with such transcripts to determine whether or not this document appears to be legitimate, but no comments were forthcoming. I am therefore wondering if you might take a look at it and, if possible, give us your opinion about it. You can see it by clicking here: User talk:Pablo-flores/Archive3#A confusing situation (re Che Guevara's medical records). Your help in clarifying this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Best regards, Polaris999 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the capitalization: In English, proper nouns and words derived from them are usually capitalized. --Stephan Schulz 05:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The professional title of Ernesto Guevara was "médico" (in spanish). In english it is equivalent of the "medical doctor" title, also physician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:200.82.56.23|200.82.56.23]] ([[User talk:200.82.56.23|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/200.82.56.23|contribs]])
Just to confirm Stephan Schulz here: in English, Argentine and Cuban must be capitalized; Marxist is usually capitalized, though it is less jarring to see it lowercased than these others, since there is some precedent for such transformation of people's names (sadistic and masochistic, quixotic). Still, I would guess that educated native speakers would run at least 20-1 in favor of always capitalizing Marxist, though maybe not the less politically-related Marxian/marxian (as in "A Marxian/marxian analysis"). - Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Switching pictures
I hope it won't offend anyone, but I substituted the Der Spiegel picture in the Legacy section for a picture of a poetry reading in front of a Che Guevara mural/painting at Colegio Cesar Chavez. There are four reasons I have done this: 1. As this is the English language website, most who visit this site are unfamiliar with the Der Spiegel publication, and therefore any significance of a Che cover will be lost on most visitors. Therefore, I think it is more relevant to have a picture from an institution that was in the United States. 2. Colegio Cesar Chavez was an activist institution that symbolically looked to Che Guevara, and in fact was almost named in his honor. And because Colegio was the first and only Chicano/Mexican-American college in the United States, it is quite notable in this context. It can in some ways be seen as an extension of Che's movement. 3. The picture in question has been released into the public domain, which I doubt the picture of Der Spiegel has been. My understanding is that Wikipedia prefers free pictures to fair use pictures. 4. I really believe that the picture from Colegio deserves to be on this page as I think it is of more historical pertinence than the Der Spiegel cover, but there just isn't enough room in that section for three pictures. -- Andrew Parodi 11:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea is to discuss major changes in the article here on the Talk page before making them. Therefore I am reverting the article to the way it was before you re-did the "Legacy" section and we will await comments from other editors to see whether they support or oppose the changes you are proposing. Thank you. Polaris999 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am posting here a link to a page that shows the changes you are proposing to make to the "Legacy" section so that other editors can see and evaluate them without having to search through the History page to find them: Modifications of the "Legacy" section proposed by User:Andrew Parodi
NB: I have just discovered that a few minutes before you inserted the picture [[Image:Colegiopoetryreading.jpg]] into the "Legacy" section of the main "Che Guevara" article, you had inserted it into the article "Che Guevara in popular culture", i.e. 05:47, 13 June 2006 Andrew Parodi (adding Colegio Cesar Chavez picture). Even if the photo were a good one, which lamentably it is not, there would be no reason to include it in both the main "Che Guevara" article and the derivative ("child") article, "Che Guevara in popular culture". Consequently, there is no reason to give further consideration to your proposed modification of the "Legacy" section of the main "Che Guevara" article. Whether or not the inclusion of the photograph [[Image:Colegiopoetryreading.jpg]] in the "Che Guevara in Popular Culture" article is appropriate and/or desirable can be discussed between you and the editors who are working on that article on that article's Talk page. -- Polaris999 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not the best picture, but it's more historically pertinent than the cover of a foreign magazine that most English speakers have never heard of. In regard to it already being on the "popular culture" page, many pictures on Wikipedia are shown on different pages.
For clarification, the reason the picture is in both places is because I found the "popular culture" article before I found the "legacy" section in this main article. If I had to choose, I'd refer for the picture to be in the legacy section of the main article, because Colegio Cesar Chavez really does not qualify as "popular culture."
I think it's significant that there was a mural of Che Guevara in Colegio Cesar Chavez, the only four-year Hispanic/Chicano in the nation. And I think it's significant that the founders of the college had considered naming the college "Colegio Che Guevara." I think it is at least worth mentioning in the article. And if you don't like the picture I put up, there is also this one: Image:Colegiopoetryreading2.jpg
Granted, they are not the best quality pictures, but they are over 20 years old at this point, and they capture an aspect of history, whereas the picture of the magazine captures, well, a magazine that most English speakers who visit this site have never heard of. Further, the mural on the wall of the Colegio building seems relatively in keeping with the other picture, which is of a mural (of sorts) of Che on the outside of a building. Lastly, as I mentioned, the image is a "free image", which I've heard is preferable to a "fair use" image. -- Andrew Parodi 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: If neither of those two pictures are deemed appropriate, perhaps, just perhaps, this one would be. This is a page out of Colegio Cesar Chavez's student catalogue, and on the wall behind the men you can see the Che mural on the wall: Image:Bookletche.jpg. If it is decided that none of these pictures are appropriate, could we perhaps get a consensus that at least mentioning Colegio in the legacy section is appropriate? If you want the source that talks about the fact that Colegio Che Guevara was an early consideration for the name, that is mentioned in this book: Colegio Cesar Chavez, 1973-1983: A Chicano Struggle for Educational Self-Determination. -- Andrew Parodi 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ciao,Image:Bookletche.jpg appears to be from a spanish language book or magazine of antique vintage and I notice that the uploader perhaps mistakenly labeled it self made. Improperly licensed images are not permitted in articles. It needs to have the source and proper license and then it may be considered after a concensus of editors is made. --Dakota~ 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture is of a page of the student catalogue of the Colegio Cesar Chavez, which is in both English and Spanish. As I mention on the photo description, there is no copyright information in that booklet whatsoever, nor is any photographer mentioned by name; the only way to know what era that catalogue is from is that it contains a schedule for classes for the year 1978. The institution the catalogue advertises went out of business in 1983. Therefore, finding the right tag is quite difficult for me. What would you suggest? (I placed the "self-made" tag there as a temporary tag, until I learned what tag would be more appropriate. I figured that in the meantime the "self-made" designation worked in a way, because I'm the one who scanned the catalogue.) As to the catalogue's source, as noted on the Colegio Cesar Chavez page, the catalogue is stored in the Oregon State University's Multicultural Archives, where it is made available to people studying Colegio Cesar Chavez. [3] -- Andrew Parodi 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hola,this image which is low resolution contains no mention of Che Guevara or visible image of same and is labeled fair use which is more restrictive in it's use than free images. It is relevant to Colegio César Chávez and perhaps César Chávez but seems to lack rationale in this article.--Dakota~ 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The mural of Che Guevara is on the wall (right side) above the seated man. I have a higher resolution of the picture. I put the fair use tag on it because you said the other tag wasn't appropriate. However, I am still pretty certain that "fair use" isn't even necessary because I think the copyright has expired, as there is no copyright information in the book, no list of photographers, the college was a non-profit institution, and the institution closed over 20 years ago.
If the picture isn't acceptable, would anyone have any problem with me at least including a mention of Colegio Cesar Chavez in the legacy section? I think it's relevant that there was a mural of him in this school, the only Hispanic four-year college in the nation, and that they had considered naming the school after him. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If the Colegio Cesar Chavez had been named for Che Guevara instead of for Cesar Chavez that information might have been relevant for inclusion in the "Legacy" section of the Che Guevara article. The fact that the possibility of naming the Colegio for Che Guevara was considered, but it was decided instead to name it for Cesar Chavez means that it is not. This is a featured article and as such it must meet certain standards; it is already considered by some editors to be too long — that is why several of its sections have been split off into separate ('child') articles as you must have noticed since you have edited one of them, i.e. Che Guevara in popular culture. If you wish, we can explore the possibility of putting a link to the Colegio Cesar Chavez article in the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the Che Guevara article. Then you can put any photos that you wish into the Colegio Cesar Chavez article (that I notice you are currently working on) and their quality and copyright status will not be of any concern to editors here. Does this alternative interest you? -- Polaris999 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments requested: On the basis of the foregoing discussion, User:Andrew Parodi and I would like to propose that a link to the Colegio Cesar Chavez article be added to the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the main "Che Guevara" article and we request the opinions of other editors about this.
Thank you -- Polaris999 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I too see no reason why the link to Colegio Cesar Chavez could not be added to the Legacy category of the "See Also section".--Dakota~ 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Since three wikipedians are in support and no objections have been expressed, I have added a link to the Colegio César Chávez article to the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the main Che Guevara article. -- Polaris999 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it a micky mouse one - it looks funny.lol 222.154.55.35 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought the photo of Che Guevara beside Ghandi was a bit peculiar. Is it asserted that Guevara was a non-violent revolutionary? DonPMitchell 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Der Spiegel article asserts that a synthesis has taken place between the followers of Gandhi and those of Guevara which has given rise to a new movement of "peaceful revolutionaries". -- Polaris999 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late comment, but most English speakers will be no more familiar with Colegio Cesar Chavez (even though it was located in the U.S.) than they are with Der Spiegel. Probably most who are aware of one are also aware of the other. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The USA Today article
I was wondering if perhaps others agree that the USA Today article that is linked to in this article is useless: [4] It's not so much that I disagree or agree with the statements made (though I do agree and disagree with some statements), it's just that overall this seems to be a terribly written article. I know that goes without saying, as it is USA Today. But what I was wondering was if perhaps better quality articles could be linked to with regard to criticism of Che. I'm sure some of his critics have more substantial statements to make than what is mentioned in this article. I mean, the article seems to say that we should be thankful Che wasn't successful or else we wouldn't have iPods, and that if he had been successful than we'd all be raising donkeys. The tone of the article seems to me to be juvenile. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Criticism" sub-section was contributed by some wikipedians who argued that the "Legacy" section of the article suffered from POV and that it was necessary that an "anti-Che" POV be presented to balance it. A consensus eventually developed that such "balance" was needed and the "Criticism" sub-section is the result. I believe that the particular editor who wrote the sentence including the reference to the USA Today article that you cite will be unable to respond to you because she has recently been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. I do not know whether some of the other people who collaborated with her in putting together that particular sub-section are still monitoring it and will wish to dialogue with you about the point you make (with which I personally tend to agree). While you are awaiting replies, my suggestion would be that, if you can find a better source than the USA Today article that says approximately the same thing, please bring it forward here on the Talk page so that others can see, evaluate and comment on the possibility of substituting it. -- Polaris999 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I think the article touches on a good point. I think it's always unsettling to see political personalities turned into fashion icons by people who don't even know what they were about. But the article just isn't that good. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Request for evaluation of proposed link for addition to External Links section
The following link was added to the "External Links" section (English category) a few hours ago by User:24.44.45.54 without prior discussion so I have transferred it over here to the Talk page so that wikipedians can comment as to whether or not it is appropriate for inclusion there.
Hi Polaris, I added the link. I was unsure whether it should be under "English" or "Spanish" because the page is in English, but the video is Spanish. Apparently, it is a video critique of Che (I don't understand Spanish, unfortunately). Since, articles are supposed to be NPOV, links can be to differing views, so I do think the link should be included, and would be of interest to some people. In any case, I don't think it should be removed or censored. Maybe the seperate English/Spanish links section is too restricting. Maybe "Other". 24.44.45.54 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi 24.44.45.54 -- If it were to go into a category called "Other", don't you think that many people might interpret "Other" to mean a language other than English or Spanish? Since the video clip is totally in Spanish, perhaps it could go into the "Spanish" category with an explanation in the description of the link to the effect that the introductory page of text is in English but the video clip itself is in Spanish? -- Polaris999 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Polaris,
You are probably right. The video is in Spanish. Frankly, it's kind of kooky the way they did that. English page, Spanish video. You would have thought that if someone is reading their page in English, they'd have a video dubbed in English available. I don't exactly know what the video is about, but it does look interesting. Have you watched it? I gather it's anti-Che, and you're pro-Che, so I appreciate your open-mindedness to allow a link to what you probably think is just propaganda. I usually try to look at all sides and try to make up my mind - which isn't always too easy. ;-) Anyway, will you move the link to the Spanish section, or should I? Thanks. P.S. What would you do with a web link to a page that is both English & Spanish!!
Hi 24.44.45.54 -- I am in a total quandary as to what to do with an external link to a page that is in both English & Spanish and that is why I asked for comments about how to handle it from other editors. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that the intro page is in English and then the video clip 100% in Spanish without even providing English subtitles: One wonders exactly what audience the makers of this video were attempting to target with such a melange.
I was expecting that some Spanish-speaking wikipedians would view the videoclip and give their opinions about it so that I wouldn't have to give mine, but since no one has yet done so and you are eager to add the link, I will say that I have viewed and listened to it in its entirety and it is basically a group of senior citizens recalling their encounters with Che. The audio is not easy to listen to, but some of the video footage is interesting. It would be better to describe the individuals who speak on this video as "people who knew Che" rather than as "people who were close to Che" because in most cases they had only brief interactions with him. (There are some exceptions, such as Dariel Alarcón Ramírez aka "Benigno".) The same video footage is repeated over and over again in various sections which tends to make it quite boring after a while, On the positive side, it has the advantage that it presents real people expressing their views in their own words so that you don't have to wonder if they have been quoted correctly.
Why don't you go ahead and add it into the Spanish sub-section of "External Links" whenever you have the chance -- Polaris999 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Che Guevara's house (again)
The Municipality of Rosario has just put up a sign indicating the location of Guevara's house (previously there wasn't any indication, then the current owners refused to let a plaque be placed directly on the house). I took a picture. The Municipality also sponsored a celebration of Guevara's 78th birthday with the presence of friends and the Cuban Ambassador (see poster). Just in case this is useful. —Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. That is a very cool sign. I am going to try to figure out how to insert a link to it from somewhere within the main CG article. -- Polaris999 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments invited
I am transferring this discussion from my Talk page to the Talk page of the Che Guevara article so that other wikipedians will be more likely to see it and can participate if they wish to do so ...
Background:
This discussion is focussed on the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "Criticism" sub-section of the main Che Guevara article. For many weeks that sentence had been as follows:
They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[61]
In two postings on 15 June 2006 , specifically. at 20:41, 15 June 2006 and at 20:43, 15 June 2006, User:12.98.133.245 modified the aforementioned sentence without prior discussion on this Talk page to read as follows:
They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons and labor camps, which targeted gays, dissidents, and AIDS patients [2], and for the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[61]
As soon as I saw this modification I reverted it with the following explanation:
21:34, 15 June 2006 Polaris999 (rv because absurd -- Guevara died in 1967, AIDS wasn't even discovered until December 1981: See AIDS )
Hey, I noticed that you rv'd my edit about Guevara's persecution of "gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims", made under my IP address. I just wanted to let you know that that was not intended as vandalism. In fact, it is nearly verbatim from the [link that accompanied it http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/]. However, you definitely have a valid point, and this is perplexing. What do you make of it? JianLi 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I make of it that www.slate.com is not a reliable source. I hope that you will raise the matter with them, and I would be very interested to hear their response. -- Polaris999 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Slate (magazine) is owned by the Washington Post. And the San Francisco Chronicle makes a similar point: "This camp was the precursor to the systematic confinement of dissidents, homosexuals, AIDS patients, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and Afro-Cuban priests." [5]JianLi 05:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it seems that they are referring to Guanahacabibes in Pinar del Rio province which Guevara set up as a disciplinary center for officials working in the Ministry of Industries while he was the Minister. The violations in question had to do with things such as extreme administrative negligence, accepting bribes, etc. Definitely nothing at all to do with AIDS (which would have been impossible since, as we discussed above, AIDS was not discovered until 14 years after his death) or questions of sexuality or religious beliefs. What did happen was that after Guevara left Cuba, the Guanahacabibes camp was transferred away from the Ministry of Industries and taken over by some other state entity and what happened there subsequently I do not know. But surely Guevara can not be held responsible for any abuses that may have occurred in that place after he had resigned all of his government posts, renounced his Cuban citizenship, and left Cuba!
Since we are discussing this matter, I would like to invite your attention to the hypothetical question of how Guevara, as a doctor, might have responded to the AIDS epidemic had he lived long enough to become aware of it. Perhaps you have seen or read The Motorcycle Diaries? If so, you will know that he chose the specialty of Dermatology because he had a particular concern for the suffering of leprosy patients, and that the whole point of the trip related in The Motorcycle Diaries was to get to the San Pablo Leper Colony in Perú in order to do volunteer work there. If you saw the film, you will also have seen how he rebelled against the administrators of the Leprosarium because of the way they treated the lepers as if they were a sub-class of humanity, how he refused to wear the "mandatory" gloves when shaking hands with or treating the patients and thereby aroused the ire of the administrators, etc. Based on these facts, and on his strong sense of solidarity with all those who were suffering or oppressed for whatever reason, I personally believe that he would have been at the forefront of those in the medical community who are fighting for compassionate and comprehensive treatment for all individuals who have AIDS or are HIV-positive.
