Talk:Che Guevara

Featured article review

Discussions leading up to the featured article review are contained in Archive 14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the dead link checker at the top of the page, as it may be needed often: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also putting these at the top for easy access:

• Mar 10 2006 featured version
• Feb 26 2008 pre-revert version

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Planned article revert

Consensus has developed on the featured article review that the article should be reverted to one of these versions:

• Featured version, March 10, 2006 (42 KB readable prose)
• After main page appearance, June 19, 2006 (46 KB readable prose)

and rebuilt from there.

Please discuss and develop consensus here for which of the two versions is the best revert target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Several questions/clarifications: you state "consensus has developed" ... exactly how was that was achieved, how many people were consulted, and when/where did it take place? I am aware of the fact that 3-4 people (1 overtly bias and one who arose out of nowhere) had mentioned that they felt the article had contained POV issues, but that was before Matisse and Polaris did extensive cleaning up. Has the article been examined recently? Also under what/whose authority has it been decided that a revert will be the course of action? Redthoreau (talk TR 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Have you read the FAR page linked above? Your questions are answered there. As of now, you are the only editor opposing a revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also noting that the FAR has been up since 23 February and all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects have been notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Choice of versions

My preference would be for the earlier March 10 version because it is 10 kbs shorter and the writing cleaner. I think the POV has started to set in by the June 19 version. That version ends with the view of Che Guevara as "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle." This is the sort of statement I feel does not belong in the main article, as it represents a narrow global view and is culturally bound to a certain political view and even a particular age group. Mattisse 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Mattisse. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept either of the two versions, but agree that the brevity of the earlier version provides the cleanest starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Steps to restore

Several questions were raised on the featured article review. No, reverting doesn't affect the talk page, and no, a sandbox version of the original featured version isn't needed (it's in the article history). Someone may want to save a sandbox version of the current version, so that anything you later want to retrieve from it can easily be found. I offer to do the initial steps in the revert, including an {{inuse}} tag as needed until I'm finished, once the version is decided. Steps to restoring will include:

• 1. Revert to the chosen version. (I offer to complete all of the steps in 1)
  • 1a. Reinstate infobox from current version
  • 1b. Reinstate from current version categories, interwikis, nav templates at the bottom of the page, persondata; in short, everything in the current bottom of the article from {{Che Guevara}} down.
  • 1c. Reinstate sister links from current version
  • 1d. Review for current WP:MOS standards, add ISBNs, do basic ref formatting cleanup to a consistent ref style (thru 1c will take me a few minutes once I start; 1d could take me a full day)
• 2. Before any other changes are made:
  • 2a. Recheck all hatnote template links at tops of sections
    • This step includes making sure any new daughter articles (created since the featured version) are linked somewhere in the article; perhaps begin now to make a list of daughter articles?
  • 2b. Verify that all external links in sources are still live, some may need to be retrieved from the internet archive (www.archive.org) or from the current version. Restore and update all dead links: Check external links
  • 2c. Verify that all wikilinks are still accurate (this will be time consuming, regular editors may want to divide up the work and go through each section, checking on old links that may have changed or new articles that may have been added and need to be linked). Be aware of WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINKing.
• 3. Once it is determined that the article is completely restored, further work needed before content changes begin:
  • 3a. Scan the article and identify any outdated info, such as anything beginning with "as of".
  • 3b. Review for citations needed
    • Note: Zleitzen's version (rightly) used scholarly sources that may not be available online.
  • 3c. Decide which images to bring forward from current version
• 4. Begin content revisions
  • 4a. Review for POV
  • 4b. Discourage addition of any new cruft that isn't specifically justified, for example, per WP:EL or content that is already included or should be included in daughter articles.
  • 4c. Update as needed.
  • 4d. Review again for current WP:MOS standards

