Talk:Che Guevara

Stalinism?

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

As of now the article does not mention Stalinism or Che's support of it. The Spanish edition of this article does. Should it be added? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a worshipful view of Che. So no, it should not be added. User:Redthoreau and User:Coppertwig are in charge of the article and nothing that they do not O.K. is allowed in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As with all articles, content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS involving all editors, not just me and Redthoreau, and by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Whole books have been written about Guevara, and this article is just a short summary, a few pages in length. There isn't room for everything. We need to choose the most interesting, relevant, notable etc. material.

If you think something (about Stalinism or anything else) should be added to this article, I suggest you write something here on the talk page, with suggested text to add, giving one or more citations, and perhaps an argument as to why it's important enough to include. Then everyone can discuss whether to include it or not.

For some material, if there isn't enough room in this article, there may be a place for it in one of the other articles about Guevara. For example, the foco theory article is about Guevara's ideology, sort-of, so possibly that information might go better there, where there's more room to go into detail about ideology, although perhaps the article is only about one aspect of Guevara's ideology so possibly not.

Anderson (1997) mentions Stalin only briefly, e.g. p. 565, and indicates that Guevara was initially enthusiastic about the ideas, then later disillusioned with them.

I don't see why mentioning support of Stalinism would necessarily be considered worshipful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Then maybe we should look at including some mentions of Stalinism, *including* desribtions of Che's initial attraction to it, and later shift to Maoism. To me, this information would be crucial to an article on Che. Also, if the context of Che signing a letter as 'Stalin II' is even remotely uncertain, then I think the eventual article entry should reflect that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 87, you are more than encouraged to draw up an example of a cited statement that you believe would be worthy of inclusion and display it here for possible consideration (the article is locked from IP edits due to past vandalism, but I would gladly include it for you if there is some consensus on its verifiability and relevance). In addition, if you would rather have me write up something, and are willing to give me a little bit of time (week or so) then I would also be willing to write up a proposal that hopefully would alleviate your concern for there being a lack of inclusion of this material ... just let me know. The last thing I want is for others to view this article as a “white-wash” (or paradoxically a “hatchet-job”) and I am more than willing to include or back the inclusion of what could be viewed as “negative” aspects, as long as they are verified amongst the credible & scholarly Che biographers (Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo II) or others without an ideological ‘axe to grind’. These biographers do acknowledge this tangential connection to Stalin in his youth, and thus a brief acknowledgement in its proper context, I feel could be justified.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The article would also be worse off if it presented information in an overly anti-Che manner. My dream article would present the information, pro et contra, and then let the reader decide. (This really was a good motto before Fox news made a mockery of it.) - Anyhow, I think the mention of Stalinism is especially due in this article because Stalinism is one of the main points of the anti-Che info that is floating around the net and also in academic essays. In a somewhat imprecise metaphor one could say that there is smoke, but seemingly only a little fire (I.e. tangiental relations to Stalin). So by all accounts the article would actually be better off representing the fire, not to let it get out of hand if you will excuse the mixed metaphor. 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

90.184.19.129, you have not made it clear whether you intend to write some suggested text as Redthoreau (RT) suggested, nor whether you wish RT to do so as RT had offered if requested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As R.T. is obviously better informed I think he should do it. - Though it needent be more than a few lines.90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Per your response 90, I will work on something in the next week and display it first on the talk page here, that hopefully will address your concern.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, Redthoreau? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.99.126 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, just got bogged down / focused on other things. My intention is to include this by Sunday night, if not hopefully sooner.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IP's 87, 93 & 90 ... I have added the mention of Che's letter to his aunt where he laments on a picture of Josef Stalin, along with two separate corroborating references (Anderson & Taibo II). If you are unable to access either of these texts to view the passages I utilized in full, let me know and I will be happy to produce them here for you to read.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Where is a criticism section of stalinist murderer and butcher?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one paragraph in the "Legacy" section. bogdan (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Good Wikipedia articles don't usually have separate "criticicm" sections, but mix any criticism among comments in other sections where they are relevant, so that the entire article is NPOV, rather than having one section from one point of view (POV) and another section from another POV. If you think there's a POV that's not adequately represented in the article, I suggest that you state on this talk page some precise words that you suggest adding to the article, and cite a reliable source. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue is also discussed in more detail here.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