Well, I have told you my opinion about this, and now I would very much like to hear yours. -- Polaris999 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
(Note: I am signing this transfer here -- Polaris999 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC) )
I don't know what to make of the AIDS issue, since I am merely going off of these sources. I have in fact seen the movie, but do you not think that it might have had a skewed POV? (think of who wrote the book) In any case, my desire to edit this page stems from conversations I've had with a former Cuban exile whose relatives were executed in the labor camps run by Guevara. To say the least, she was frustrated by the idealistic image of Guevara predominant in American culture. JianLi 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What is your own opinion of the extent of Guevara's involvement in labor camps and summary executions? I know that you have a great admiration for Guevara, based on how active you are in editing this article, but perhaps that makes it harder to look at the "less savory aspects of Guevara's life." My concern is that in the midst of his popularity, certain aspects of his life, which are necessary for the full historic truth, will be downplayed.JianLi 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Re Guanahacabibes, it was basically a type of "boot camp" for wayward bureaucrats and I consider it to be of no particular significance. It would be interesting to see a study showing what percentage of the individuals who went through the program there actually changed their errant ways once they were released but I am not aware that one was ever done. As for La Cabaña, I consider it most regrettable that Guevara was given that assignment, and equally regrettable that he accepted it. I deem it extremely perplexing that this was the only "job opportunity" that could be found for the comandante who had just won the decisive battle of the insurrectionary war. I suppose that as a military officer he could not refuse the assignment, but I certainly wish he had. -- Polaris999 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote is "He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims." (italics mine). Slate's point isn't that Che killed AIDS victims (which is impossible), but he established a system that later killed AIDS patients. Kyle J Moore 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, very nice Kyle. I can't believe I was stupid enough to not have seen that; now that I have, it explains the supposed "impossibility."JianLi 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Important: Concerning the modified text you inserted into the "Criticism" sub-section, i.e.:
(cur) (last) 15:43, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)
(cur) (last) 15:42, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)
(cur) (last) 15:41, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)
(cur) (last) 15:18, 16 June 2006 JianLi (I added the stuff from the sources, without the AIDS part)
you need to fill in all of the information required as per WP:CITE in the source notes you added (currently numbered 61, 62 and 64), and you also need to add the three sources you used to the "Websites" sub-section of the "References" section. Please do this urgently -- remember that because this is a featured article full citations are required to meet the standards set by the Wikipedia Community for such articles in order for your contributions to remain in the article.
Viz: "Wikipedia articles often include inline citations, and in the case of Featured Articles (formally "Brilliant Prose" articles) and Featured Articles Candidates, inline citations are considered mandatory. A full citation should then be added to the References section at the end of the article. ", excerpted from WP:IC. -- Polaris999 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As the missing required information detailed above has not been provided, I am transferring the edits in question (highlighted in red below) to this page; please include full citations and references as described above if re-adding them. Also, with regard to the second, please bear in mind that one sentence paragraphs are not allowed (see WP:MOS) so this text must be modified in some way to make it into two sentences, or incorporated into one of the other paragraphs in the section.
They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons and labor camps, which targeted gays and dissidents[1][2], and for the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[3]
In 2005, after Carlos Santana wore a Che shirt to the Academy Awards Ceremony, Cuban-born musician Paquito D'Rivera wrote an open letter castigating Santana for supporting "The Butcher of the Cabaña," the name of a prison where Guevara oversaw the execution of many dissidents, including D'Rivera's own cousin.[4]
Thanks for the heads-up. I have now re-added them with full citations, in addition to adding the websites to the references:websites section. On a related subject, I can't help but noticing that many of the other websites cited aren't in the references:websites section, such as the various BBC articles. Should those be added to the references? JianLi 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the full citations and references. The "Criticism" section is looking better now. However, have you noticed that during the course of all of the recent editing of it someone (I didn't notice when it happened) has "orphaned" the comment about some critics thinking CG wasn't a doctor? Perhaps next time you are editing the section you might figure out how to merge that single sentence into another paragraph? That would be a great help if you would be willing to do it. Re the BBC websites that you point out are cited as sources but not included in the References section, definitely that situation needs to be corrected -- I'm not sure who added those links, so I'll try to fix them myself ASAP. Thank you for alerting me to them -- Polaris999 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Timeline
Why can't I see the timeline? It's just a line for me. If I open directly the template, I see the same. NCursework 07:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That is very puzzling. Can you see other Wikipedia timelines? -- Polaris999 08:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I can see the others. Can't understand why... :) NCursework 08:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a minor modification to the template. If you have a chance to try viewing the timeline again, I would appreciate very much hearing the results. Thank you -- Polaris999 09:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! Now it works. Thank you. :) NCursework 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That is good news. Many thanks to you, NCursework, for bringing this problem to our attention! --Polaris999 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Expression "Rough"
I'm a lifelong hiker and outdoorsman, and I've never heard this expression, to travel "rough". Is this British usage?
Esbullin
I do not know in which country the usage originated, but I assume it is derived from the idiom "to rough it". The following is from The Free Dictionary
"Idiom:
rough it
To live without the usual comforts and conveniences: roughed it in a small hunting shack."
I think it is a bit British (also "to sleep rough", meaning to lie down wherever there is a space available, usually outdoors). I'm afraid I've bounced back and forth enough that if I learned a phrase past age 17 or so, I'm sometimes not sure which side of the Atlantic it comes from. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Single most important addition to this article
We need documentation on the statement attributed in this article to Guevara that had the nuclear missiles of the Cuban Missile Crisis been under Cuban rather than Soviet control, they (presumably meaning he and Castro) would have fired them against major US cities. No other aspect of this man's life is as important. If it is accurate, and he seriously favored the direct murder of millions in an act that would certainly have triggered all-out nuclear holocaust and the death of billions and a collapse of civilization, it is safe to say that history will eventually see him for what he must have been: a dangerous, malevolent lunatic. If it is not accurate, the debate will go on... I will be trying to ferret out sources on this, but my time and energy is severely limited due to illness. I urge others to find reliable references and link to or quote from them on this Talk page so we can craft a definitive paragraph on this point for the article. Thx. JDG 14:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
How is Jon Lee Anderson quoting the Daily Worker less than adequate documentation? - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) I see this topic was re-opened below - Jmabel | Talk 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Sentence with poor context
The following sentence appears in the Bolivia section: "In September, however, the Army managed to eliminate two guerrilla groups, reportedly killing one of the leaders". It isn't very clear what this means or how relevant it is. Who were these groups? Twittenham 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Twittenham. I have been waiting for some other editor to reply to your query but many of them are away from wikipedia now that summer has arrived. I just want to tell you that I think that your point is very well taken and that I will address it soon if no one else does. -- Polaris999 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverted edit
I reverted an edit [6] by Ismoot adding that the operation capturing Che was a CIA and Special Forces Op. I left a msg on his user talk explaining that I did it b/c the edit didn't meet WP:V.--Kchase02T 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kchase02. I appreciate your diligence in applying the standards of WP:V to this article which tends to have many problems in that area.
As you have probably noticed, the role of the U.S. Army in the operation against Guevara's guerrillas is touched upon in the "Bolivia" section of this article, i.e.
He had expected to deal only with the country's military government and its poorly trained and equipped army. However, after the U.S. government learned of his location, CIA and other operatives were sent into Bolivia to aid the anti-insurrection effort. The Bolivian Army was being trained, and probably directly assisted, by U.S. Army Special Forces advisors, including a recently organized elite battalion of Rangers trained in jungle warfare.
Although the wikipedian who wrote that paragraph did not provide a source, I am able to do so. The document I would like to reference is entitled Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Activation, Organization and Training of the 2d Ranger Battalion – Bolivian Army, and it can be found at Memorandum.
On the basis of this document and other materials I have studied, I believe that it would be more accurate to describe the operation in question as User:Ismoot did, i.e. "a CIA/ U.S. Army Special Forces-organized military operation" and therefore I would like to incorporate this change into the second paragraph of the lead section as he suggested. But, before doing so, I want to ask you whether you consider that the source I have cited is adequate to justify such an inclusion? -- Polaris999 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sort of a postscript here: I would like to mention another source. Henry Butterfield Ryan, in his book "The Fall of Che Guevara" has an entire chapter about the role of the U.S. Special Forces entitled "The Green Berets". It begins with the words:
"Bolivia is the best thing we ever did", said Major Ralph "Pappy" Shelton, leader of a Green Beret Mobile Training Team (MTT), the Pentagon's traveling groups that helped train friendly armed forces, mostly in the arts of counterinsurgency.
The "Green Berets" chapter covers pages 82-102 of the op.cit. -- Polaris999 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligent and conscientious responses, Polaris. Your sources look excellent and I now have no objection to referencing a joint U.S. Army Special Forces/CIA operation. I must admit that I didn't notice the reference to the Army in the Bolivia section. Thank you as well for pointing that out to me. Since you are a frequent editor of that article, I'll defer to your judgment about where best to place these references. I will contact Ismoot and update him. Thanks again.--Kchase02T 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Some time later, Guevara became a member of Fidel Castro's paramilitary 26th of July Movement, which seized power in Cuba in 1959. The use of Paramilitary in this sentence is incorrect in my opinion because the defintion of Paramilitary is [of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular troops.] Seeing as the July 26th movement was not assisting regular troops, rather fighting them it would seem prudent to change that the word Paramilitary to Revolutionary.--Che777
Size
This article is 80 kilobytes long. Some parts could probably be trimmed off and placed in seperate parts. 64.111.128.11 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It was quite a bad pun, very out of place but perhaps you were just kidding.--222.98.9.39 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This link is for those not from the U.S. who may not have gotten the joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The origin of this joke may possibly lie in the article on The Rutles (A British Beatles parody from the late 1970's). Britmax 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hagiography
At least, from my vantage point.
That's what this article seems like to me.
Do you think it would be possible to either substantially expand the criticism portion, or-at the very least-move it further up in the article?
If you have more information to include, you're welcome to do so. I don't see it as a puff piece, so I think the topical order is fine as it stands. —Down10TACO 07:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
AIDS
"Cuba's labor camp system was eventually used to jail "gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims.""
Its quite certain than Guevara himself didn't jail any AIDS victim.... Ericd 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly as you say, he most certainly did not. He also did not send any "dissidents, gays, or religious believers" there. The text in the "Criticism" section needs to be revised to make this clear -- would you perhaps be interested in undertaking this? (As you have probably seen elsewhere on this page, I have already dialogued at length about this matter, but it seems my point has not gotten through so I have given up trying to explain it.) -- Polaris999 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sentence removed because incorrect source was given
At 04:41, 18 June 2006, User:4.154.72.112 added the following sentence to the "Criticism" section:
Other commentators such as former radical radical David Horowitz derided Guevara's status among affluent Western youth as a symbol of adolescent rebellion by calling him "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle." [5]
The source given for the above statement is, first, not presented in the standard WP format as per WP:CITE; second, when I went to the amazon.com site to which it links and searched inside the book by David Horowitz presented there, the name "Morrison" did not appear on any page of the book, therefore the cited work cannot be the source for the statement in question (see WP:V).
While it is possible that Horowitz made such a statement, the correct source must be cited if it is to be included in the CG article, and this information must be provided both in a source note in the format used throughout this article (i.e., <ref></ref>) and in the appropriate section of the "References" section. -- Polaris999 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I obviously misremembered. If I find the exact source I'll resubmit.
[[User:The Sanity Inspector|The Sanity Inspector}}
Good luck on finding it -- I thought it made a good wrap-up sentence there at the end of the "Criticism" section which is why I tried to find the necessary information to complete the source note and reference in order to keep it there. Am hoping you will have more success in sourcing it than I did so that it can be restored ... -- Polaris999 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: Perhaps this is a clue you can use in attempting to track down the quote. Having already searched exhaustively and unsuccessfully for any page combining the names "David Horowitz", "Che Guevara" and "Jim Morrison", and then for the statement itself, I decided to proceed on the hypothesis that someone other than David Horowitz might have made the comment in question. After several minutes of googling, this led me to the following:
In a 1987 article in Spin, Scott Cohen, in an imaginary meeting with Che in a cafe to discuss the revolution in America, compares Che to Jim Morrison (as to Fidel Castro's Jerry Garcia).
Do you think this attribution may be correct? If you ever happen to have access to the 1987 issues of Spin, perhaps you would want to look for the Scott Cohen article and see if he did indeed say it. BTW, the above sentence comes from a webpage [7] that has more than one error on it and cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Polaris999 02:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Acta de Nacimiento de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (Birth Certificate)
I think that makes it clear, doesn't it? "Al expresado niño se le ha puesto el nombre de Ernesto" (no middle name). BTW, and just in case: a Wikipedia article cannot serve as the source/reference for another Wikipedia article. You can take info from one WP to another, or between articles in the same WP, but that information can only be as good as its original sources. Ideally, every fact that is not widely known and uncontroversial should be sourced. —Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do hope that it makes it clear and puts an end to the confusion once and for all. I am appending below a transcription to help people read the relevant section of the document more easily ... Polaris999 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The pertinent excerpts from his official Birth Certificate, shown above, read as follows:
el día quince de junio de mil novecientos veintiocho a las diez y siete horas
Ante mí, Jefe encargado del Registro del Estado Civil, se presentó Don Ernesto Rafael Guevara domiciliado en calle Entre Ríos cuatrocientos ochenta de veintiocho años de edad de estado casado de nacionalidad argentina de profesión hacendado vecino de esta ciudad declarando
Que en su domicilio el día catorce del corriente mes de junio a las tres y cinco horas nació un niño de color blanco que es hijo legítimo suyo y de su esposa Doña Celia de la Serna y Llosa, de veintidos años de edad, argentina.
Que es nieto por línea paterna de Don Roberto Guevara y de Doña Ana Lynch y, por línea materna, de Don Juan Martín de la Serna y de Doña Edelmira Llosa y que al expresado niño se le ha puesto el nombre de Ernesto
Todo lo cual presenciaron como testigos Don Raúl Lynch de veintidos años de edad de estado soltero, de nacionalidad argentina, de profesión Marino domiciliado en esta ciudad y Don José Beltran de treinta años de edad, de estado soltero, de nacionalidad brasileña de profesión chofer.
(Signatures of Ernesto Guevara Lynch, the two witnesses, and the Jefe del Registro del Estado Civil appear at the bottom of the document.)
"Sala Nº3 En esta sala, la cual fuera su dormitorio, se pueden observar fotografías y documentos relacionados con los primeros años de vida de Ernesto, tales como el Acta de Nacimiento de Rosario, el 14 de junio de 1928, fotografías de su paso por Misiones, o documentación autenticada de las escuelas a las que asistió."
And here is one additional piece of confirmatory evidence — the name that the Cuban Consejo de Estado inscribed on his coffin (which rests in the Che Guevara Mausoleum in Santa Clara) is Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, viz:Coffin of Che Guevara
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is Archive 7 covering approximately 29 June 2006 - 19 Sep 2006
Che Guevara's Last Words
I have just noticed that a short time ago a wikipedian entered a comment re CG's last words in an incorrect location here on the Talk page, so I am creating this as a new topic and will transfer his comment into it.
Polaris999 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
HEYYYYYYY those arent che guevara´s final words!! NO WAYY!his last words in Spanish were "dejeme ponerme de pie!, y por favor sostenga la pistola fuertemente!.... usted esta por matar a un hombre!" that in Enlgish would be: "let me stand up... please hold the gun firmly... you are about to kill a man!". Anyone who has read about Che Guevara knows this... i hope it will be changed.... thanx felix
Your version sounds highly credible to me but please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as explained in WP:V and then make the change accompanied by the required source note and citation in the "References" section. Perhaps you did not notice that the version included here has a source note showing that it is from the book by Jon Lee Anderson (page 739, if you wish to verify it). -- Polaris999 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that the exact words may never be known, though all transcriptions seem to include something to the effect of "you are about to kill a man." But it isn't like there was a tape recorder running or a number of impartial witnesses. If there are significant citable variations, we should probably mention them in a footnote. - Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Jmabel. I have been at work researching this. There is a significant preponderance of evidence in favor of the "Serénese y apunte bien! Usted va a matar un hombre!" version. I want to check a few more sources, but if these concur I think that we can make the change. Also, it does appear that, upon realizing that he was about to be executed, Guevara had struggled to his feet with the comment, "I want to be standing for this." Those, however, were not exactly his last words. -- Polaris999 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For felix's quote to be accurate "dejeme ponerme de pie!" Would translate to "Let me get to my feet." Throw 08:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Final Hours
At 17:27, 9 July 2006, User:Sniggity inserted the following two sentences into the "Capture and Execution" sub-section:
According to a program on the The History Channel, Félix Rodríguez briefly spoke with Che on the evening prior to his execution and informed Che that he was to be executed. After being told, there are reports from Rodriguez and a guard that Che turned white as a ghost and could barely speak a word.
There are some problems with this text. First, it is not properly referenced as per the WP:CITE criteria. When adding information to this featured article, please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as established in WP:V and then create:
(1) the required source note, and
(2) the corresponding citation in the "References" section.
Second, one point all sources seem to be in agreement about concerning Guevara's final hours is the fact that Félix Rodríguez arrived in La Higuera aboard a helicopter with Colonel Zenteno early on the morning of 09 October. There is no record of his having been in La Higuera and spoken with Guevara the evening before (see, for example, Taibo, Paco Ignacio II. Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che, page 701). Guevara was executed at approximately 1:10 pm on 09 October, so he was not alive the evening of 09 October to be speaking with anyone. Therefore, in order for the sentence you have inserted to be correct (assuming that you heard it clearly) either Rodríguez has changed his story after all these years, or the History Channel misrepresented what he said. It is important to document which case applies if this sentence is going to be added to the article. Thank you -- Polaris999 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I repeat
To my disappointment, no one has taken up the single most important issue for this article. I will repeat:
We need documentation on the statement attributed in this article to Guevara that had the nuclear missiles of the Cuban Missile Crisis been under Cuban rather than Soviet control, they (presumably meaning he and Castro) would have fired them against major US cities. No other aspect of this man's life is as important. If it is accurate, and he seriously favored the direct murder of millions in an act that would certainly have triggered all-out nuclear holocaust and the death of billions and a collapse of civilization, it is safe to say that history will eventually see him for what he must have been: a dangerous, malevolent lunatic. If it is not accurate, the debate will go on... I will be trying to ferret out sources on this, but my time and energy is severely limited due to illness. I urge others to find reliable references and link to or quote from them on this Talk page so we can craft a definitive paragraph on this point for the article.
Sorry for the repetition, but all these other issues are tiny compared to this. JDG 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what kind of documentation are you seeking? (since this statement is already sourced in the article) -- Polaris999 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
For starters, we should have a third party verification of the Daily Worker quote. Then some background for the comment and the leading theories on what he really meant (I'm sure there are a few). JDG 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you perhaps not familiar with the concept of the "beautiful death"? Maybe you will find the following to be of interest:
It is now known that Fidel Castro and his comrade Che Guevara were arguing in favor of the Russians using the missiles against the United States. They were ready for their martyrdom and the martyrdom of Cuba. But Anastas Mikoyan, in Cuba participating in the crisis on behalf of the Soviet Union, was opposed to any such "beautiful death." Castro, Khrushchev and Kennedy
Other sources include the now de-classified papers of Mikoyan himself, the article by James G. Blight and David A. Welch, Risking The Destruction of Nations: Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis for New and Aspiring Nuclear States, Security Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1995), pp. 811-850, and the books:
Carla Anne Robbins, The Cuban Threat (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983)
Yuri Pavlov, Soviet-Cuban Alliance: 1959-1991 (Miami: University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute; 2nd edition, February 1996) (Pavlov was the Director of Latin America in the USSR Foreign Ministry at the time of the Missile Crisis.)