I believe those are the steps; please indicate anything I've missed so I can add it in. I also suggest allowing a few days to be certain consensus has formed before beginning this work. Discussion of the article should be on the article talk page; as the FAR moves along, others will be reading that page, and it isn't helpful to fill it up with unnecessary chatter and detail that can be dealt with on the article talk page. The FAR page should be used for determining whether the article meets or not featured standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to help, but I just had a glance at this; it looks reasonable. Should we make a workspace page for sorting out problematic links, or should we just plan on fixing them in place? I would think a workspace page would be useful, because it would allow a complete list of all the links that had issues and then make it clear what has been done about each of them. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to you! If you think a workspace page would be useful, then that is fine with me. I have never been involved in such a major project as this revert, so any advice/help from you is welcome. Polaris999 will be very happy. Your method sounds like a good way of organizing this. Mattisse 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel -- It is great to see you here!! -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have been involved in several undertakings of this nature (the most difficult, Asperger syndrome remains featured and is a fine article). In one case, because a revert to a much older version was done without advance notice, without cooperation, and without a plan, the article ended up defeatured. If everyone isn't on board, the endeavour will not likely succeed and is not worth attempting. Unless there is concurrence, the article should just remain tagged and be defeatured. Civility and cooperation over the very long haul are key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are we settled over who will do what? As I understand it, SandyGeorgia will do Step 1 tomorrow (Thursday). After Sandy is done, Polaris999 will handle template problems and such, while Jmabel will have the list of the links on a workpage and check them. I am willing to do the hatnote links. I can check the wikilinks. Then, at Step 3 I believe we should reconnoiter and gain consensus before deciding on images, quality of replacement sources, etc. Is this to your understanding, Sandy? Mattisse 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I'm busy most of today (Wednesday), intend to do all of Step 1 tomorrow (Thursday) unless consensus changes, and btw I have jury duty beginning (and hopefully ending) on Friday. I'll leave most of the rest to all of you, and weigh in as needed, mostly watching that MoS is followed, refs are clean, consensus is respeced, and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Work on article

It seems to me that Step two is fairly uncontroversial and any problems can be brought to the talk page. I am certainly willing to list hatnotes and check wikilinks. I know some of the external links to sources are dead. Polaris999 probably has the off line sources Zleitzen had (I'm guessing), and he probably is best for replacing dead reference links. Also, searches of standard sources such as BBC News will probably due for standard biographical stuff. Polaris999 and I are adamant that only sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS be used. We can discuss any problems on the talk page. Polaris999 has said he will do the template stuff. As far as citation style, I am used to WP:CITE but will use what ever is preferred for the article.

At step three, we will discuss issues of image and vet all citations on the talk page. At step four, of course, we will have to discuss. My view is that Guevara had been dead for over 50 years. Overly detailed descriptions, controversies, and legacy issues can take place in daughter articles. Much of the controversy now about Che has little to do with him as a person, in my opinion, and more with our collective state of mind today. My view is that if we cannot settle on a consensus regarding wording, then leave whatever it is out.

Hopefully, by concentrating on the task at hand we will quickly develop a good working group so that POV issues can be rationally discussed, allowing for differing view to arrive at compromises. Mattisse 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope there will be an attempt to avoid citing the popular press (BBC for example) when better scholarly or academic sources are available. Also, the featured version did not use cite templates, I personally hate them since they chunk up the article size and loadtime so badly, and if you intend to use them, you'll have to switch over all of the existing citations, which would be very time consuming. Since WP:CITE says not to mix citation styles, and not to switch the original style used (specifically, not to switch to cite templates), I highly recommend sticking to the citation method established by Zleitzen. WP:CITE guidelines dictate the same, unless there is consensus to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I will use whatever others are using for reference formatting. As far as sources, I only have a few books on Cuba, and none specifically on Che Guevara. I will have to count on Polaris999 then. Mattisse 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I myself have almost every book on Che Guevara in print (20 +) and will be willing to look up issues in the ones I have. Also Matisse how much have you ever read or researched about Che Guevara? I ask because I would contend that context and point of view can only truly be judged with an in depth understanding of the subject matter, and would encourage everyone interested in formulating the new article, to first independently research the man in question. It could only enhance the final product. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking at the references in the version of March 10, I have all the print books Zleitzen uses. Mattisse 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the March 10 version, I see some Geocities (personal, non-reliable sources) that will need to be replaced, so maybe you all can begin to look at those now. Also, I'll be putting a simpler and easier footnote style in place. It's not necessary to repeat all of the information on each book source in every footnote when the book date is already listed in References. That method just chunks up the text and makes it harder to edit. So, I will change (for example):

• Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 3

to

• Anderson (1997), p. 3

Cleaner, simpler, easier. I'll do all of that sort of work while I have the article in use tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This posting has been delayed by an "edit conflict" -- Help, Mattisse! I am lost already. I do not know what I should be doing at this point, but I started looking at the refs and checking the URLs that many of them link to ... I am now more than halfway through this task and, even though I am not sure whether I am supposed to be doing it or not, I am documenting my work so that it at least can serve as a checklist if this is someone else's job. Are you working on the same thing? If so, please have a look at: User:Polaris999/workspace/newCG01. Also, I have a replacement template ready for use as per SandyGeorgia's instructions. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris, do you know how to use http://www.archive.org ? You can look up dead links there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Yes, thank you, I do use archive.org. However, whenever possible, I will opt for replacing references to URLs with books, per your recommendation. I am proceeding with the task of reviewing the refs as I don't imagine anyone will be too disappointed if they find it has been done :-)   When I finish it, I would very much appreciate having one or more of you review my work and make suggestions, additions, etc. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to get on something today (I'm going to be out this afternoon), there is an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. We need a list of ISBN numbers for all the books. I'd like to add those in while I'm working on the article tomorrow, and looking all of them up will slow me down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty, since consensus hasn't changed, I'll put the article in use tomorrow (after I get through my morning watchlist), and start the revert. In case anyone is wondering, I could have done all of it in advance in a sandbox and then just popped it in with one edit, but I don't think that's a good way to go on a controversial article and a revert to a very old version. The reason I want to put it in use and go methodically step by step as outlined above is so that the article history will clearly show each step, and you all can follow along and feel comfortable with the work done. For such an old revert, popping in something I developed in sandbox might not inspire future confidence about the integrity of the revert, and doing it "live" will provide future transparency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite.php

Actually, it was Jmabel and I who introduced the WP:CITE system into the CG article. At that time, "Che Guevara's Involvement in the Cuban Revolution" already existed as a separate entity and I did not convert its footnotes. Later when Zleitzen started working on it and expressed frustration about the deplorable state of its footnotes, rather than converting them all manually as I had done in the main CG article, I ran User:Cyde/Ref converter on them, with very satisfactory results. That discussion, and the results of running the converter can be seen here. If others are in agreement, I would favor using User:Cyde/Ref converter on whatever footnotes may need to be translated into WP:CITE style as a "first pass"; we can then refine the output as necessary. Mattisse, re finding needed citations in books I own, I will certainly be glad to do so, and am pleased to see that Redthoreau also has volunteered. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I did the same thing for Zleitzen when we were working on the Fidel Castro article! Mattisse 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Only I did it by hand -- that was the olden days. Maybe you will shown me your automated way. Mattisse 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's funny! Certainly I will show you. You might start by reading the link under "here" above. Actually, there is not much more to it than that ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "here" under "here". Did you mean to leave a link there? Mattisse 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've read that link, I believe Polaris is confused. The CG article already uses the cite.php system, and there is nothing to be converted. No wonder his info confused me, as I also used cyde in the olden days, but we are beyond that. This article does use cite.php, and it already has ref tags. What it doesn't use is cite templates (WP:CITET), which is a method for formatting citations within the ref tags. I STRONGLY oppose switching styles (unless you all override me) because the cite templates chunk up the text, making it hard to copyedit and hard to read. Please go back to the featured version and look at it in edit mode to see the refs it already has; there is no reason to waste time changing them to a clunky citation method. I'll wait til you all catch up to undo the changes I did in the steps above. Having to manually convert perfectly good citations to horrid cite templates will be a huge waste of time, IMO. I can clean up the ref formatting as part of step one, and we can continue with the same citation style used by Zleitzen, which is already in cite.php format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Converter says all the footnotes are in the WP:CITE style, so no need to do anything except update them as a first step, I guess? Or provide better sources when available? -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Some of the ref formatting in the featured version is inconsistent although complete. During Step 1, I will do the basic kind of ref cleanup I always do, leaving one bibliographic style in place that we can then follow throughout. (Things like, journal names are italicized, newspaper title are in quotes, all authors with last name first, and so on.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. I will wait for you to assign me a specific task. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ugh, OK, I will add that step in the list above, which will be a factor that will slow things down. Polaris, are you going to handle that with Cyde? I'll add it in above, and then we'll have to check that all is in order before moving forward. That will change the order of things above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't slow anything down -- I can do it myself and it will take about 30 seconds! -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I added that step in above, but we should make sure everything checks out before moving forward from there. That means I'll have to do basic ref cleanup and ISBN additions after you convert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with March 10th version to address