James G. Blight and David A. Welch. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993).
Laurence Chang and Peter Kornbluh, eds. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 (New York, W.W. Norton,1998; revised edition, 200?).
A.I. Gribkov, editor.On the Brink of the Nuclear Abyss (Moscow: Gregory Page, 1993)
Fidel Castro's 26 October 1962 letter to Khruschev is of particular importance because in it he calls on the Soviet leadership to launch a first-strike nuclear war against the USA if Cuba were invaded. Various Kremlin insiders have reported that it was after reading this letter that a shaken Khruschev decided upon the immediate withdrawal of the nuclear missiles from Cuba. (Probably it is no coincidence that the day after sending this letter to Khruschev, Castro ordered the shooting down of a U-2 plane that was flying over Cuba -- an act which he probably expected would precipitate a U.S. attack on Cuba; indeed, such a response was called for by Kennedy's military advisors, but he chose to ignore their counsel.)
Lest there be any doubt about Fidel Castro's intentions in this regard, the following is an excerpt from his statement to the 1992 conference concerning the Missile Crisis which he made in response to a query from Robert McNamara:
Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons.… The Cuban Missile Crisis by Robert McNamara
Finally, here is a quote from Che in his essay Táctica y Estrategia de la Revolución Latinoamericana which Cuba did not publish until after his death (specifically, on 6 October 1968 in the armed forces' magazine "Verde Olivo", page 16.):
El peligro mayor que entraña la Revolución cubana está en su ejemplo, en su divulgación revolucionaria, en que el Gobierno ha podido elevar el temple de este pueblo, dirigido por un líder de alcance mundial, a alturas pocas veces vistas en la historia. Es el ejemplo escalofriante de un pueblo que está dispuesto a inmolarse atómicamente para que sus cenizas sirvan de cimiento a las sociedades nuevas y que, cuando se hace, sin consultarlo, un pacto por el cual se retiran los cohetes atómicos, no suspira de alivio, no da gracias por la tregua; salta a la palestra para dar su voz propia y única; su posición combatiente, propia y única, y más lejos, su decisión de lucha, aun cuando fuera solo, contra todos los peligros y contra la mismísima amenaza atómica del imperialismo yanqui.
Perhaps after consulting these and other relevant works you, or some other wikipedian, will decide to expand the paragraph in question. (Should you wish to read my thoughts on the subject, please see Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 4:Che - a humanitarian?.) -- Polaris999 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see why this is an overwhelmingly notable issue. I would have thought most politicians from any country would state, if asked, that they would fire nuclear missiles to defend their country from invasion. That's exactly what they are produced for. Surely the act of lunacy would have been the initial invasion of a country in posession of nuclear missiles. Canderra 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it might be nice to track down the particular citation in the Daily Worker. Right now, the quote trails off oddly in the footnote "…clearly a man of great intelligence though I thought he was crackers from the way he went on about the." I believe only James Joyce is allowed to end a sentence with "the". - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Jmabel, for pointing out that the final word had been cut off the end of that sentence. Looking back over the article's history, I discovered that this act of vandalism had occurred yesterday, i.e. at 04:35, 26 July 2006, perpetrated by User:68.88.234.65. I'm very glad that your sharp eyes caught it, and I have now restored the missing word which was "missiles". -- Polaris999 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I see here is that the Wikipedia version claims that Che said he would attack major US cities, while the citation itself says nothing about cities. Where is the quote about attacking major cities? If someone has it, please post a link or copy the citation with respective quote. BBUCommander
"If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression. But we haven't got them, so we shall fight with what we've got." Source: Jorge Castaňeda, Che Guevara: Compañero, p. 231. -- Polaris999 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Awfully long lead section
Polaris asked me to give my impression of recent changes to the article. I don't have the focus to really give this right now, but one thing leaps out: the lead section has become much longer than is normal for a biography, even of a major figure with a complicated life. For examples of other featured biographies of political figures, consider Attila the Hun, ClaudiusJoan of Arc, (all much shorter); Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu (somewhat shorter); Mahatma Ghandi is the only other one I see that is about this long. I'm sure that pretty much everything there is echoed below; I'm almost certain it could be said more succinctly in the lead, and perhaps some of it omitted from the lead, but I don't have the energy to take it on right now. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have moved User:Kwertii's re-write of the lead section over here to the Talk page so that other editors can comment on it and a consensus can be reached as to whether it should replace the existing lead section which has been part of the Che Guevara article since shortly before it was promoted to FA status. According to Wikipedia:The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article ... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail."
Please enter your comments about the proposed changes below the text. Thank you. -- Polaris999 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
After his death, Guevara became an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide. An Alberto Kordaphoto of Guevara (shown) has received wide distribution and modification. The Maryland Institute College of Art called this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."[7]
Comandante Doctor Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna (June 14, 1928[Birthdate] – October 9, 1967), commonly known as Che Guevara or simply Che, was an Argentine-bornphysician best known for his leading role in the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s, his prominent roles in the Cuban revolutionary government, and for his subsequent resignation from his Cuban offices in order to devote himself to further attempts to spread Marxist revolution around the world. Guevara and his famous photograph are well-known the world over as symbols of idealistic revolutionary socialism.
As a young man studying medicine in Buenos Aires, Guevara travelled rough on a motorcycle tour of Latin America. His travels brought him into direct contact with the severe poverty that afflicts many people in the region, a sharp contrast to the well-off surroundings in which he had been raised. He moved to Guatemala, where he became personally involved in a leftist social revolution under Guatemala's first democratically-elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. The various socialist reforms proved troublesome for American companies doing business in Guatemala, and Guzmán was overthrown in 1954 by a right-wing military coup orchestrated by the AmericanCIA. The experience radicalized Guevara; he became convinced that only a revolution by force against capitalism and against the influence of the United States in particular could remedy Latin America's extreme economic inequality.
Guevara continued his travels through Latin America. In Mexico, he met Raul and Fidel Castro, who were planning a revolution in their native Cuba from abroad against US-leaning General Fulgencio Batista, who had assumed power years before following a military coup. Che joined the brothers' paramilitary26th of July Movement. Though only 12 members survived the group's disastrous initial landing in Cuba, they finally overthrew Batista's government on January 1, 1959.
Che served in various important posts in the new government, and wrote a number of articles and books on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare. Very influential with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Che advocated a hardline anti-capitalist foreign policy involving active efforts to create further socialist revolutions abroad and preparation for direct military conflict with the United States. He grew increasingly disillusioned with the Soviet Union, especially after the Soviets agreed to remove their long-range nuclear missiles from Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which he viewed as a betrayal. Guevara then went on several diplomatic missions to other Third World countries in an unsuccessful attempt to forge an anti-capitalist political and economic bloc that was not aligned with the Soviet Union.
Guevara resigned his government posts and left Cuba in 1965 with the intention of directly fomenting Marxist revolutions abroad himself. He first went to the Congo-Kinshasa (later called the Democratic Republic of the Congo), and then to Bolivia. He did not meet with the widespread popular support he had expected in either country, and both operations were unsuccessful. He was captured in Bolivia by a CIA/ U.S. Army Special Forces-organized military operation [8] and was executed shortly thereafter, 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.
After his death, Guevara became an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide. An Alberto Kordaphoto of Guevara (shown) has received wide distribution and modification. The Maryland Institute College of Art called this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."[9]
As for the length, I believe that a good introduction should catch all the highlights of a major figure's life; a biography-in-a-nutshell that will suggest useful sections within the body of the article that one can consult for further information on a topic of particular interest to the reader, and this is hardly one of only a few articles on Wikipedia that adopts that style. I like intros in the style of Mahatma Ghandi, George Washington, and Napoleon much better than the terse style of Claudius or Vladimir Lenin. The latter read more like a biographical dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article. They tell the reader very little that they did not already know before consulting the article. That's a good first paragraph for an introductory section in an article; it is not so good as the entire introduction. A reader interested in a figure generally at e.g. Vladimir Lenin is forced to spend a long time churning through the entire detailed article body just to know the high points of the figure's life. The casual reader, in all likelihood, is not actually be interested in knowing what high school the figure went to or exactly what years they spent in a certain job, and a good intro should not require them to wade through that sort of thing just to learn the broad outlines of their life: not merely what they did in life in condensed form, but also the general outlines of why and how. An intro should give the casual reader something more than merely "Marxist revolutionary known for his part in the Cuban Revolution after travelling on a motorcycle across South America while he was at university and seeing poor people; has a famous photograph."
As for the reversion, there is no policy requiring one to discuss major edits on Talk before implementing them; nor is there any standard practice of consulting previous authors before editing "their" pages; nor are Featured Articles treated any differently than any other articles in terms of editing policy. Quite the contrary, actually (e.g. Wikipedia:Editing policy; Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, Category:Wikipedia featured content, among others.) If there is something factually inaccurate or POV in what I wrote, by all means discuss it here and/or change it. As far as I can tell, there is nothing factually or POVly wrong with my edits (that I am aware of), and I see no legitimate grounds for your reversion, Polaris999. Simply making a large edit without letting other editors comment on it first is not generally considered grounds for reversion; in fact, this flies in the face of standard practice on Wikipedia. I am therefore restoring my edit. Kwertii 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)
Francesco Petrarca or Petrarch (1304 – 1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages…
Lead section. The next most common problem in articles nominated to be featured is the lead section. Since featured articles are rarely considered comprehensive if they are less than 15kb or so of text, almost all FAs should have a lead section of 2-3 full paragraphs, but no longer. An ideal lead section should summarize all of the most important facets of the topic at hand and establish why the topic is important. That means the lead section should concisely cover what impact, use, or effect the topic has had whether that impact is large or limited. The summary in the lead section should, of course, be detailed and substantiated with evidence and citations later in the article.
The two preceding excerpts were posted into this discussion topic by Polaris999 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC) .
The following are the explanations of changes I have made to the lead section written by User:Kwertii as it appears in the article. He restored his version of the lead section into the article shortly after I had posted it here for discussion because, as he explains in his comment above, he does not consider it necessary to discuss changes or reach consensus about them. (To see the actual changes I made, please refer to the article's History page.) The changes I made have not addressed the matter of the length of the lead section since I only removed one sentence, i.e. the last sentence of the first paragraph of his re-write of said section, which I removed because (as noted below) that sentence repeated information contained in the 6th paragraph of the same section.
(correction: the "u" in Raul is accented)
(removing sentence that repeats what is said in the (now) 6th paragraph of this section; this point doesn't need to be made twice in this section)
(he travelled directly from Guatemala to Mexico which are neighboring countries)
(correcting naming errors: nickname or first name should not be used to refer to the subject of the biography -- see WP:Manual of Style (biographies) #Subsequent uses of names)
(naming error -- Guzmán is the matronymic of this individual, his surname is Arbenz)
(removing "Che" from first appearance of name: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) Pseudonyms, stage names and common names)
(Military rank is not supposed to be included in the lead sentence. Look at Eisenhower, Rommel, etc.)
(removed title "Dr." -- use of academic titles in lead paragraph and elsewhere is deprecated: pls see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles)
These changes seem perfectly reasonable to me. Kwertii 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some general problems?
I'm coming at this from the persective of someone who knows little about the subject, I was reading to learn and noticed a few things. In the "Guatemala" section, a woman "Hilda Gadea" is introduced as Che's main political contact. The next reference is to Che selling her jewelry, it isn't until later in the "Cuba" section that they are noted as being in a relationship. The sentence directly after the jewelry selling is "Then, on May 15, 1954, a shipment of high-quality Skoda infantry and light artillery weapons sent from Communist Czechoslovakia for the Arbenz Government arrived in Puerto Barrios aboard the Swedish ship Alfhem.", but there is no clear reference as to why this is particulary important to the article, and the paragraph goes on talking about tonnage of this shipment and Che going to get a new Visa. I can kind of connect the dots, but it seems to me a bit confusing the way it is written.--Trees4est 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "Guatemala" section needs cleanup. The editor who "created" it doesn't seem to be active on this article any more, so I guess that someone else needs to undertake the task. Volunteers? -- Polaris999 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Polaris, do I take it from that remark that you are not volunteering? On the whole, I've been impressed with your consistently knowledgable and even-handed treatment of this controversial figure. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, thank you very much for your words of encouragement, but I was thinking it would be good if someone else were to "take a turn". Among other things, I find it confusing that (as you remark below in the topic "Size again") many readers/editors have been complaining that the article is too long, but then when someone more than doubles the length of the lead section by merely repeating information that is already included elsewhere in the article, neither these people, nor anyone else, seems to object. I do not know how to interpret this seeming contradiction and until (unless) I understand it, I do not think that I will be doing much work on this article. -- Polaris999 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have undertaken a major re-write of the Guatemala section in an attempt to address the issues mentioned above but did not want to use the actual Che Guevara article as my "scratchpad". I therefore created a sandbox for this purpose at Talk:Che_Guevara/Sandbox/Guatemala#Work_in_progress. I would appreciate feedback as to whether my draft should replace the existing section, or whether it should be further improved (and how), and/or other suggestions. Thank you -- Polaris999 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As twenty-four hours have passed without any comments concerning the re-write, I have moved it into the main article so editors can modify it there if they wish, or revert it if they think the previous version was better. -- Polaris999 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Size again
I read in this talk page a notice regarding the size of the article (80KB at the time). The article is now 96KB, that's almost THREE times the recommended article size. My head hurts from reading. --Iafrate 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Got my facts wrong.. it's "only" 94KB. I apologize. --Iafrate 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Other than shortening the introduction (which seems to be an unpopular proposal), it's really hard to imagine what to cut. This has become (with the inevitable limitiation of successfully "digesting" new contributions) a really good piece on Guevara. Iafrate, any concrete suggestions for trimming? - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit. Just mentioning it's size problems, and not proposing solutions to shorten the article without lowering the quality, was too easy.... shame on me... but I still think the article is too long, making it less readable. If work and wife allows me, I'll get back on saturday or sunday with a list of proposed actions for shortening, for all here to discuss. Cheers. --Iafrate 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For the information of anyone who may be interested, the "readable prose" in this article is only 64 KB per a count I did at 04:25, 18 August 2006. According to Wikipedia:Article size, For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose[1] (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose.
[1]Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting.
I think the size of the article is fine. Though I do prefer the earlier more concise introduction.--Zleitzen 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the main body is 64 KB, but that is still twice the recommended size. So I still feel the article is too long, and it is my opinion, that the length makes it hard to read from beginning to end. As I stated earlier, I will post suggestions for shortening later, but I'll add an example of what I feel is unnecessary information in the article: "Guevara learned chess from his father and began participating in local tournaments by the age of 12.[5]" It might be sourced, but I think it's irrelevant for the article. --Iafrate 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Iafrate, as far as I am concerned you can strip the article down to nothing. It might be nice if enough of it could be left, and in decent enough condition, so that it could maintain its "Featured Article" status, but, in the end, that really doesn't matter either, does it? -- Polaris999 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was only trying to improve the quality of the article. That was my only concern. No article is perfect, but I get the feeling from the above statement, that you want me to leave the article alone. So I will. Have a nice weekend. --Iafrate 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to come into this discussion late, but I really do believe the earlier concise introduction was better. I don't think an article of 64KB is an issue at all, forget the auto response claiming a recommended size - there are many featured articles that are far longer than this one (this is actually quite a short article considering the subject matter). And please be extremely cautious before attempting to remove material from a featured article! --Zleitzen 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been BOLD and replaced the intro with the shorter featured article verison. If anyone has an issue with that, blame me!--Zleitzen 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Z: you might concentrate your efforts on content rather than style, as it is this article quite biased. For example it does not even full admit Guevara's role as executioner, yet "cries like a baby" when talking about his death. El Jigue 8-23-06
El Jigue, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a fascist propaganda-outlet. If you want that, go find yourself some of the original Cuban exiles (there must be some of them left), you know, the Batista-fans. There you can excrete your junk all you like, not here. 82.176.194.151 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that, unless he is lying to us (which I don't think he is) El Jigue fought against Batista, that remark is rather out of line. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed as far as I know and what he has allowed us to know, El Jigue is one of a significant number of Cubans who opposed both Batista and Castro/Guevara. As many of the leaders of the anti-Castro opposition such as Manuel Ray opposed Batista. Cuban exiles are by no means synonymous with support of Batista. Far from it in fact. I just wish El Jigue would contribute more to correcting the historical aspects of wikipedia as his knowledge is second to none here.--Zleitzen 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC) * * * * *
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is Archive 8 covering approximately 19 Sep 2006 - 3 October 2006
Physician, etc.
I see that "physician" was recently removed from the lead. He was certainly degreed in medicine. I don't know the relevant considerations in the relevant countries, and I know that these terms vary from country to country. Can someone please come up with a term that is appropriate, and put it back in the lead? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel -- Would appreciate your thoughts (and those of other editors also, should they wish to give them) about the following: At 02:20, 14 September 2006, User:Kevin shepard inserted the bolded text into the 2nd sentence of the lead paragraph:
As a young man studying medicine, hoping to later become a doctor, Guevara traveled "rough" throughout Latin America, bringing him into direct contact with the impoverished conditions in which many people live.
Do you think that this addition enhances the sentence in question or that it is redundant and should be removed? Thank you, -- Polaris999 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I presume that a young man studying medicine would hope to become a doctor. I may be wrong but I could happily live without that additional piece of info.--Zleitzen 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
My feeling exactly ... -Polaris999 04:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In the systems of medical education common in Latin America, it is my understanding that the title "Doctor" refers to completion of first four years of theoretical studies, after secondary studies. Clinical experience training which usually takes about three more additional years makes a Doctor into a "Medico." It seems from his biography that by this definition Guevara was a Doctor (if he completed the first four years) but not a Medico. El Jigue 9-17-06
You have this backwards. "Medico" is the profession - physician. "Doctor" is an especially learned person who has additional postgraduate education. It´s sort of like having a Ph.D. in addition to your M.D. in the States. But in practice all physicians are called "Doctor" or "Doctora," even if they don´t have a doctorate. Regarding Che, I find his status as a physican to be nearly irrelevant and not worthy of appearing in the opening paragraph. He spent far more effort stealing, torturing, and executing than he ever did as a healer. - PJ 11-2-06
References to 7th year of Medicine in Argentina include: "parte de la currícula de séptimo año de la Carrera de Medicina." [8]
"Alumno de 7º año de la carrera de Médico" [9]
"Pasantía Rural como actividad para el 7º año de la carrera de médico. " [10]. Thus it seems that my statement above is consistent with medical education in Argentina. Thus, it follows logically that Ernesto "Che" Guevara had completed only about four of the required seven years of studies that would have given him the degree of Médico. Thus I suggest that this distinction ("As a young man studying medicine, hoping to later become a doctor") has place in his biography. However, the statement that "Upon his return to Argentina, he completed his medical studies" seems incorrect. As is now my usual practice I will not change the text, but merely smile at yet another Wikipedia error. El Jigue 9-18-06
Discrepancy over motorcycle's name
While the common English translation of Guevara's motocycle's name, La Poderosa, is "The Mighty One", I feel it's an inaccurate translation. A literal translation would be "The Powerful One" as "Poder" means "Power" in Spanish. Though another translation (which makes more sense to me) would be "The Almighty." In religious use God is often referred to (mostly in prayer) as "Dios todo Poderoso" ("God Almighty"). I feel this is something that should be corrected. "The Mighty One" is the accepted translation in the biographies I've read, and though it makes insignificant difference, I felt like pointing it out. Throw 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Throw. That translation of "La Poderosa" was contributed by User:Phaunt at 13:01, 1 February 2005, as follows:
Revision as of 13:01, 1 February 2005 (edit) -- Phaunt (Talk | contribs) -- (→Youth - added tranlation of La Poderosa)
In 1951, Guevara's older friend, Alberto Granado, a biochemist and a political radical, suggested that Guevara take a year off his medical studies to embark on a trip they had talked of doing for years, traversing South America on a Norton 500 cc motorcycle nicknamed La Poderosa ("The mighty one"), with the idea of spending a few weeks volunteering at a leper colony in Peru on the banks of the Amazon River during the trip. History
I have always felt that its name would be better translated as "The Powerful One" and would be pleased to see this change made if other editors are in agreement. -- Polaris999 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Would I be "party pooper" if I pointed out the darn thing broke down and was apparently abandoned. El Jigue 9-15-06
So true -- their travel got even "rougher" at that point! ;-) -- Polaris999 02:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Opinions, please --
Someone recently inserted the adjective "communist" into the sentence below to describe Sartre; no citation is provided. (The source note at the end of the sentence is one that I had put there many months ago: It is a source for the comment by Sartre, not for the description of him as "communist".)
Guevara was called "the most complete human being of our age" by the French communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.[10]
I would like to hear from other editors whether they consider "communist" a correct description of Sartre, or whether the adjective should be removed and the sentence returned to its status quo ante. Thank you. -- Polaris999 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
See your own Wikipage on Jean_Poul Sartre [11] "He embraced communism, though he never officially joined the Communist party, and took a prominent role in the struggle against French colonialism in Algeria." In my book if Sartre thought Guevara who, in the name of revolutionary marxism, killed a great many people, often with his own hands, was "the most complete human being of our age," he sounds like a communist and acts like one, no matter what label Wikipedia wants to put on him. El Jigue 9-20-06
Hello, El Jigüe -- Actually I did look at the Wikipedia Sartre article before posing the query here. However, as you know, one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for another, so the question as to whether or not this article re Che Guevara should describe Sartre as "communist", and, if so, what source should be given for this description remains pending. -- Polaris999 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is most certainly not our place to speculate who "sounds like a Communist". If Sartre was not a member of the CP, the adjective does not apply. Period. End of story. Some other adjective might apply, like "fellow-traveller" or "Communist-inspired". But that would only be necessary for someone with a lot less prominence than Sartre, where context was needed. People can read his article for more discussion of Sartre, if needed. In fact, I think the adjectives "French" and "philosopher" are a bit superfluous here also (arguably, he's better read as a novelist or journalist, for example... though this is hardly the place for that clarification). In an article about Guevara, we need not use any adjectives to insinuate what Sartre was or was not specifically; he's relevant just for the quote, and needs no more than his name to introduce it. LotLE×talk 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that when communists (note lower c) organize into parties they tend to have overt or red (Alba nomenclature) and black or covert members. Alba, Víctor 1968 Politics and the labor movement in Latin America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. ASIN B0006BNYGK El Jigue 9-23-06
Thus, while it is easy to tag a "card carrying" Communist it is far more difficult to define the association of a communist to this ideology. Thus one can argue that Sartre was not a Communist and yet still was a communist. Such cases still raise interest as aging communists in Cuba, apparently seeking some kind of immortality in written history, reveal and/or enhance their original covert status as Communist Party members (PSP) e.g. García Verdecia, José (pepe “El Bravo”) accessed 9-21-06 Testimonios de las luchas del campesinado en nuestro municipio Dirección de Cultura, Colombia, Las Tunas, Cuba. Jueves 21 de septiembre del 2006 [12]. El Jigue 9-23-06
That Sartre was a "black" Communist is exactly the conclusion toward which I am leaning after what I have recently read about him. Perhaps there is an in-depth investigation of his political affiliations somewhere, and it might make interesting reading. For the purpose of this article, however, I agree with LotLE×talk that no adjectives are necessary since a link to the Wikipedia article about him is provided. -- Polaris999 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The double secret codicles of Wikipedia
Xe xe that response above is most amusing, it sounds as if Wikipedia is run by Dean Wormer of the movie "Animal House", with his double secret codicles. Well this most apt demonstration of a ban on internal consistency, supports my thesis that Wikipedia is frequently and selectively biased. If you want a better product you better do some of the work and look up the same reference as is cited, xe xe El Jigue 9-22-06
Since nobody seems ready even to do the smallest bit of work or is it "... each according to his ability" (:>. Here we go:
"he was a political polemicist who embraced Marxism and Communism, supporting the purges of Stalin and Mao. In the latter years of his life he marched in the streets for Third World liberation and exhausted himself intellectually in the hopeless task of reconciling existentialism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis." [13]. Or " Dopo l'adesione al comunismo, Sartre trascorse il resto della sua vita nel tentativo di riconciliare le idee esistenzialistiche con i principi del marxismo, convinto che le forze socio-economiche determinino il corso dell'esistenza umana." [14]. Or perhaps "Sartre, Jean-Paul philosopher and hero of the French Resistance, lived an unconventional and full life defining and popularizing the existentialist philosophy that says humans are frighteningly free but responsible for the choices they make. (Phototheque Hachette) French thinker born in 1905, engagement philosopher, existentialist, writer and dramaturge, author of " Being and Nothingness ," "Huis Clos," " Les Mouches ," "Les Mains Sales," "La Nausee," "Critique of Dialectic Reason," and " Les Mots " for which he received, in 1960, the nobel prize that he declined; director of the forbidden "Cause du peuple" and " Liberation " until 1974. * He took part in the French Resistance and was taken prisoner in second world war.He joined the Communist Party (PC) because of the need to take an active part in the fight for the proletarian. *With Simone de Beauvoir , he traveled to Cuba China Russia Africa , to promote the revolutions." [15]
xe xe Now I will lay back and watch revisionists attack each point and then defying reason say Sartre was not a communist xe xe El Jigue 9-22-06
Speaking of "double secret", what exactly is a codicle? Is this a neologism you have invented to further confound the issue?
Returning to the subject of acceptable sources for Wikipedia, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Reliable sources that speaks to that topic:
When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources [2]. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. There is a wealth of reliable information in tertiary sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant [3], it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references.
Since the Encyclopædia Britannica is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources as an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I have read its article about Sartre and have extracted the following relevant statements about his political affiliation, which seems to have varied over time:
"After World War II, Sartre took an active interest in French political movements, and his leanings to the left became more pronounced. He became an outspoken admirer of the Soviet Union, although he did not become a member of the Communist Party. In 1954 he visited the Soviet Union, Scandinavia, Africa, the United States, and Cuba. Upon the entry of Soviet tanks into Budapest in 1956, however, Sartre's hopes for communism were sadly crushed. He wrote in Les Temps Modernes a long article, “Le Fantôme de Staline,” that condemned both the Soviet intervention and the submission of the French Communist Party to the dictates of Moscow. Over the years this critical attitude opened the way to a form of “Sartrian Socialism” that would find its expression in a new major work, Critique de la raison dialectique (1960; Eng. trans., of the introduction only, under the title The Problem of Method, 1963; U.S. title, Search for a Method). Sartre set out to examine critically the Marxist dialectic and discovered that it was not livable in the Soviet form. Although he still believed that Marxism was the only philosophy for the current times, he conceded that it had become ossified and that, instead of adapting itself to particular situations, it compelled the particular to fit a predetermined universal. Whatever its fundamental, general principles, Marxism must learn to recognize the existential concrete circumstances that differ from one collectivity to another and to respect the individual freedom of man." -- Sartre, Jean-Paul. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved September 23, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-6428
I find most interesting the statement in your 3rd source (above) to the effect that "He joined the Communist Party (PC) because of the need to take an active part in the fight for the proletarian." as it is in total opposition to what is written in the Wikipedia Sartre article, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online article and, in fact, all the other sources I have consulted. I nevertheless suspect that it may be correct ... -- Polaris999 05:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Darn my old memory what "Dean Wormer" said was:
"[Dean Wormer's plotting to get rid of Delta House]
Greg Marmalard: But Delta's already on probation.
Dean Vernon Wormer: They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION! " [16]
Codicle [17], is an archaic spelling for codicil [18] it means "little code or law." That is the trouble of being multilingual one sustitutes words in one language into another. Long agao Martin Albert told me that would happen and it would get worse when I got older, he was correct.
Martin L. Albert and Loraine K. Obler 1978 Perspectives In Neurolinguistics : The Bilingual Brain : Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism Academic Press ISBN0120487500
This brings us to the question of exclusive use of translations, which bring their own conscious and unconscious baggage which cause differences between the original and the translation. I suggest that where possible, both the original and the translated versions be cited. For instance Mary Alice Waters' translation of "Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War" ISBN0873488245 is affected both by her marxist ideology, and her lack of familiarity with the Cuban milieu, especially that of the Sierra Maestra and ethnic roots. To Waters the Sierra Montuno, --inheritor to the Taíno, Cimarrón and Mambí cultures wild, armed and dangerous-- is a mere peasant. In addition, one should take into consideration the authors’ own biases, Guevara was a tireless self-promoter, as were and still are many powerful figures in history, from Ramses II to Columbus, and Batista to Kissinger. El Jigue 9-23-06
The problem you describe in the context of the Waters' translation is the reason I detest translations and prefer to quote -- and link to -- original language texts whenever possible. -- Polaris999 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've come to this belatedly, but… Granted that Sartre joined the Communist Party as a Resistance veteran at the time it was le parti des 75 000 fusillés, and was soon to become one of the parties in France's first post-war government. It was at least a contender for being the country's most prominent working class party of the time. Sartre was not a party activist. And the French Communist Party was not exactly a revolutionary force by the 1960s: they even opposed the uprisings of 1968. I don't see party affiliations being added to any of the other commentators cited in the article, and I don't think it would be appropriate to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Removal of the Spanish external links
Not to rock the boat of a clearly established and strong article... but the sizable list of Spanish language external links seems potentially unnecessary and potentially contrary to the English Wikipedia guideline on foreign language external links:
English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language.
Articles are requested to heed this guideline, so are all these Spanish links "official" or critical enough? --Ds13 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The matter of foreign language external links was discussed at some length a few months ago: You can read that exchange at [19]. There are some Spanish-language links that I think are important to include here, for example the one to Guevara's childhood home in Alta Gracia. Several others do not meet the criteria I would establish if it were left to me, but since this is a collective effort I have chosen not to delete them, and either other editors like the links in question or they share my reticence about deleting them. However, if you wish to delete them, please explain your reasons for removing each one individually and then the discussion can begin again ... Thank you. -- Polaris999 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes let us rid ourselves of the language of the nations in question, except of course those who favorably describe Guevara..... Ay Vey! Although Guevara's English was said to be good [20],, as far as I know he never wrote in this language... xe xe Such is the nonsense of Wikipedia El Jigue 9-22-06
(An aside: Thank you, El Jigue, for providing this great link. I have added it to the "External Links" section of the Che Guevara article. -- Polaris999 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
Sure, I wouldn't suggest that the subject's own words in his own language could be replaced. (And they should be accompanied, where possible, by notable English translations.) But any Spanish link we list here is (or should) be duplicated in the Spanish Wikipedia article also... and that article really where Spanish readers are going to seek Spanish writings on him, don't you think? --Ds13 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Your statement: "But any Spanish link we list here is (or should) be duplicated in the Spanish Wikipedia article also... and that article really where Spanish readers are going to seek Spanish writings on him, don't you think?" seems to be something of an "heroic" assumption to me. I would expect that any person who is bi-lingual in English and Spanish would read the articles in both Wikipedias about him (which are quite different, by the way.) Be that as it may, it is not for us, the editors of the English Wikipedia, to tell the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia which links they should include with the Che Guevara article in that language. Also, since I make the perhaps heroic assumption that more than half of the people who read the English-language Wikipedia have reading knowledge of at least one language other than English, my personal point of view is that including a limited number of foreign language links in a designated sub-section of the "External Links" section of articles in the English Wikipedia, especially in a case where the subject's mother tongue was a language other than English, is both beneficial and educational. -- Polaris999 06:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope my assumptions are clear, but not heroic. I'll explain.
We should have only a select few Spanish links in an English article, per the guidelines.
Therefore, the Spanish links we do inclue should be the most official and critical about the subject.
The Spanish article allows for a broad range of Spanish links about the subject.
Therefore, the Spanish editors are unlikely to exclude the most official and critical links about the subject.
Therefore, both the English and Spanish articles should be including most official and critical links about their subject.
I think you disagree with assumption #1, but changing the WP guidelines isn't going to be accomplished on this Talk page. --Ds13 15:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with your assumption #1 and also #2; I disagree with #4 as a result of having followed the Spanish-language article for several years now. Have you looked at its "Enlaces externos" section? While I agree with your #3 that "The Spanish article allows for a broad range of Spanish links about the subject.", the fact that it allows for a broad range of Spanish links doesn't mean that such links are in reality included there. In any case, what is going on over there is not, in my humble opinion, in any way relevant to what we are doing here. As I mentioned above, I personally would favor the removal of several of the Spanish-language links currently included in the "External Links" section of this, the English language article about Che Guevara. I also consider that a few of the English language links included here do not make a significant contribution and should be deleted. Perhaps you will undertake to "prune" both sections? -- Polaris999 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; even the English list of links could use a bit of trimming. And both trim jobs have already begun, it seems. --Ds13 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Back on 21 May 2006, I removed from the "External Links" section a recently-added link to Che Guevara Information Archive. A few days ago, it re-appeared in that section, and I am now removing it again for the same reasons I cited originally, i.e.:
I have also removed the newly-added site, Che Guevara Information Archive because (1) it devotes much of its space to commercial advertising, (2) it seems to be seriously out of date and (3) my review of it so far has failed to uncover any information not presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. Again, if others disagree, please present your reasons for supporting its inclusion here on the Talk page.
Interesting suggestion " Spanish links we do include should be the most official and critical about the subject." I interpret that to mean that only Castro government data would be allowed. Go ahead that only helps support my thesis that Wikipedia Cuban pages have fallen into the hands of Castro government supporters, El Jigue 9-23-06
"official" and "critical": hmmm, seems that someone would have to gain access to FCR's secret archives in order to find those links!! -- Polaris999 22:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
El Jique, I'm sorry to break it to you, but I can't be a supporting data point in your conspiracy thesis. Please read my comments for what they are: minor concern about relying on Spanish content in the English Wikipedia. Since verifiability comes above all else in Wikipedia, Spanish for an English reader can impede verification. --Ds13 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Since this is the English Wikipedia, webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in some cases:
when the website is the subject of the article
when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them
when the webpage contains key information found on no English-language site
In such cases indicate what language the site is in. For example:
You can also indicate the language by putting a language icon after the link. This is done using Template:Languageicon by typing {{Languageicon|<language code>|<language name>}}. Alternatively, you may type {{xx icon}}, where xx is the language code. See Category:Language icons for a list of these templates and the list of ISO 639 codes.
English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language.
When the external links are to sites in multiple languages, it can be useful to label them with language icons, including labeling the English-language sites in the list with {{en icon}}, which shows as (in English). These are available for most languages, and follow the usual two-letter language codes: for example, {{es icon}}, {{fr icon}}, etc.