If there is a tidal wave to revert then I may not be able to stop it, and thus will accept it. However from reading the March 10th version I noticed some glaring issues that would have to be addressed, I believe in the new article, (Which I would want to be a part of crafting)

Problems with March 10th version that must be addressed ...

- “Revolutionary, politician, and Cuban guerrilla leader.” – no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors. Also no mention of his contributions as a military tactician or social theorist ? His ideas involve philosophy just as much, if not more, than military theory.

- “Arbenz’s Social Revolution” ? Huh ? That is about the worst way to describe the systematic changes that Arbenz was attempting to implement.

- “Guevara Died at the hands of the Bolivian army” ... what kind of wording is that ? Were they cradling his head as he passed away from old age ?

- Inclusion of the fact that Che “pawned jewelry” when money was tight ? How is this relevant and significant ? Especially when other minute details are considered “overbearing”.

- “Guevara met Fidel” – sounds like they attended the same soccer game and bumped into each other. Raul (Castro’s brother and current Cuban President introduced Che to Fidel)

- 4 lines on Che’s role in the Play “Evita” ? There should be 0.

- The entire criticism section is for lack of a better word “crap” and certain non credible parts would have to be removed to another article. Also what is with the shout out to Chemart.com ? Are we going to also link the article to Che-lives.com as well and offer discounts on T-shirts? This particular criticism section does not belong in the new article whatsoever and if people desire it, it should be a sister article. Also citing Álvaro Vargas Llosa makes the article laughable. He is a self-identified partisan hack.

With that said ... I believe that the March 10th version could be morphed into a good article with the work of several people. I myself would want to take part in the process as I consider my knowledge on the issue considerable, and I have the desire to put in the effort and will cede final decisions on my contributions to Polaris ... whose judgment and objectivity I trust. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Red, if the revert is decided upon, will you agree to follow the steps above? That is, will you wait for steps 1 to 3 to be completed before beginning content revisions? If not, the job will be very complicated; everyone will just get in each other's way if content changes begin before the article is fully restored. And no, criticism can't be removed, as that violates POV forking at WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Will you agree to proceed in an orderly manner so the article can be restored before it is changed? This could take, perhaps (not sure) a few days to at most a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I understand that a section on Criticism is ‘par for the course’, but not that particular laughable one. Filled with innuendo, hyperbole, unfounded accusation, and product placement. Also the size should be kept to a reasonable length and should not be any longer than any of the other article sections. -------- Moreover, if the revision is decided upon, I would agree to wait the week or so for the article to be ready for edits. Also I would insist that the images in the present article that meet Wikipedia standards remain included, along with the post prose book/film references etc – which I believe are much more complete than the March 10 version. Also on matters where people believe I am inserting POV, I will cede to the judgment of Polaris. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely that all of your demands will be met, as almost everyone else disagrees, but each item can be discussed in due course, recognizing consensus. The central question is if you are willing to proceed according to consensus and let the restore work happen before work begins on the items you mention so that we don't get crossed up before the article is restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise, cede my wishes when showed actual wiki policy which contradicts it, trust the objectivity evaluation of Polaris, and yes will wait the week or so, for the article to be restored to a state that can be edited. Redthoreau (talk 65.13.71.158 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, Red. Mattisse just left (today) FAR notifications at all relevant WikiProjects, so I suggest we wait a bit more for consensus to develop. In the meantime, people might want to begin reviewing ahead on the steps, to see what they can work on in Step 2, once I complete Step 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Redthoreau -- Thank you very much for your vote of confidence which I truly appreciate, but I had already opted out of POV matters via the following message on the FAR page, i.e.:

"Hello, Mattisse. I am a bit of a "templater" and would be glad to work with others, or on my own, to update those as needed. It is mainly the POV issues in which I do not wish to participate. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"

In any case, all decisions here need to be taken collectively and I have no doubt that working together in a calm, deliberate and respectful manner we will be able to achieve our common objective of creating an excellent article. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in ref formatting

I will list issues here so we can all be on the same page before we start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Full dates in citations need to have a consistent format and consistent wikilinking (see WP:MOSDATE). I will default to the method Zleitzen used, which is linking in the format day month year (Latin American style). Please note that accessdates as well as publication dates should be consistently linked, and the "raw" format (day month year) should also be consistent, since most of our readers aren't logged in, don't have accounts, don't have user preferences, and only see the raw version.
• Zleitzen used, "accessed day month year", but I see some capital Accessed, Accessed on and Retrieved on have crept in. I will stick to one style, the one originally established by Zleitzen (accessed, no uppercase, no "on").
• Journal and newspaper names and book titles are italicized; article names are not, websites are not. Newspaper and journal article titles are in quotes. (See WP:ITALICS and WP:CITE/ES).
• I will always default to listing author last name first for ease of alphabetical location in the source list. The format I'll use will be:

• Last name, first name (year). (Note punctuation). On listings that have no identified author, the publication date moves to after the publisher.

• Book sources that are used more than once will have full info listed in the References section (we need ISBNs on all of those, see the ISBN finder in the user box on my user page). It's not necessary to repeat all of the information on each book source in every footnote when the book data is already listed in References. So, I will change (for example):

• Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 3 to
• Anderson (1997), p. 3 If there is more than one book by the same author, title is also included. This will make it far easier to update citations, you only have to have author and page no.

• There are numerous citations problems in the current (and featured) versions. Note MOS:CAPS#All caps, I will reduce those. Note consistency in date linking mentioned above. Note that all websources need an accessed date.
• There is also some current inconsistency in order of items in citations. I will put author before title, and publisher after title. (Some of the current entries have publishers listed first as if they were authors.)

I'll add more to this list as it occurs to me. Keeping a consistent citation style from the beginning, per crit. 2c, will avoid having to fix them all at the end, which is extremely tedious work. Cleaning up the existing citations to a consistent style will take me quite a bit of time tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you said that newspapers were not good sources. However, in the Fidel Castro article, BBC News was excellent as they have reporters assigned to bureaus in Cuba and other countries, unlike U.S. media. What do you thing? Mattisse 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave that up to you all because you have access to academic and scholarly sources that I don't have, but in general, I would certainly prefer scholarly sources over any media source. Specifically, the BBC's past reporting on Hugo Chavez was clearly biased (pro-Chavez), although they've gotten more neutral recently. In general, I'd always prefer academic or scholarly sources, particularly on someone who has been dead for 50 years and about whom much has been written. Relying on the popular press in this case (just because it's available online) isn't necessary. That's my 2 cents, but you all can evaluate each source vis-a-vis the scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• O.K. But surprisingly little has been written about Che Guevara in scholarly and academic sources. The first reasonable biography was written in 1997. Most writings are very pro or very con, or written by Che himself. Anyone reading this, please correct me if I am wrong. Mattisse 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I want to make sure we have a consistent ref formatting style in place, and let you all sort out the best sources to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my list of refs with problems Talk:Che_Guevara/List_of_Refs_with_problems -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to say this after the fact but: you seem to have omitted the URLs wherever they were "broken" URLs. Actually, even "broken" URLs may be very useful in finding a substitute. It may be on an archive somewhere, either on that particular web site, a closely related web site, or one (like the Internet Archive) that uses old URLs as part of its indexing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel -- Thank you for pointing this out. I omitted the URL in the case of ref#2Rosario de Santa Fe Argentina because I had already checked it myself and tried to find it on "wayback" and couldn't (it exists there, but only in 2007 and I thought that since the version of CG that we are going to use was written in 2006 it would be inappropriate to use a 2007 version of a source which could be quite different) and I knew that a book was available as a source and I am going to provide that as a reference instead; for these reasons, I didn't think anybody would want the non-working URL, but I will add it now and check to make sure the others are there also. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you were saying that I should put in the URLs for all of them, even those that are still working? I will be glad to do that also. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all in there now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to volunteer to take a "first pass" at the images. Meaning, I would restore/fix them as seems best to me, then others can discuss and make modifications as they consider necessary. (I am thinking in particular of the TIME cover which I will restore but which may or may not meet "Fair Use"; others will have to decide about this because I am not an expert.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is great, as you are familiar with the history of image problems in that article. Mattisse 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am working on them now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Before spending any time on bringing in images, it would be good to run them by somehow well versed in Fair Use, Free Use and other image copyright issues on Wiki to make sure they pass muster for a featured article. I suggest either Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Laser brain (talk · contribs) or both; if they can't get to it, then also Pagrashtak (talk · contribs). Perhaps them give a list of the images under consideration to see if they check out? There's no point in bringing in images if they have licensing problems. Also, the current version of the article is a bit heavy on images, verging on Wiki is WP:NOT a photo gallery, so they may need to be pared down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Jmabel (talk · contribs) used to be very good on this issue when he was active. How are you doing all this, since the revert has not occurred yet? Mattisse 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How is who doing all of what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is, by its nature, a great big gray zone, and it is hard to say what will pass muster because attitudes on Wikipedia have been evolving (towards allowing only the lightest shades of gray). {{Non-free use rationale}} gives a lot of clues what they look at:

1. It has to be clearly sourced (no trouble in the case of a magazine cover).
2. It has to be relevant to the article, and the nature of that relevance has to be spelled out.
3. It has to be basically irreplaceable: the image itself has to convey something that is unlikely to be conveyed by any "free use" image we could create (e.g. it's almost impossible to claim fair use for a map, unless there was commentary about the map, not about what the map represents).
4. If it is possible to get the point across with less than the whole image, that is good.
5. If possible, images should be at a low enough resolution that they would not have the economic value of the original

So, for example, Che on the cover of Time is not acceptable just as an image of Che, but it is likely to be acceptable in the context of discussion of how the media looked at Che, especially if the article illustrated by the cover is explicitly commented upon in the article, and even more so if the particular image is discussed in that context. Note, however, that it the photo were being discussed independently of Time's use of the photo, then including the Time cover as such (rather than an unadorned image) would actually be pretty dubious. The narrower the context, the less some other image could be substituted, the stronger the fair use argument.

Contrary to what some people have said, I believe we are so far from any "line" that there is near-zero risk of legal problems: Wikipedia itself is clearly non-commercial and educational, and fair use justification in a non-commercial, educational context is very lenient. We have, however, decided as a community (well, really, this was something I think Jimbo decided almost unilaterally, but others have elaborated the consequences) that we want to confine ourselves to materials that would clearly pass muster when reused commercially. So, in practice, we are being even more cautious than, say, the average newspaper.

Hope that helps. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but. I've given you the names of three editors who are active at FAC and FAR, and who will review the images eventually, so it makes sense to ask them in advance, rather than finding out they're not happy a month from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not enough to show them an image. One also needs to explain the rationale. I was trying to lay the groundwork to do that. The "fairness" of "fair use" only makes sense in the context of a particular usage. It's about the use, not about the image. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So glad you are back, Jmabel. I know it is just temporary, but it is so calming for me. Mattisse 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, yes, correct. Fair Use rationale depends on the text in the article accompanying the image, so giving a list of images to people won't do the trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing out

Hey, folks, I'm sorry for the news at this stage of the game, but Mattisse is uncomfortable with my participation, so I feel it's best for the article if I bow out now.[1] This sort of undertaking works best if everyone is on the same page to the extent possible. Please rest assured I haven't joked about anyone on my talk page, and I don't know where Mattisse got that impression, but that is best dropped. I didn't "demand" anything, rather I explained how I planned to proceed to gain consensus before we all invested a lot of work. If the "tone this is taking on" is upsetting to a regular editor here, I must bow out for the good of the article. Good luck, I wanted to help, but this is best, and I hope the article can pull through and retain status, in Zleitzen's honor. He was one of the first Wiki editors to befriend me, and I hope his work can be preserved. Unwatching now, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)