I'll also point to "such as" in the quoted passage from the Manual of Style. These examples are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. In any event, this is a much fought-over issue in the Manual of Style, and, from experience, there is not a strong consensus on this. I'd be very hesitant to remove any link just on the basis of what language it is in unless the equivalent is available in English, in which case the English version certainly wins. - Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I agree that the Spanish Wikipedia is not relevant to the case. From my experience, their standards are simply lower. I'm involved in a lot of translation, and a typical Spanish-language Featured Article wouldn't even meet our Good Article criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Che Guevara's self promotion causes problems in a "factual" article
Guevara's constant self promotion and denigration of rival associates or victims of his executions causes problems in evaluation of his effect on history. For instance in Santa Clara, in "La ofensiva," in the Congo etc, his role is self-enhanced. Details such as when he left his men in the open on the banks of la Magadalena River (Cuban river not Colombian) when facing the well trained troops of Sanchez Mosqueda, or when he came too late to support Daniel in la ofensiva and Daniel died. Or after Ubero.when he riding a mule he belittles the urban guerrillas of Frank Pais, because these urban fighters could not move fast enough to please him in the mountains. We often find that the most cited articles are those that were written by Guevara, and thus resulting product of this biased information gives a "untrue" version of events. One of the matters that is so sadly amusing is the common criticism of the Bolivian Rangers for executing him, while ignoring the many times before when he executed his perceived enemies or rivals. El Jigue 9-26-06
Well, I would reason that this is simply the sad result of a well-oiled propaganda machine in Cuba. The fact that someone of Che Guevara's background could be elevated to "saintly" status boggles the mind when one researches the man. I recall walking through Old Havana with a cousin of mine while visiting him in Cuba. We walked past several European tourists wearing the iconic Che t-shirts at which point my cousin Carli stopped and asked me "why do the Europeans hate us so much?" I was a bit puzzled and asked him to elaborate. He replied something to the effect of "these people" come into "our" country "wearing these shirt . . . " "Don't they realize what he did?" When I explained that he is often viewed as a hero throughout the world he was utterly stupefied. It's always puzzled me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatboy95 (talk • contribs)
whoops! forgot to sign. aahhhh, the powerful tilde. Goatboy95 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is a historical biography, as with all history this is a major problem. It's kind of like the now well-known myth that Vikings were war-obsessed raiders who did nothing but plunder, rape and pillage. The myth had always been taken as fact because the only records from the time come from the rich monastrys the Vikings selectively attacked (i.e. the Monks had a pretty biased view). "History is written by the victor" is the old saying. I think though this article, like most historical articles on Wikipedia does do a pretty good job at distinguishing the fact from the fiction and telling the reader about most of the remaining doubts. Canderra 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Canderra you have overlooked the Arab/Moorish Chronicles from Spain. And of course the common prayer which went more or less: "From the fury of the Vikings save us our lord." Then have you read the Viking Saga's as pertains to the new world, even the Viking women were killing each other. El Jigue 9-29-06
Just because Vikings did not surpress women in society as much as the rest of Europe did at the time, i.e. they allowed women to own land and bear arms, that does not make them "war-like". Having studied a lot about vikings and having a father who's an local amateur historian in an area of England once settled by Vikings I do know quite a lot about them and their culture. The clergy may have had that saying, but the common peasants (who alas left no records) might well have had a similar one against the clergy overlords themselves who were the land-owners and tax-collectors, and ran the courts.
This is kind of my point, the verifiability of accounts and the risk that historical records have been biased towards the record-keeper is not in anyway unique to Che Guevara, rather a common problem throughout the field history. Canderra 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
C: Ay vey then the Vikings were not warlike in your view and I fail to follow your argument re-Vikings. The Viking when raiding tended to kill everybody they could catch and were not worth ransom, including all classes and often in gruesome ways. The independence of Viking women is surely not proven by their murderous deeds, for such have been occurred in subservient women since at least the time of Clytemnestra (nice carpet you have there let us roll it up eh what!!). And don't bring up Geordie speaking, manglewurzle eaters, since King Canute the Dane (1017 - 1035) was well on his way to civilization, that is if such ever existed in Yorkshire. xe xe El Jigue 9-30-06
Your arguments are also flawed in the sense that the Che, who was in my view a rather a dull ideologue and not too brave a tactician, was not all powerful and there are plenty of people who chronicle his misdeeds. What is needed is a balanced presentation of both sides. El Jigue 9-30-06
I think you should do a bit of research on Vikings before you make any more massively over-simplistic comments about them. For starters, referring to 'Vikings' in such way is a massive over-generalisation of many very different groups of people who certainly did not operate under one banner and most certainly did not spend much time 'raiding'. Regardless, this is off-topic and pointless so I will not continue it any further.
In regards to Che Guevera, the parts referred to above are specifically instances when only a single or handful of sources - all partisan and therefor possibly biased either way - exist. Many secoundary academic materials are available which try to seperate the fact from the fiction and it is these which are predominantly used throughout the article (as should be in an encyclopedia). However, the fundamental problem is simply that -as most of the books stress - there are such few reliable primary sources, if there were "many people" chronically these small-scale guerrilla battles (pretty much a contradiction in terms) than this problem would not exist in the first place. Canderra 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
C: Those scholarly sources were not in the neigborhood. I was. Besides the bias of many of those sources is legendary. El Jigue 10-02-06
Sorry to nitpick but why is living "rough" in quotations? May I remove it without offending anyone? grendelsmother 03:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) * * * * *
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is Archive 9 covering approximately 3 October 2006 - 28 October 2006
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;
failed or dubious military strategies
failed economic policies
Obstinate, narrow dogmatic world view
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.
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."" [21]. 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 [22]. 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 [23][24]
this one is brief, but seems to still work [25]
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 [26] 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:
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:
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. [28] ,[29], [30],[31],[32],[33],[34]
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 [35] 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 ISBN0-87855-576-5
Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN0-262-02065-3
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. ISBN84-8310-944-1
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 ISBN0-87348-957-8
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 ISBN0-262-02065-3 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 [36]; 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 ISBN0879734094 pp. 222-229. [37]. 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 [38].
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)
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)
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 [39].--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.
My latest version is 933 words long to the previous version's 975 words.
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.
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.
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) * * * * *
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is Archive 9 covering approximately 30 October 2006 - 27 December 2006
Opinions requested
Hello everybody -- I have some concerns about the following sentence in the lead paragraph of the CG article and would like to know if they are shared by others. Here is the sentence under discussion:
Through these experiences he became convinced that only revolution could remedy the region's economic inequality, leading him to study Marxism and become involved in Guatemala's social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
In order of importance, my concerns are: (i) I am not sure that what Arbenz did/was doing in Guatemala qualifies as a "social revolution"; (ii) I question whether it is accurate to state that CG was "involved in Guatemala's social revolution" (or whatever else it might be called) since, to the best of my knowledge, he was more of an onlooker than a participant; (iii) I don't think that the phrase "the region's economic inequality" is the optimal choice as it does not make it clear whether the inequality in question was among people within the region (i.e., a markedly skewed distribution of income) or an inequality in GDP between "the region" and some other unspecified region.
I would appreciate hearing from other editors whether they consider my concerns to be serious ones that should be addressed or whether they consider that the sentence is fine "as is". Thank you -- Polaris999 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbenz's plan seems to have been more agrarian reform than social revolution and agreed CG seems to have been more the onlooker than a participant based on a google search and the Arbenz article does not mention CG.--Dakota 06:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentence is incorrect - in both Guevara's involvement (or lack of) in Guatemala's internal politics - and in the description of the "social revolution". As Dakota notes, Arbenz was primarily instituting land reforms. It may be considered a social revolution - and I'm sure it was the objective of some in the Arbenz administration, as well as the belief of some in Washington - but to call it such here gives perhaps a false impression of a Cuba style radical transformation. Though I haven't come up with any wording to improve that sentence, so I'm all ears.--Zleitzen 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Changes proposed to improve readability, Part I
Fellow editors: Please take a look at this comparison page to see the changes that User: Brian H made to the CG article and that I have rolled back pending discussion of them here on the Discussion page and express your opinions as to whether they should be included or not. Many thanks -- Polaris999 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Brian is on the right track in trying to improve readability, however I feel the previous wording - though more elaborate - was more accurate and grammatically correct.--Zleitzen 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen, I concur 100% with your evaluation. Furthermore, in several places the re-wording has given rise to inaccuracies: for example, CG did not travel rough in order "to bring himself into direct contact with the impoverished conditions", but rather because his financial straits made that the only method of travel available to him. -- Polaris999 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with you two, but I will say that the "powerlessness of the masses" paragraphs is among my least favorite in the article. If you both indicate some dissatisfaction with that particular paragraph, perhaps I can take a stab at it. Dasondas 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Dasondas -- Here is one vote for your doing a re-write of that paragraph! -- Polaris999 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to kick any hornets nests, I was just researching something else and did some "drive by editting" of some stuff that looked like the original author was using Marx (Karl, not Groucho) as a style guide. That being said, my reasoning for the edit of the description of his motorcycle trip was to bring it in line with the justification listed later in the entry, which reads: "Guevara and the 29-year-old Granado soon set off from their hometown of Alta Gracia astride a 1939 Norton 500 cc motorcycle they named La Poderosa II (English: "the Mighty One, the Second") with the idea of spending a few weeks volunteering at the San Pablo Leper colony in Peru on the banks of the Amazon River." The motorcycle may have been the most economical means to take an extended journey available, but CG had a stated altruistic motive (although it pains me to say so, I am no Che-phile). CG was not poor, he just had the limited means of a man who had not yet come into his own. My research on the matter was simply to read the whole article and look for inconsistancies. The reason that the passage caught my eye was the odd phrase "riding rough" --Brian H 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also my edit on that passage was mainly to change "riding rough" to "and took an extended motorcycle trip" and to change "did bring" to "to bring" (justification of element of intent above)--Brian H 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To facilitate further discussion of this topic, I am inserting here a side-by-side comparison of the lead paragraph, before and after. User: Brian H, please notice that the phrase used in the sentence you refer to above that contains the word "rough" is, and always has been, "traveling rough", not "riding rough". I believe that "riding rough" is what Theodore Roosevelt and his cohorts did. (¿El grouchomarxista eres tú?) -- Polaris999 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (with apologies to Pablo Milanés)
I think that this is a good opportunity for all of us to try to improve the lead paragraph. I am especially bothered by the third sentence and wonder whether the following would be an improvement:
His experiences and observations during these trips convinced him that only revolution could remedy the region's socioeconomic inequalities, leading him to study Marxism and travel to Guatemala during the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán to study the reforms being implemented there.
or perhaps:
His experiences and observations during these trips convinced him that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied through revolution, leading him to study Marxism and travel to Guatemala during the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán to study the reforms being implemented there.
One of the problems with Brian's version is that Guevara made a number of trips - the motorcycle trip being just one. As stated by Polaris, the reasons for the motorcycle trip were not to bring himself into direct contact with the impoverished conditions - but simply to travel and experience the continent. Also, the phrase "He later cited these experiences as what convinced him that..." is grammatically incorrect. All in all I support the first shorter, more accurate version. Polaris is wise to note that a mention of "Rough Riders" on an article concerning Cuba could be misleading!--Zleitzen 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another one for the mix: His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, and as a result he took up the study of Marxism and travelled to Guatemala during the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán to study the reforms being implemented there. In particular, I chose led him to the conclusion instead of convinced him because the latter could be interpreted has CG coming to recognize an objective truth, whereas the former makes clear that the conlcusion reached was subjective to him. Dasondas 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Dasondas -- I agree with you about "led" vs. "convinced" and your version is now my first choice. But, how would you feel about substituting "delved into the study of Marxism" for "took up the study of Marxism"? It is, I believe, perhaps a tad more accurate since he already had been reading various Marxist texts in a somewhat superficial fashion (according to his own testimony) before he went on the trips. -- Polaris999 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, and as a result he delved into the study of Marxism and travelled to Guatemala during the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán to study the reforms being implemented there.
Well they are each an improvement. I would tend to agree with Dasondas that his first sentence is even more neutral. Here's my attempt for what it's worth! "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to study Marxism and travel to Guatemala to study the reforms being implemented by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán."--Zleitzen 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Zleitzen. I like yours too! But, might I suggest:
His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to intensify his study of Marxist literature and travel to Guatemala to witness the reforms being implemented by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
I am not certain "witness" is the best word here, but I would like to avoid the repetition of "study". Perhaps one of you will come up with a better verb (I would have used "observe" if it too had not already made an appearance in this sentence ...) -- Polaris999 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Drawing on what I liked about the two previous versions: "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to intensify his study of Marxism and travel to Guatemala to study the reforms being implemented by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán." Dasondas 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas, I think that our versions are converging. Would you please check out my latest effort, just above, which is out of sequence because I posted it after you posted your version -- but before I had read yours -- and tell me your thoughts? -- Polaris999 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
How's this? "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to intensify his study of Marxism and travel to Guatemala to observe the reforms being implemented by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán." I left "Marxism" instead of "Marxist literature" for now, but would like to hear why Polaris substituted the latter. Dasondas 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Dasondas. Well, as I got to thinking about it, Marxism is not exactly the same as Marxist literature and what he was studying during the pre-Guatemala era was actually the latter. However, it is probably not important to make this differentiation.
re "observe", I am still uneasy with it because of "observations" appearing earlier in the sentence. There must be a perfect verb to express what we are trying to, but it is certainly proving elusive! -- Polaris999 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The best I've got right now are "Understand", "Gain a perspective of", "Examine", "Take stock of", "View", "See", and "Comprehend". Alternatively we can maintain "observe and substitute "observations" for something like "Impressions", "Perceptions", or even remove the word and just keep "experiences". Hopefully you can work with this Chinese menu and put something together. On the "Marxist" vs. "Marxist literature", by all means use the latter if you think it is more accurate. Dasondas 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this version?
His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to intensify his study of Marxism and travel to Guatemala to learn about the reforms being implemented there by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
I think you should put it in the article immediately, and if anybody ever tries to change so much as a comma we'll gang up on them all the way to ArbCom (and even to Jimbo himself if that's what it takes) and make sure they're banned until the next millennium. Dasondas 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
With that kind of endorsement, I think we must have a winner! I left a message for Zleitzen asking him to please come to have a look -- Polaris999 00:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine by me! --Zleitzen 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Changes proposed to improve readability, Part II
Can the phrase "traveling rough" be taded out for something descriptive like "motorcycle journey." "Traveling rough" may be in common use somewhere, but not everywhere--Brian H 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
(removing indent) I tend to agree with BrianH and think that something along the lines of "travelled through Latin America by motorcycle" would be both more factual and less stylistically distracting. Any other thoughts? Dasondas 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the motorcycle journey was only one of a number of excursions. And even that venture was achieved largely without the help of the machine, which broke down early on. Out of interest, is the term "travelling rough" not a universal expression?--Zleitzen 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dasondas -- Sorry to dissent, but I must. CG and AG travelled not only by motorcycle but also by bus, on foot, by hitchiking in trucks and cars, as stowaways on at least one ship, by raft (the Mambo-Tango), by train when they could get onto one, and eventually, in Che's case, by airplane. At one point I had considered listing all of these conveyances but then decided that to do so would be too verbose. Do you feel otherwise? -- Polaris999 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (posting of this reply was delayed by Editing Conflict but basically I am saying the same thing as Zletizen. BTW to make future discussion easier, I have made this into a new section.)
Well, OK, so much for my suggestion being more factual :) Wrt Zleitzen's query, I had never heard the expression "travelling rough" before reading this article; on the other hand the connotation was immediately clear to me. I do understand where BrianH is coming from, but now given your added detail I'm without any ideas for improvement. Dasondas 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
But I hope that you are still going to turn your keyboard to the "powerlessness" paragraph! -- Polaris999 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I plan to. After the free history lesson I just got, I suppose I owe you that much. Although right now I'm wondering if this whole thread needs to be moved from Wikipedia to Wikthesaurus. Dasondas 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas, sometimes I think it would be rather appealing to reduce the whole article to the "concise" version suggested (humoristically) by Jmabel :-) -- Polaris999 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Alas, Polaris, you will note that while having the utmost regard for JMabel's work across many articles and in many contexts, and respecting him as an editor with quite a bit more experience than me, at the time of his proposed abridged edition I was forced to raise a rather serious policy objection. Perhaps, though, he will join us in discussion so that we may work together to finally get the definitive version of the TRUTH out. Dasondas 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
2 options to "travel smoothly": 1)"As a young man studying medicine, Guevara traveled rough throughout Latin America, most famously by motorcycle, but often by other means, bringing him into direct contact with the impoverished conditions in which many people lived." or option 2)"As a young man studying medicine, Guevara traveled rough throughout Latin America, not only by motorcycle but also by bus, on foot, by hitchiking in trucks and cars, as stowaways on at least one ship, by raft (the Mambo-Tango), by train when they could get onto one, and eventually, in Che's case, by airplane. This brought him into direct contact with the impoverished conditions in which many people lived." The information provided by Polaris makes the passage more interesting and clear.--Brian H 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Although it wasn't me who added the "traveled rough" to the article and it seems to have been there for a long time - even before this article reached featured status and surviving main page coverage - I feel it would be a shame to lose it. It encapsulates in one word the 39 words it has taken to describe the means and methods of Guevara's adventures above. It's a very old term and is the reason for the title of the Rough Guide travel books. It means to travel via improvised methods on a very low budget, in the manner of a Jack London or Jack Kerouac. So it is an ideal descriptive term for us here. I'm surprised and intrigued by the non-universiality of the expression! Is the expression "sleeping rough" also not known to some?--Zleitzen 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Since compiling the above list, I have realized that there are two more conveyances that need to be included: his motorized bike (the one in that appears in the ad) and the petrol tanker on which he travelled up and down the eastern coast of South America as a male nurse! Interestingly, although CG was very fond of riding, I know of no evidence that he ever made a trip on horseback ...
As for "travelling rough", I settled on that phrase after considering various alternatives along the lines being discussed above. It is in common usage among English-speaking travellers in Europe. "Rough" as a descriptor for living and sleeping appears in the dictionaries I have checked, so I hope that people who may not have heard the phrase "travelling rough" before can nevertheless figure out its meaning — as Dasondas explains he did (above). On the other hand, perhaps it would be interesting to include a list of the numerous conveyances used in a content note. We might attach it to the word "rough", and in addition to the means of transportation we could mention how he/they slept outdoors, in jails, barns, etc. so that readers can get an even more precise understanding of what is meant by "rough". Does this idea appeal to anybody? -- Polaris999 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea, Polaris.--Zleitzen 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Zleitzen. I'll try to come up with a draft content note tomorrow and post it here so everyone can tweak it. -- Polaris999 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have just added the promised content note to the article. I'm sorry for the delay but I was re-reading both Che's and Alberto's journals in order to make it as comprehensive as possible. Please have a look at it (label is "rough") and edit it in situ as necessary. Many thanks -- Polaris999 06:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen, in response to your query, I have never before heard the phrase "sleeping rough". I can't discern the meaning as readily as I could for "travelling rough", yet for some reason I find myself rather curious as to whether there is some type of guide (illustrated, perhaps) published on the enjoyments of that activity :) Dasondas 20:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to find this discussion. I had to check here to figure out what "traveled rough" was implying. My first thought was it was a spelling error or vandalism. I have never heard this term used in the US, so thank for the explanation.--Stangbat 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Powerless masses
Rising up and throwing off the shackles of the consensual dialectic, inspired by WP:BOLD and influenced by more than one scotch, I have published my edits to this most oppobrious of paragraphs. You may revert or edit at will (go ahead, you coward, you will only be killing a paragraph). Those with imperialist administrative powers may even ban me for vandalism (don't think you wouldn't be doing me a favor). Dasondas 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the rework very much Dasondas. Good work. --Zleitzen 07:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Zleitzen. Dasondas 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My congratulations also, Dasondas. Many thanks for cleaning out that miasma. There are just a couple of little tweaks to the first and second sentences that I would like to present for your consideration:
Guevara analyzed the widespread poverty, oppression and disenfranchisement that he had witnessed throughout Latin America in the context of his Marxist readings and arrived at the conclusion that the only solution for the region’s inequalities was armed revolution. His travels and readings also led him to view Latin America not as a group of separate nations but as a single entity requiring a continent-wide strategy for liberation. His conception of a borderless, united Ibero-America sharing a common 'mestizo' culture[Ibero-America] was a theme that would prominently recur during his later revolutionary activities. Upon returning to Argentina, he expedited the completion of his medical studies in order to resume his travels in Central and South America and received his diploma on 12 June 1953.[Diploma]
I look forward to your comments ... -- Polaris999 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The second of your suggested changes (His travels and readings also led him) is OK and should probably be retained in the article. The first suggestion, though, is ambiguous in that it's not clear whether the phrase "in the context of his Marxist readings" is modifying the verb "analyzed" (as you intended) or the verb "witnessed" (which makes less contextual sense, but is the grammatically logical association). The sentence could be modified to begin, Guevara analyzed, in the context of his Marxist readings, the widespread poverty, oppression and disenfranchisement that he had witnessed.... Another possibility that I had considered, that was closest to the pre-existing sentence structure and is similar in meaning to your suggested change is, Witnessing the widespread poverty, oppression and disenfranchisement throughout Latin America, and influenced by his readings of Marxist literature, Guevara decided that the only solution for the region’s inequalities was armed revolution. The change I made to the grammatical structure, while subtle, was calculated to place more responsibility on Guevara the man for the decisions he made -- his Marxist readings being an influencing, but secondary factor. I still prefer my version but would welcome further discussion. Dasondas 19:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Dasondas. I like your second version much better. The discomfort I have with the sentence as it now appears in the article is that the subject, "Guevara", is sandwiched in between the two descriptive phrases and seems (to me) to be somewhat overwhelmed by them.
Would you perchance have a minute to take a look at the recent change made by User: Dwaipayanc removing the adjective "beloved" from the sentence re CG's Grandmother Ana Isabel Lynch? User: Dwaipayanc commented that he had removed the word because it is "unnecessary". While I do not doubt that it may seem unnecessary to some, I think that the same accusation could be levelled against almost any other individual word in this article or, for that matter, in any other article. It is widely recognized that Ana Isabel Lynch was one of the most important figures in CG's life -- for example, it was her death from cancer that caused him to switch his intended major from Engineering to Medicine -- and I feel that she should be singled out in some way. If you do not like the word "beloved", could you perhaps suggest an alternative? -- Polaris999 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Polaris, I made the edit to the former "powerless masses" paragraph to reflect our discussion above. See how it looks. As to "beloved", I think it's entirely appropriate and not unnecessary at all to highlight CG's fondness for his grandmother in order to distinguish her central influence on him, in contrast to other family members. IMO "beloved" is perfectly fitting, and I can't think of anything better right now. I'll leave it to you to make the reversion and engage Dwaipayanc in discussion on this point if you want. Dasondas 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the former "powerless masses" paragraph reads very well now and should be easily understood by all. In line with your comment re "beloved", I have restored that word and will defend it to the best of my ability, if necessary. -- Polaris999 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No way, Guevara's perception of social conditions in Latin America were inevitable influenced by his marxist upbringing. His very reliance on such theoretical concepts so flawed his view of reality that they led to his, in my view very deserved, doom in Bolivia. El Jigue 11-5-06
EJ, I'm not quite following you. We make the point that his Marxist studies influenced his outlook, decision-making process, and subsequent behavior. Do you think that we haven't made this point strongly enough? Dasondas 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Dasondas just moved that phrase forward in the sentence in question, giving it even more emphasis! -- Polaris999 19:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Changes proposed by Lavenderbunny
If interested, please take a look at this comparison page
to view the changes made on 06 November 06 by User:Lavenderbunny and which I rolled back pending discussion here. -- Polaris999 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any changes that improve the article or readibility, I'm afraid. Again the "rough" has been questioned and removed - it probably needs the speech marks around the word again. I think it was Brian that removed "Christopher Hitchens, when attempting to summarise Guevara's legacy, speculated thus..." replacing it with a mere "Christopher Hitchens commented.." - the reason given was that the former was too "catty". I don't quite understand which aspect of the sentence the "catty" refers to, but I think it needs to be explained that Chris wasn't just pontificating in a vacuum - some sort of context is required.--Zleitzen 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zleitzen -- I too was puzzled by by Brian_H's remark but thought that perhaps I was missing something and so left the change in place for you to decide about ... -- Polaris999 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I reduced the sentance because all the extra words were unneccessary. Hitchens in an author (his book on Orwell is on my nightstand at the moment, by chance) A link to the Hitchens article was already there. And to use your own word, the passage implies (more or less) that he is "pontificating" (because he is "attempting to summerize" as opposed to ligimately doing so). As many have pointed out, the article is a bit long, so it was not a stretch to trim that particular passage.--Brian H 02:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Concerning "rough": I can hardly believe the amount of confusion that this straightforward word is generating. It does appear in dictionaries — for example, the following is from The Free Dictionary:
"Idiom:
rough it
To live without the usual comforts and conveniences: roughed it in a small hunting shack."
(sigh) ... Since it is an accepted idiom in the English language, I see no reason so remove it. As for the speech marks, I had originally included them, then someone removed them and I didn't restore them. Please replace them if you think they are needed. (BTW I am working on the content of the promised content note by going back over the details of all of his trips to make sure that I have not missed any of the multiple conveyances and sleeping spots used. I should be ready to compose it in a day or so. Perhaps I should include the definition at the beginning of it?) -- Polaris999 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys have long since convinced me on the "travelling rough" phrase, but since Zleitzen has shown an interest in its idiomatic usage, I thought he'd be interested to know that the example rough it provided by Polaris above is a term I've been using since childhood. I would naturally say "We roughed it", but I would never say "We travelled rough". Just fyi. But, please, keep fighting to maintain "travelled rough" in the article -- there is no "dominant" English idiom for Wikipedia, and I have been convinced that the existing term is perhaps the most elegant description we have in the language for describing Guevara's activities during that period of his life. Dasondas 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Rough revisited: I searched for travel rough in amazon.com and their search engine returned 1963 hits! Among them a book entitled The Art of Rough Travel: From the Peculiar to Practical, Advice From a 19th Century Explorer (Hardcover), by Francis Galton. -- Polaris999 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet, the same entry in Google yields only 884 hits. How peculiar! For comparison Google returns 12,200 hits on the more-or-less randomly selected phrase "What I had for breakfast", and for a more topical comparison the phrase "roughing it" (for which Amazon lists over 9100 books) has 737,000 pages referenced by Google. Hmm, Polaris, another phrase is now coming to mind..."Seizing defeat from the jaws of victory." Dasondas 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
1953 on amazon and 884 on google are quite enough for me ;-) -- Polaris999 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: "traveling rough" has grown on me and I renounce all previous objections to it. I only offer profound under caffeination as an explaination for my actions. --Brian H 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"traveled rough" "roughing it" is common in the english language and is very effective in describing the amenities or lack of available to Guevara in his travels. I googled it also and found a great number of references. --Dakota 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Citation for political dissidents
I need to take a further look at that sentence and citation in reference to "political dissidents". Having written about the post revolution "against the wall" period elsewhere - I need more convincing. The fact that the citation is from the "Black book of communism" raises questions, considering that the immediate post revolution period we are concerned with was not marked by "communist" governance or methods, it seems strange that it should be presented in that book and contradictory to historical accounts of the period. I don't know the book in question I'm afraid. By the way - I'm thinking of the 500 or so executions in the first 6 months or so of 1959. I'll revisit various historical texts to ascertain which executions we are referring to. "Political dissidents" is not something I would necessarily associate with the victims from my previous studies. It may have also been the reason why Polaris added the "citation needed" tag.--Zleitzen 23:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm open to being convinced. The "Black Book of Communism" is the only thing on my shelf that was on point, so I used it. The book has garnered some controversy since its release, but I believe that most moderate observers would come to the conclusion that it is a serious effort whose primary authors are respected researchers/writers although it is certainly far from being a scholarly treatment and makes no pretense of objectivity. The original is in French, and the version I translated from is in Portuguese; not having seen the original I can't vouch for the French-Portuguese translation, but I am confident in my own abilities to accurately render Portuguese into English. If you want, I can provide the quote in the original language, but I believe that your scepticism is quite a bit more substantive and I'll wait for the results of search. At the end of the day I'd have no problem removing the claim from the article if it proves to be unsustainable, but it might come down to what we mean by political dissidents. Our friend EJ might want to weigh in as well, but seeing as that you, Zletizen, have directly relevant professional expertise you wouldn't find me to be a tough obstacle to move on this point if no other dissenters voiced an opinion in the meantime. Dasondas 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(Potentially mildly humorous update) Also, since Polaris has created the precedent of using Amazon searches as a citable reference here (see above discussion on "rough"), I'll note that the Black Book of Communism received 4 out of 5 stars from 92 customer reviews at Amazon -- I'm betting that's a broader consensus than we'll get for any academic source :) Dasondas 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen's statement "I need more convincing." sums up my own feeling exactly. Nothing I have read about the period leads me to believe that those executed were other than supporters of the Batista dictatorship, which does not leave room for dissidents from within the revolutionary forces themselves. Since the first five months after the M-26-7 victory were rather chaotic, I hadn't thought that the situation had reached a degree of clarity such that the concept "dissident" would have had any currency. In the case of Huber Matos, I have read that it was Guevara who later that same year saved him from the death penalty. BTW have you had a look at 216 Documented Victims of Che Guevara ... ? I believe that this page was originally brought to my attention by our friend EJ. It includes a list of all those individuals executed at La Cabaña during Guevara's tenure for whom the author has been able to find documentary evidence, and the total is only 164; unfortunately, he does not include a description of the charges against each. Anyway, I am definitely no expert on this subject matter and would just like to suggest that we all do our best to bring whatever light we can to bear on this murky period. -- Polaris999 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I never considered that the source I brought would be sufficient to hold the claim, but I made the edit because I think it is good enough for removing the fact tag and forcing us to come to a consensus about whether the claim stays or goes. I'm completely open on this point and wouldn't suggest that the one source I provided would be enough to pass the high bar of verifiability implied for a featured article on a controversial topic. Btw, I would have been surprised if neither you nor Zleitzen had challenged that source ;) Dasondas 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few accounts to add to the pot.
Richard Gott, in Cuba : A new history states "several hundred former Batista associates, policemen and torturers were shot by firing squad after perfunctory trials". p168
Hugh Thomas, in Cuba the pursuit of freedom, states that 200 people were shot after the tribunals, all for murder or torture. Thomas goes on to say, "many of those shot richly deserved it, by most criteria" p726
Angelo Trento, in Castro and Cuba says that there were approx. 400 capital sentences for "people who had collaborated with Batista's repressive regime"
Jon Lee Anderson states the executions were of "deputies, rank and file chivatos and police torturers" p388
It would be good to have a strong selection of sources to cover this most controversial section of the page.--Zleitzen 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zleitzen -- Thank you very much for this research. On the basis of your findings showing four credible sources that do not mention "political dissidents" as against one questionable source, The Black Book of Communism, that does, I have removed that allegation from the article and pasted it (shown in bold text) here:
He was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his six-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959),[11] he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials, members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police know by its Spanish acronym BRAC), and political dissidents[12].
Indeed EJ appears to be facing a period of dissidence on wikipedia as we write. Another user has taken issue with his refusal to register alongside his robust talk page activity on various pages, I am at present attempting to broker a resolution to ensure his continued participation! --Zleitzen 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've brought this up, on the 'talk pages' of Cuba, Fidel Castro and Raul Castro. Though El Jigue, may be a popular (or at least engaging) anon-user, his continuous gossiping on article-related events, are clogging up space. This gossiping should stop, an irresponsible popular anon-user (El Jigue); is still an irresponsible anon user. This gossiping is against Wikipedia policy; hey, I didn't set the policies. GoodDay 01:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-- Polaris999 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (updated -- Polaris999 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
In all probability these numbers are low even for the first six months. Personally I remember the horror of fellow rebels (most front-line rebels disliked executions) when report came in of 100 killed by Raul in a single day in Santiago. However, perhaps the major point is that these executions did not stop after the early months and accelerated as time went on and the resistance known as the "War Against the Bandits" came, grew strong, and was repressed (circa 1967). Total executions in Cuba are usually given as in excess of 10,000, a round and thus imprecise number.
Beruvides, Esteban M 1992 Cuba y sus Mártires. Cuban Historical Association, Miami Library of Congreso number 92072567 lists by name and when possible date of death well over 4,000. "Accidental" shooting deaths were so common in those early days that there were editorials in newspapers still not under governmen control (e.g. Prensa Libre) protesting their occurrence. An very readable account of some of the horror of those days is given in: Plimpton, George 1977 Shadow box. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. New York. SBN 399119957 especially pp. 143-149. The relationship of Mark Herman to the Che Guevara is not clear to me but I am under the impression that he was under the direct orders of Guevara. El Jigue 11-8-06
Indeed. Raúl's massacre of soldiers in a ditch (70-100 people) - and similar executions that occured sporadically in the immediate aftermath are verifiable by all available sources that I have seen. The best summary I have seen for the total number of executions since 1959 reads "The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range". Though we would need to consider what material is in direct relation to Guevara for this article.--Zleitzen 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Che" derived from the Mapuche?
A correspondent tells me that: "Che, is a colloquial address in Argentina and Paraguay, with roots in the Mapuche indigenous word Che, meaning people. Calling someone Che implies the belonging to one's own people (as paisano is used in Cuban vernacular)." It is a common given among the less educated in Argentina that they are "Europeans" however even the most cursory examination of features of rural and some urban populations demonstrates that they carry indigenous traits. This custom may date from the times of the genocidal tyrant Rosas, when to admit that one was indigenous was not the safest thing in the world. El Jigue 11-8-06
Anon edits
An anon editor restored much material that was subsequently rejected or improved, the material uses repetition from earlier sections, was poorly written, carried unreliable sources, gave undue weight to weak or obscure theories, was rejected by consensus, was in effect a POV fork and ultimately diminished the credibility of a featured article. One of the most contentious aspects of editing is when one removes so called "criticisms". My reply to that is always the same - write the criticisms in a serious manner that one would expect to read in an encyclopedia, write them from varied, academic or serious sources, and don't create huge chunks of material that even to the most neutral observer would read like an amateur hack job. It would seem that we had overcome that problem with this article, it would be a shame of the credibility was reduced again.--Zleitzen 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that anon is accusing me (although it was in collaboration with a number of editors) of deleting the criticism section (the accusation is at the top of the page for some reason). He/she has failed to notice that the criticism section was in fact merged with the legacy section - and new criticisms were introduced (by me) from more reliable sources. Therefore his/her edits were merely repeating points that were already in the article. It always helps to read an article before one attempts vast edits. In light of this error, I believe the editor is misplaced in adding the POV tag and it should be removed.--Zleitzen 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section disapeared completly on October 27th by your edit, it appears. The criticism section was torn down over the course of several months via baseless accusations which amount for "love of che" and hatred of anything that does not agree with you. The POV tag should stay because this article, while at many points provides factual accounts, also has moments of Che loving that is not encyclopedic in and of itself. But because this is a controversial topic, with viewers, readers, and scholars on opposite sides, it is most appropriate to have both pro and cons to Che's history. NOT ONE SIDED VIEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
You appear not have read the section you are speaking of, which detailed the "pros and cons" in approximately the same number of words as the two sections before being merged. You also seem to be disputing the article because it now has "factual accounts". Out of interest, which section of the article now reads "love of che"? --Zleitzen 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be clear in re-reading that we now have 2 sections that essentially say the same thing, the labor camps, the economic failures, the stint at La Cabana, the Paul Berman quote. What remains is a couple of dramatic quotes from non-notables such as "sociopathic thug" which read more like a school essay than any encyclopedia article. That the above anon user hasn't noticed that he/she has duplicated a section, despite making several edits and posting a long uncivil screed at the top of this page beggars belief. It should be open to other users whether this is an improvement.--Zleitzen 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well a criticism of Che section is woefully missing. Perhaps one should be built. Try being constructive rather than destructive (ie, deleting), which looks like the only thing you are capable of doing, as of now.
(Signed anon editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.46.164 (talk • contribs)
Criticism sections are very common in wikipedia, primarily to allow folks to slander public figures they dislike... but they are rarely encyclopedic. Get Over It! Wikipedia doesn't exist to reflect the general views of the American majority.
Palenque 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
POV
I am disputing the nuetrality of this page because editors have deleted cited material criticising Che and have not replaced it with anything. The "talk", so called, called for a re-write of the legacy and criticism but nothing of the sort was done. Z, has ONLY deleted the criticism section. I have restored it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
Criticism rewrite 1
(Critics of the criticism page do not have a legit point on credibility of sources. You may dispute with sources, but deletion of cited material, as has been done on this page, constitutes a violation of NPOV rules)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
Though he has been labeled by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including most of the Cuban exile community and some refugees from other countries under communism, view him as a killer and terrorist. They claim 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”.[13] Other US newspaper critics have made similar remarks. These critics believe 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” with no combat victories, not a revolutionary genius.
They dispute accounts of the Battle of Santa Clara; on the capturing of a train supplying heavy reinforcements, critic Álvaro Vargas Llosa writes, "Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes."[14][15]
Critics believe 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".[16] Many years after Guevara's death, Cuba's labor camp system was used to jail dissidents of the Revolution. [17][18][19][20][21]
Critics also believe Che executed more than just political figures, but also political dissidents[22].
Some claim Guevara was a failure at managing the Cuban economy, as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship."[23][24] There is also the belief by some critics that, because there is no documentary evidence of Guevara having earned a medical degree, he was not actually a doctor.[25]
In "The Cult of Che",[26] writer Paul Berman critiques the film The Motorcycle Diaries and argues "that modern-day cult of Che" obscures the "tremendous social struggle" currently taking place in Cuba. For example, the article discusses the jailing of dissidents, such as poet and journalist Raúl Rivero, who was eventually freed after worldwide pressure due to a campaign of solidarity by the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba [27] which included Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, Árpád Göncz, Elena Bonner and others. Berman claims that in the U.S., where Motorcycle Diaries received standing ovations at the Sundance film festival, the adoration of Che has caused Americans to overlook the plight of dissident Cubans. This glorification of Che is also satirized by online site che-mart.com, which, among other things, markets T-shirts poking fun at both Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images.[28]
Although much criticism of Guevara and his legacy emanates from the political center and right, there has also been criticism from other political groups such as anarchists and civil libertarians, some of whom consider Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose goal was the creation of a more bureaucratic state-Stalinist regime.[29]
Though he has been labeled by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including most of the Cuban exile community and some refugees from other countries under communism, view him as a killer and terrorist. They claim 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”.[30] 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. 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".[31] Many years after Guevara's death, Cuba's labor camp system was used to jail dissidents of the Revolution. [32][33][34][35][36]
Critics believe Guevara was ineffective and in reality a poor tactician. They dispute accounts of the Battle of Santa Clara; on the capturing of a train supplying heavy reinforcements, critic Álvaro Vargas Llosa writes, "Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes."[37][38]
Some claim Guevara was a failure at managing the Cuban economy, as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship."[39][40] There is also the belief by some critics that, because there is no documentary evidence of Guevara having earned a medical degree, he was not actually a doctor.[41]
In "The Cult of Che",[42] writer Paul Berman critiques the film The Motorcycle Diaries and argues "that modern-day cult of Che" obscures the "tremendous social struggle" currently taking place in Cuba. For example, the article discusses the jailing of dissidents, such as poet and journalist Raúl Rivero, who was eventually freed after worldwide pressure due to a campaign of solidarity by the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba [43] which included Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, Árpád Göncz, Elena Bonner and others. Berman claims that in the U.S., where Motorcycle Diaries received standing ovations at the Sundance film festival, the adoration of Che has caused Americans to overlook the plight of dissident Cubans. This glorification of Che is also satirized by online site che-mart.com, which, among other things, markets T-shirts poking fun at both Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images.[44]
Critics also believe Che executed more than just political figures, but also political dissidents[45].
Although much criticism of Guevara and his legacy emanates from the political center and right, there has also been criticism from other political groups such as anarchists and civil libertarians, some of whom consider Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose goal was the creation of a more bureaucratic state-Stalinist regime.[46]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
Just because you don't like the sources or do not like what the sources say does not mean you can delete it. This is called bias, it is also a violation of the rules on NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
Propagandists have been systematically removing criticism of Che from this page. Not surprisingly, these are the same editors removing cited criticism from other "celebrated" communist pages. You all do not have the power to decide what is right and wrong, this leads to a one sided biased account.
To reiterate: The New York Sun is barely journalism, much less a credible source on historical figures. I could find alot of people who don't like Che, but does say, your uncle's opinion belong here? Well the answer is no, just becasue some nobody has expressed an opinon, it does NOT mean we have to include it in an encyclopedia. If you want to get your shots in on Che, or anyone else for that matter, start a blog. This isn't the place for quoting ad hominem attacks. Palenque 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please sign posts. This is a very active talk page and editors find it much easier to reply if they know who made posts. Having to search the edit history is time consuming and sometimes it is difficult to find who posted what
.Thanks.--Dakota 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No it is not difficult for an anon just enter four tildes~~~~ at the end of your post. You can also use the edit toolbar option , click the signature icon () to add the four tildes.--Dakota 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There is already a User:Anon also.--Dakota 06:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia guideline re editing "Featured Articles"
"New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, without carefully looking at your edit. In addition, making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea.
In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.
"If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. It's also worth reading around some related articles, as what you thought was a problem or omission may vanish after you have followed a few links.
"If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references... If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial.
"Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning."
In conformity with the above guideline, I am moving the changes proposed by the Anon user ( who has been posting here as 71.15.112.129(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and 129.120.46.156(talk·contribs·WHOIS) ) from the Che Guevara article onto this Talk page where they can be evaluated, discussed, modified, etc. as the guideline specifies. Please see moved text in quotes below:
Hola, Polaris this editor agrees. It is a good idea to discuss any content changes on the talk page before before actually editing any article. This being a featured article and marked as a controversial one perhaps even more so. Only by discussion, evaluation of the proposed content and agreed modification can the content remain encyclopedic and free of pov.--Dakota 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"==Criticism==
"Che Guevara is a polarizing and hotly disputed historical person. Some admire Che and others despise him. This section reflects the historical and modern opinions of persons critical of Che Guevara as a political figure, military leader, and revolutionary. Critics of Che mainly include the Cuban exile community and center-right persons. Critics believe 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. New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”.[47] They also believe that Guevara was a “blundering tactician” with no combat victories, not a revolutionary genius. Critics dispute accounts of the Battle of Santa Clara, which according to supporters of Che, was his largest military victory by capturing a train supplying heavy reinforcements. Critic Álvaro Vargas Llosa writes, "Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes."[48][49]
"Critics believe 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".[50] Many years after Guevara's death, Cuba's labor camp system was used to jail dissidents of the Revolution. [51][52][53][54]
"Critics also believe Che executed more than just political figures, but also political dissidents[55].
"Some claim Guevara was a failure at managing the Cuban economy, as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship."[56][57] There is also the belief by some critics that, because there is no documentary evidence of Guevara having earned a medical degree, he was not actually a doctor.[58]
"In "The Cult of Che",[59] writer Paul Berman critiques the film The Motorcycle Diaries and argues "that modern-day cult of Che" obscures the "tremendous social struggle" currently taking place in Cuba. For example, the article discusses the jailing of dissidents, such as poet and journalist Raúl Rivero, who was eventually freed after worldwide pressure due to a campaign of solidarity by the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba [60] which included Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, Árpád Göncz, Elena Bonner and others. Berman claims that in the U.S., where Motorcycle Diaries received standing ovations at the Sundance film festival, the adoration of Che has caused Americans to overlook the plight of dissident Cubans. This glorification of Che is also satirized by online site che-mart.com, which, among other things, markets T-shirts poking fun at both Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images. [61]
"Although much criticism of Guevara and his legacy emanates from the political center and right, there has also been criticism from other political groups such as anarchists and civil libertarians, some of whom consider Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose goal was the creation of a more bureaucratic state-Stalinist regime.[62]"
Ok, here’s a point-by-point breakdown on this piece.
1) The opening paragraph which speaks about the “criticism section” itself doesn’t belong in an encyclopedic entry. I don’t understand the need for a “warning to what is to follow” in an entry like this.
2) “Critics believe 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.”
This isn’t a matter of “critics believing.” The fact that Guevara was responsible for many deaths is widely known – it’s almost like saying “Some believe Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company.” That said, I don’t know that we should be getting into numbers here. Numerous others have attempted to attach an exact number to the amount of executions, murders, what have you, of the Castro regime. Seems very difficult to get an actual number for this.
3) The fact that the Cuban economy collapsed under Guevara’s stewardship is also well known and not an opinion as is suggested.
4) The entry also seems to tacitly suggest that it is really only the Cuban-American community that see Guevara as a “criminal.” I’m not sure this sentence is really appropriate. It would be better simply to say that Guevara is a polarizing figure – something along those lines.
2) and 3) 'Common knowledge' is not a valid source. --Nyp 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost all of Goatboy's comments can be verified by numerous mainstream and key sources, so therefore they are as close to common knowledge as could be. More pressing is the fact that our own article details these factors anyway using sources, rendering the "critics' opinions" largely redundant. I agree with Goatboy that they tacitly reduce any credibility of the claims themselves. Guevara was responsible for many deaths, as one would expect from a self described guerrilla fighter. It is rather like having a criticism section on the Field Marshall Montgomery page, presenting, "critics say Montgomery was responsible for many deaths". --Zleitzen 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this part of the removed/revised section;
Critics dispute accounts of the Battle of Santa Clara, which according to supporters of Che, was his largest military victory by capturing a train supplying heavy reinforcements. Critic Álvaro Vargas Llosa writes, "Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes
The problem with this paragraph (other than the fact that it doesn't read correctly) is that I have not read any testimonies to say that the capture of the train was anything more than what is described above, nor does our article suggest anything to the contrary. Soldiers sought refuge in a train, but by that time morale among soldiers was so low that a truce had been sought, the soldiers saying that "they were tired of fighting against their own people" according to one historical account. I would be interested to read sources from supporters of Guevara which point to that incident as evidence of Guevara's heroism. It would seem to be a straw man creation of little value, though the incident could helpfully be explored in the article or elsewhere. --Zleitzen 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-So where are the points detailing accusations of murder by Che? People do in fact claim that Che not only personally ordered executions of non political and military persons but that he personally ordered or carried out the torture of noncombatants.
-where is evidence that Che may have seized private property, and rather than use it for communist purposes, used it for his own personal pleasure?
-Where is the fact of his failure to run the economy.
-Why is there no other mention of his military record when the critics suggest he has no combat victories.
-Why is there no other mentioning that no record of him completing medical school exists?
All of the criticism COULD be put in the main body, but it has not been placed there. I also doubt that if it was there, it would stay for very long. It seems to me there are people on here who are more adept to criticizing why something should not be present than working with editors to include the material by improving it. (Do it yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)
The "battle" of Santa Clara
Z: "El Mejicano" Capitan Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo (who has been alleged involved im the JFK assasination [40][41] something I find hard to believe) has been reported in several sources e.g. [42][43][44][45] to have declared that the train episode was a result of bribery. The original statement appeared in a Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo (El Diario de Nueva York, June 25th 1959) as yet I have not obtained the original text. Apparently early in the 1960s El Mejicano, who had been sent to kill Rolando Masferrer in Florida, defected instead. This appears not relate to Masferrer's later death. By the way as a number of other communists (e.g. Vittorio Vidale) Masferrer was a stalinist killer during the Spanish Civil War, he was wounded in a foot, and in much literature Masferrer is denoted by his stepfalls. his victims are putatively to heard his irregular steps in their last moments. I wish this "El Mejicano" (there were several" with this nickname in Cuba at the time) would write down his memories. It is my understanding that a movie with the running title of "El Tigre" on Masferrer (a long standing enemy of Castro) is soon to be available [46], [47][48]. El Jigue 12-12-06
EJ, it seems quite feasible that the train episode involved some kind of financial cohersion. I believe Polaris has been considering a Battle of Santa Clara article where editors could fully explore this. --Zleitzen 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi EJ and Z. Do you think we should create such an article? Right now it seems to me that we don't have much WP:V information to put into it, but if you think it's a good idea, let's proceed. -- Polaris999 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Z: There is a first hand narration from Directorio Rebel Santiago de Juan in the book Soldier's Verse [49]. Here Santiago narrates in prose and verse some events of those last days of that war in the middle provinces. El Jigue 11-12-06
Polaris: with the above cites and the Cuban official histories (which must be taken with a very large grin ((:>) pun intended) of salt) the should be quite enough material, although I think the actions at Guisa, Maffo etc had more military importance; or if you may prefer the title "plains campaigns" at the end of 1958. El Jigue 11-12-06
I think that something along the lines of The 'Plains' campaigns would be preferable since discussion of the prior actions is necessary to put Santa Clara (and Yaguajay) in context ... I hope Z and perhaps others will weigh in re the title. -- Polaris999 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Should this cover the earlier campaigns of the Muchachos de Lara, Daniel,
Camilo Cienfuegos...? El Jigue 11-12-06
:Please stop the blogging, of the 'talk page'. GoodDay 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that it would make sense if it covered everything from the time the columns left the Sierra Maestra, culminating in the Battles of Santa Clara and Yaguajay. However, I suppose that the scope of such an article would be beyond what a "child" article of this Che Guevara article should cover. But at least we could, I believe, deal with events directly involving CG's column. Perhaps the best idea, to keep the focus firmly on Guevara, would be to entitle the child article "Actions of Che Guevara's Column 8", or some such? Then perhaps a similar article could be written about Camilo's column as a child article of the main article about Camilo? But, in this case, where will the activities of the Muchachos de Lara and Daniel be written about?-- Polaris999 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Zleitzen, indeed I had not seen the Battle of Yaguajay article. So, how then do you feel we should deal with CG's campaign, as a history of his Columna 8 or as a standalone Battle of Santa Clara piece? -- Polaris999 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be better as a Battle of Santa Clara article. With some background context that would cover the column’s activities. In an ideal world this would be a specialised article that neatly feeds off a variety of articles. But with only a skeleton staff of writers dealing with these topics it would be quite a task to organise all these articles to any great satisfaction. But at least it is progress.--Zleitzen 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned about giving it the title Battle of Santa Clara when there seems to be some doubt as to whether it was a battle at all. However, that is probably one of the matters that we will be able to elucidate as we work on it and, if necessary, we can always re-title it later on. I think you have more information to put into it than I do, so why don't you start it whenever is convenient for you? -- Polaris999 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The event is widely referenced as the "battle of Santa Clara" though and it is not up to us wikipedia editors to start deciding what name or title an historical event should have when one is already in common usage. Canderra 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If it is going to be called the "Battle of Santa Clara", I think we must all agree that whatever action occurred in that place at that time is going to be described under that title and there should not be any speech marks surrounding "battle" because that would hardly be appropriate. Whoever created this discussion topic inserted speech marks around the word "battle" in its title and I do not think that calling a wikipedia article The "Battle" of Santa Clara would be desirable. Do you agree on this point, Canderra? -- Polaris999 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think an article that covers the period of the column's arrival at Santa Clara University, details the various skirmishes, the train incident and the political machinations behind the scenes would be good. I think it should be called the Battle of Santa Clara as per Hugh Thomas (showing my own bias as to preferred sources here) who describes it as such in his indexing. I realise that I have falsely attributed you with contemplating an article on this topic, Polaris. Looking back at the archives I can find no such comments, and I don't know where I got that idea from! My apologies! To make amends I will attempt to get the article started.--Zleitzen 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zleitzen, I think our brain waves must have "crossed" because I had been wondering about the advisability of creating such an article, but had been stymied by concerns re the name issue discussed above. I am grateful that you have taken Occam's razor to all of this and will be creating the Battle of Santa Clara article! -- Polaris999 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Upper class / middle class
An anon user has amended the sentence -
Growing up in this upper-class family with leftist leanings, Guevara became known for his dynamic personality
to read middle class a couple of times. I would actually side with the anon user. I don't know about other users, but my understanding of the upper-class is the ruling class, aristocracy and so on. A very small elite. Guevara, a doctor by education would not be considered in these terms. Taking a look at the Upper class page I realise that the term has different meanings depending on culture. Does anyone have anymore thoughts on this?--Zleitzen 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zleitzen -- Have you looked at CG's pedigree? All of his ancestors are from the highest echelon of the Argentine land-owning "aristocracy". Most of the wealth on the Lynch side of the family was reduced by the time Ernesto Sr. inherited his share by having been dispersed among many children (Ana Isabel was one of 12 siblings as I recall) and their offspring. Celia de la Serna inherited a considerable fortune from the estate of her deceased parents, but Ernesto Sr. managed to dissipate it within about 12-15 years after their marriage through unwise investments and profligate spending. Chichina, the girl to whom CG was apparently engaged, belongs to one of the most elite families in Argentina -- she would not have been allowed to even speak with him if her parents had not considered him to be her social "equal". For all of these reasons, and more, I do not think that "middle class" is an accurate description of his family's socioeconomic status, although "upper middle class" might be an accurate description of the family's economic status, especially after Ernesto Sr. wasted away Celia's inheritance. Their social status, on the other hand, can only be described as "upper class". In fact, I had originally written "upper middle class", but some user came by and changed it to "upper class" and after reviewing the facts which I have outlined above, I decided that his description was more correct and it has remained in the article ever since. On the other hand, I personally am not concerned about how CG's family status might be described, and I am quite certain he would not be either, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but for the sake of preserving the highest standards of accuracy in Wikipedia, I hope that, when making a decision, you will take the facts I have cited into consideration. Cheers! -- Polaris999 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As per usual I will bow to your thorough analysis, Polaris. I also hadn't considered that of course Chichina was very much a lady of the Argentine elite. So ignore my query on this. Thanks.--Zleitzen 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Another user has taken up the cause of the class issue moving it back to middle class. I've changed it to upper middle class to reflect the above discussion. I had no idea how culturally relative this issue is though. On the upper middle class page, it gives a signifier of upper middle class status as a "vacation in Hawaii" and a "luxury car"! Good lord no!--Zleitzen 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You guys are trying to fuck fleas in the ass...
(...while fleas are in flight...)
Nobody knows if Guevara was upper middle class or lower upper class.
Um, Che Guevara was born into a middle class family. This is virtually undisputed by anyone (outside of this place obviously). Of course, you have to have an understanding of class to define Che's. Don't we work on sourced info around here? Even the BBC, a bourgeois media outlet, hardly friendly to communism or Che, says he was middle class. Check out http://www.companeroche.com/index.php?id=92 It contains an article from the BBC that reads: "A former medical student from a very middle class Argentine family, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was an unlikely revolutionary hero." I'm changing it back. Redflagflying 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not following the comments by a couple of users above. The point here is to try and write an accurate article as it is anywhere on wikipedia. Having read the analysis of Polaris, who is responsible for editing most of the accurate detail on this featured article, it would seem that to maintain accuracy, middle class would not be a fitting term. For the record
here are contradictory sources which define Guevara's upper-class upbringing and thus dispute the indisputable [50]
Here's another from the Guardian
"He had this Castilian Spanish upper-class guilt about the working class" [51]
Here's another
[52]
And another [53]
Here is a description of Chichina's "upperclass" family [54]
There are many others. Therefore it would seem to be that "upper middle class" was more accurate than middle-class.--Zleitzen 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You people have to be joking me, using sources like "national geographic," one of the most anti-communist media outlets ever. I'm sure they have no motive behind their description of Che as upper class... yeah right. There is a thing called objective fact. The objective facts here are that Che was born into a family of middle class (petty bourgeois) professionals. He wasn't born into a family of the ruling class. His family were not capitalists. Capitalists make up the "upper class". Class is not determined by how much money one has, or what kind of vacations they take (what kind of ridiculous shit is that??), it's determined by one's relation to the means of production. Che's family was not made up of capitalists (upper class), nor was it made up of workers (proletarians), nor was it made up of lumpenproletariat (street criminals), nor was it made up of peasants. It was made up of professionals, middle class, petit-bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie. This isn't even something that's up for debate anywhere but here, where common misconceptions win out over fact. Redflagflying 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You write, there is a thing called objective fact. And that this isn't something up for debate anywhere but here. Apparently the issue is more subjective than we thought - see sources again, and there is a debate here, I'm afraid. As we can quickly establish - all of Guevara's ancestors are from the highest echelon of the Argentine land-owning "aristocracy", and Guevara's father received a large inheritance. That would seem to contradict your analysis. According to biographer Jon Lee Anderson, Guevara's father bought two hundred hectares of land along the banks of the Río Paraná, and "with an entrepreneur’s eye" attempted to restore the family fortunes. After Guevara's parents married they were admired as "rich and admirable people" whose home by the river was "a mansion". After the failure of Guevara snr's plantation, they lived on his sister's "colonial estate". --Zleitzen 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Guevara's father received a large inheritance, but his mother received a huge inheritance and the family basically lived off it until Ernesto, Sr. had spent/wasted all of it, which had occurred by the time Ernesto, Jr. (aka Che) turned 15. I think the main problem here is that the social and economic position of this family was too complex to be summarized in one word. -- Polaris999 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I should add that the national geographic was used to reference Chichina's "upperclass" family. I don't believe that is possible to dispute. While other sources that refer to the "upper class" Che include The Guardian newspaper, is that an anti-Guevara media outlet? So again I am no wiser as to the points made to dispute the upper-middle class compromise. But I do believe a brief description of the Guevara family status is required.--Zleitzen 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, upper-middle class has specific connotations (mainly, it connotes upward mobility from the middle class) that are wrong here. It would be more accurate to say something like "descended on both sides from Argentina's elite, but his own father's lavish spending and poor investments had reduced them to a middle-class standard of living". - Jmabel | Talk - 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
La Lynch
Apparently Guevara's second surname Lynch does not related to Paraguay Chaco War dictator Francisco Solano Lopez's famous mistress Elisa Alicia Lynch[55]. It seems her surviving sons took the dictator's last name. However, the name Lynch was originally Irish, as is its application to violence, thus the Elisa and the Che may well have had consanguineous roots. El Jigue 12-1-06
Which part of this information, do you think can be added to the article? Remember you're not banned from editing articles. GoodDay 23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Aureliano [56] let us wait to see if this shows up. It is probably correct that there is potential consanguinuity but not a close relationship. BTW Is there a Wikipedia page on Elisa Alicia Lynch she certainly deserves one. El Jigue 12-02-06
I recommend that you should create a 'Elisa Alicia Lynch' article. GoodDay 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Among Jorge Luis Borges's pseudonyms were B. Lynch Davis and B. Suárez Lynch. He tended to make pseudonyms out of the names of relatives and occasionally friend's relatives. Does anyone know if it is the same Lynch family (I'd guess it is) and what exactly was Borges connection? - Jmabel | Talk
His last words
Actualy I have read that the oficial report says that his last words were "Párese derecho y apunte bien, va usted a matar a un hombre", which translated would mean "Stand straigth and aim right, you are going to kill a man" and not "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man".
Maybe we should re-visit this matter. I, too, have read that the words cited by "Beker" (above) were the last ones uttered by CG. How do other editors feel about this? -- Polaris999 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a different version far less flattering. He may have been wounded deliberately before in revenge for the cruel execution of William Morgan. However, my recall of such reports could be faulty (:>) El Jigue 12-2-06
Does anyone know of a source for this ... ?
IP 67.189.188.140 has added the words bolded below to the fourth paragraph of the "Congo/Expedition" subsection:
South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare, a US Army Special Forces detachment, and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara.
While I have heard reports that a US Army Special Forces detachment was indeed involved, I am not aware of any WP:V source to support this assertion. Therefore, I am obliged to remove those words (the bolded ones) from the article until IP 67.189.188.140 or someone else can provide a verifiable source. -- Polaris999 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Polaris, it is my understanding, that Mad Mike and some Cuban exiles did chase Guevara out of the Congo. When I get the time will check my references on this. El Jigue 12-2-06
Thank you very much, El Jigue. Additional documentation re "Mad Mike" and the Cuban exiles would be valuable. Since we do have some verifiable sources for that information, I decided to leave it in the article. However, the matter of the "US Army Special Forces" remains source-less. Perhaps the Cuban exiles might have been operating as US Army Special Forces? If they were, this would solve the mystery ... -- Polaris999 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly for I have not read it Mike Hoare's 1991 book "Congo Warriors" Robert Hale Ltd (February 28, 1991) ISBN: 0709043694 mentions Cuban exile pilots. The pilots e.g. [57] or "The CIA replaced Tshombe's T6s with new T-28Ds, and recruited additional pilots and ground crew to operate them. The new air campaign required a far larger investment in personnel and equipment than had hitherto been the case. More than twenty Cuban pilots were now flying in the Congo, supported by Cuban ground crews." [58] I knew about I was thinking ground forces. Jigue 12-6-06
Felix Rodriguez in 1989 Shadow Warrior Simon and Schuster New York states he never fought in the Congo. ISBN0671667211 pp. 261 snd 265. El Jigue 12 6-06
Insurrection in Bolivia Actually Intended Towards Argentina
Recently (2001), a documentary was made entitled Sacrificio: Who Betrayed Che Guevara. In this film Ciro Bustos, Che's number 1 in Bolivia, tells how they were actually planning on an insurrection in Argentina and were using Bolivia as an outpost. Ciro Bustos himself said this in an interview in the doumentary. ~lvleph 13 Dec 2006
Signature
There is no basis to say his act of signing as Che was an act of disdain or irony, in fact the note says that it was not.
Chico 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is probably true that it is better not to attach any motive to his signing the banknotes as he did and let readers decide for themselves what he intended by it. -- Polaris999 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Existence of Money
I think sources are needed to say "he was opposed to the existence of money and favored its speedy abolition".
Chico 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Chico, and intend to provide them as soon as time permits. -- Polaris999 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Latin American intellectuals
An editor has added this to the legacy section:
Latin American intellectuals Octavio Paz, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Edwards, Enrique Krauze, Carlos Franqui, Jorge Castañeda and others contributed to demystify the image of Guevara.
This I believe is largely true. However there is no source, and I fear it may be classed as original research, if not now, but in the future. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to proceed. I will ask the editor to contribute.--Zleitzen 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the paragraph. Do you want me to insert multiple sources (multiple endnotes make bad reading)? The above-mentioned writers are very well-known for their condemnation of Fidel Castro’s regime and revolution fantasies in Latin America. ―Cesar Tort 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cesar Tort, its worth considering the best way to approach this, because I guarantee someone at some stage someone will demand a source - or will remove it in time. I know that Krauze, Franqui and Castañeda are particular critics - the point is very valid, and interesting so I want it to stay. If you check the page, the use of content notes has become very effective. If you wish to assist, you could add sources to this page and I'll dig up some myself so we can turn this into another brief content note.--Zleitzen 03:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll add the sources tonight. —Cesar Tort 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Great Cesar, could you stick them on this talk page and we'll fashion a content note. I view editing here as protecting the good stuff and removing the bad, and have learnt that if material is worth keeping it needs a stern defence of sources!--Zleitzen 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added the sources before reading your above communication. Letras Libres, published in Mexico and Spain, is a reliable source (as well as the house which publishes Paz's complete works). But I guess the sources will have to be changed to "paper journal sources" format (as is Letras Libres)? —Cesar Tort 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've turned the 4 refs into one for the moment (I don't know why more pages don't do this) so there is no need to worry about multiple endnotes. And we can format them later them and perhaps consider turning it into a content note, or at least add more context within the reference. Thanks.--Zleitzen 05:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Great! Here I post info for another conversion to content note:
cite book
last = Debray
first = Régis
title = Alabados sean nuestros señores. Una educación política (Ediciones del taller de Mario Muchnik)
Now I will try to search in my personal library to find the Letras Libres issue in paper. —Cesar Tort 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It now seems that the December 2006 issue of Letras Libres that I have is not the same that appears in the web [60] (the issue’s content of that periodical varies from Mexico to Spain). But it’s unnecessary: that article was about Jon Lee Anderson’s biography, and it’s easy to find a similar paper reference in English (the other sources I posted are in Spanish). —Cesar Tort 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
“The most famous photograph…”
Good job Zleitzen! Hitchens is so good as an iconoclast (just see his book about Mother Teresa…)!
Now I am concerned about the photo-icon. What troubles me is that posting that icon at the top of the page is pretty much symptomatic of the continuing incarnation of the Guevara myth. A more prosaic photo ought to appear at the top of the article, and only post “the most famous photo” when the text deals with the icon. In totalitarian countries it was a very common trick to publicize iconic-like photos of the political leaders. If the WP goal is to write a dry encyclopedic article, unidealistic terms and photos should be the rule. —Cesar Tort 08:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe there has been a discussion about this in the past, and the consensus was to continue using the Korda photograph. Though I wasn't present then to add my thoughts. To me, the photo itself is merely a clear photograph taken by Korda of the subject at a key moment in Cuban history. Personally I don't perceive it to be a continuation of the Guevara myth. I reserve those thoughts for the prints and modified versions. On the wider subject, it seems to me that in all societies it is a very common trick to publicize iconic-like photos of the leaders, political or otherwise. The Queen, whose image is replicated on all British money, stamps and until fairly recently could be found in most buildings, is not generally depicted scratching her arse. On wikipedia, Articles on most political leaders seem to carry actual official photos, and even signatures in the case of US presidents. The Augusto Pinochet article had an extravagant oil painting the last time I looked. (Update) No, its a treated photograph. --Zleitzen 11:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, Pinochet’s photo has not become an icon. I can only hope that in the future other editors will see the trickish snare of publishing a propaganda photo that conveys the feeling of a hero that Guevara never was. —Cesar Tort 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have always opposed the use of the "iconic image" which is currently displayed as the lead photo, principally because it is "doctored" (the eyes have been modified) and therefore I consider that it is not really an image of him at all. Back in April, I inserted one of the last photos taken of him in Bolivia (shown at left) File:Chepipabol.jpg as a substitute, but it did not take long for the proponents of the "iconic" to replace it with their favorite. You can read some of their comments in favor of the "iconic" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_5#Portrait.
It would seem to me that the "iconic" is not set in stone, so to speak, and that you or any other editor who can find a suitable portrait of equal resolution with appropriate licensing for Wikipedia is free to upload it and use it to replace the "iconic" at any time. -- Polaris999 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read the April exchange. Perhaps the debate can be resolved by posting the above photo at the top of the page and the cult photo below in the text? —Cesar Tort 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the cult photo could go in the cult section? That would indeed seem fitting. Why don't you give it a try and watch for the reaction? -- Polaris999 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that the photo on the page was the undoctored one and hadn't paid close enough attention to the fake eyes. In which case I think this is the undoctored photo is it not? --Zleitzen 20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Zleitzen, that is the case to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, in one more attempt to remove the "iconic" from the lead photo slot, I made a cropped version of the photo that you have inserted here (i.e., the photo that Korda actually took) so that the other man's arm and face did not appear in it, and I uploaded that version to WP and made it the "lead photo". However, not many days passed before the fans of the "iconic" restored their favorite to that position ... -- Polaris999 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Are those fans still editing this article? —Cesar Tort 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of those fans were never very active editors of the article -- they only made their presence known when someone attempted to replace the "iconic". -- Polaris999 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that we have now consensus? What do you think Zleitzen? ―Cesar Tort 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the best option is the one that Polaris attempted previously, a cropped version of the actual Korda photo (which I had mistakenly assumed was on the page - my eyes don't seem to be what they were as Polaris will testify, in the past I mistook some shadows on a young Fidel Castro's face to be a goatee!). To consiously replace it with the modified "iconic" photo looks like a poor effort on the part of those editors. Despite the actual Korda image still carrying certain connotations for certain people, it is clearly the best photograph of the subject, and for younger readers, will assist them making the link between what may be an obscure name with a familiar image.--Zleitzen 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The cropped image I made was deleted after the fans of "iconic" removed it from the article, leaving it linkless. Therefore, I have uploaded it again and will insert it here (below) so that it will not be immediately deleted again. -- Polaris999 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Polaris, I've replaced the pics to see if the shoe fits. And will scour the history for the names of those who replaced it before, to be added to the black book of Zleitzen for future reference!--Zleitzen 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Zleitzen. This picture isn't the best of CG that exists, but at least it is a real photo. BTW I don't think that anyone could have made out what was going on with all of those dark spots on the "black suit" photograph of FCR without having seen a better rendition of it previously, so I don't think your eyes are to blame! Re deletion of this CG image previously, I believe I uploaded it and made it the lead photo ca. 30 April 2006, so removal (followed by deletion) must have occurred not long thereafter. -- Polaris999 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is the edit Polaris - [61]. On the topic of Korda, the best photograph of his that I have ever seen is the one of Fidel Castro looking up at the Lincoln memorial, as the huge Lincoln statue looks back down on him. Beard to beard as it were. "The little man and the big man". But I can't find this anywhere on the net and don't have a copy myself.--Zleitzen 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the edit you have identified is the one that restored "iconic". I have never seen that photo of FCR and Lincoln, nor encountered any reference to it. If I ever come across it in the future, I will certainly forward a link to you. -- Polaris999 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Found it [62]! Though the small image doesn't really do it justice.--Zleitzen 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
“I've tried a bit of a reword on the latest additions - I hope this is acceptable” ―Zleitzen in edit summary.
Good rewording! My native language is Spanish and sometimes I don’t find the right words. ―Cesar Tort 04:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Please link this video
This is a great 30 minute video on Che that I think people will help get a sense of who Che was.
I would do this but I am new to wikipedia and I don't want to mess with the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.232.111 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Ah, Mark Steele. Excellant find, my friend. Probably the only Steel lecture I haven't seen, and I shall enjoy this over roasted chestnuts and hot tatties.--Zleitzen 00:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for help
Hi Everyone,
I know this isn't directly related to the article on Che Guevara, but it is loosely related.
I am one of the main contributors of the article on Eva Peron, and I have based the article in many ways on this article about Che. We are currently having a bit of an edit war over whether images of Time magazine covers with Evita are allowed on the page, as well as whether a (please don't laugh) still of Lisa Simpson in the episode The President Wore Pearls is acceptable.
I note that there are images of Che on covers of magazines, so I was wondering if some editors here could offer some help. I am getting very frustrated, to the point where I almost want to abandon the article due to some of the hostility I'm having to endure. But the Eva Peron article recently made it to Good Article status (largely due to my contributions, though you wouldn't know it for some of the hostility I'm facing), so I don't want to abandon it. There is talk that the article is a good candidate for FA status, though it will obviously need some work to get there.
As a photo news editor, I can tell you with some authority that the use of a magazine cover is perfectly legal and acceptable. You would not be able to use the lone image employed on the magazine's cover without the photographer's permission however, use of the actualy magazine cover is fine.
Is there a problem with my deleting Category:People from Santa Fe Province? The specific category Category:People from Rosario is included in it and works alone fine. There are some instances where parent and child categories are OK in an article, but doesn't seem to be the case. —Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC) * * * * *
^Maryland Institute of Art, referenced at BBC News, "Che Guevara photographer dies", 26 May. A;though surveys indicate less than 1% OF THE POPULATION HAS EVER SEEN THE PHOTO 2001.Online at BBC News, accessed January 42006.
^Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 372 and p. 425
^Fontaine, Pascal Latin America and the Communist experience, essay published in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression Courtois, Stéphane et. al. ed. Laffont, Robert. Paris (1997). Of Guevara, Fontaine wrote "The prison of La Cabaña, where he presided, is the setting for numerous executions, principally of old comrades in arms who remained democrats."
^Fontaine, Pascal Latin America and the Communist experience, essay published in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression Courtois, Stéphane et. al. ed. Laffont, Robert. Paris (1997). Of Guevara, Fontaine wrote "The prison of La Cabaña, where he presided, is the setting for numerous executions, principally of old comrades in arms who remained democrats."
^History News Network, "Che Guevara... The Dark Underside of the Romantic Hero". Online, accessed February 262006
^Fontaine, Pascal Latin America and the Communist experience, essay published in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression Courtois, Stéphane et. al. ed. Laffont, Robert. Paris (1997). Of Guevara, Fontaine wrote "The prison of La Cabaña, where he presided, is the setting for numerous executions, principally of old comrades in arms who remained democrats."
^Fontaine, Pascal Latin America and the Communist experience, essay published in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression Courtois, Stéphane et. al. ed. Laffont, Robert. Paris (1997). Of Guevara, Fontaine wrote "The prison of La Cabaña, where he presided, is the setting for numerous executions, principally of old comrades in arms who remained democrats."
^History News Network, "Che Guevara... The Dark Underside of the Romantic Hero". Online, accessed February 262006
) to add the four tildes.--Dakota 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