it was censored because its not PC to talk about the evils of Che 134.129.203.26 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored (WP:NOT). The policies used include verifiability and neutral point of view. The article should contain both negative and positive statements about Che, in similar proportions that such statements are contained in the reliable sources, and expressed in an impartial tone. The article already contains some negative stuff about Che. If you think it needs more, you can help. Please suggest some specific words for the article, give a reliable source for it, and maybe argue why you think the article doesn't have the right balance of positive and negative in comparison to the reliable sources. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the former featured article version and found the criticism section particularly useful to enhance the NPOV of the article. Why isn't it featured in this version of the article? Editor br (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor br, are you referring to the article as it stood in 2004/2006 etc? A link to the particular edition may be helpful in analyzing what details you found "helpful". I do know that during the FA process a year ago or so, that it was decided not to contain a separate section on "criticism". Of note, I believe any criticism section would need to be balanced with a "praise" section, as WP:UNDUE would mandate a proportional representation. I also would posit that even those who harbor an unfavorable view of Che, would find it hard to argue that indeed there is not more praise or accolades attributed to him, than criticism (to say nothing of the validity of either position). Moreover, to shorten the article (which became quite long) the section that formerly dealt with criticism, was branched off into a separate article entitled Legacy of Che Guevara. Is it your position that the article lacks particular criticisms? Because I share the view of Copper above that these critiques should be incorporated into the overall article (if they can be verified with a reputable source) and represent a criticism contained within the major Guevara biographies.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to this section, that I find particularly useful to balance the article and improve it. Coppertwig, can you point out in the Manual of Style or any other guideline why a separate criticism section is not featured in 'good articles'? I am in favor of including this section that existed in the previous FA again, immediately after the legacy. Objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object for numerous reasons. There are many criticisms that one could make of Che Guevara. However that particular (almost 3 year old) section is not only in contradiction to the majority of scholarly sources, but also blatantly incorrect on numerous accounts (to say nothing of extremely WP:POV). It also violates WP:Terrorist, WP:UNDUE, and includes a blatant advertisement for an anti-Che site which sells merchandise. How that section was allowed to last more than 1 hour to me is baffling, as anyone with even a basic background with the material could easily point out the errors (I have provided a source below [Physician section] for a copy of his medical diploma for instance).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is what happened. The article was promoted March 10, 2006. Subsequently, naturally, many edits were made to it. On July 7, 2007 Jimmy Wales put a POV tag on the article [1] and [2]. saying the article was Che propaganda, that it had become far too pro Che, and lacked a balanced perspective on his negative effects. Those of us editing it tried to fix it for a while, but as we were getting nowhere, I put the article up for FAR, as it had become such a travesty from the FA version. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. At one point, we had agreed to revert the article to the version that had passed FAR as it had been hopelessly messed up since then and could not be fixed. In fact, SandyGeorgia and another editor agreed to revert it. However, that fell through, and even those that worked hard on it, such as Jbmurray admitted the problems were massive, could not be fixed without months and moths of work by neutral editors, and voted to remove the FA status. SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008. It has remained in that sad state since, not appreciably improved. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008." I do not "demote articles" at all; closing Featured article reviews is not within my remit as Featured article candidate delegate. (See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1; the article was defeatured on 23 April 2008 by Marskell, the FAR delegate.[3] ) In fact, Mattisse, Jbmurray, Ling.Nut and others argued that the article was "hopelessly POV",[4] while I entered no declaration. I did, however, bow out of attempts to improve the article (which I thought was on track to be saved)[5] when Mattisse expressed discomfort over my participation.[6] It is not clear why Mattisse is now suggesting that the article come to FAC when she previously opined that it was "hopelessly POV". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, learn to recognize irony (hard I know) and find something else to do with your time than follow old arguments that have nothing to do with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A false claim that I "demoted the article as POV", explicitly mentioning me by name, definitely has everything to do with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am flattered that my "every little" post is followed with bated breath by you. Feel free to continue! I only thought (since you are always complaining about how far you are behind) that you might have something else to do. But I guess not, so again, feel free! I know with one stroke about anything at all can send your reputation into the cellar! (Have you noticed that no one else gave a s--t! (Some how my ironic little comment got NO notice, except by you, dear Sandy. So thanks for noticing.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the article is in a "sad state". I also believe that old/past comments on an article ‘may’ not be helpful in the sense that they often/can refer to an article that resembles little of the current edition. Additionally, I would contend that the current article is far superior in quality to the original March 10, 2006 article that received FA status. What is your view on comparing the two? With that said, I respect your right to vehemently disagree with this assessment, and find your opinion valid + in good faith (even if I don’t agree with it). Out of curiosity, and in recognition of your dearth of editing experience, what are some flaws that you believe exist with the current December 25, 2008 article? + Possible remedies to correct them? Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 07:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we ask for 'peer review'? Redthoreau, I see that you are looking for feedback, as stated above. If no one objects, I will ask for some input of other editors here. Any objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor br, I of course welcome the participation, input, and advice of any editor who wishes to assess the article (not to mention that my 'permission' is not required). On issues pertaining to mode of style, grammar, composition, format etc I believe that a peer review can be extremely beneficial. However on matters pertaining to neutrality, npov, undue weight etc I believe an open request to any/all editors 'may' not be as useful, to the extent that judging the weight of the preponderance of information, requires a grasp of the subject area and available materials. On matters of neutrality, this could be difficult for someone with a novice background of the relevant material, as they might become easily susceptible to baseless attacks or unfounded hyperbolic partisan critiques which exist 'online' and through a Google search, but do not exist in the prevailing & heavily sourced printed materials by experts/scholars/researchers in the field. With a controversial and polarizing historical figure (such as Che), it can be very difficult to achieve a ‘fair’ portrayal (which admittedly can be in the eye of the beholder). --- Despite this I would be open to a peer review or FAC, but would first prefer discussing the matter here on the talk page and preparing the article for such a review, with editors who may have an interest in the material (and thus hopefully more than an introductory exposure). Br, what are some areas that you believe need to be addressed?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Nominate the article for FAC!. That is the best test of the article's quality. Redthoreau or other editors who have been working on it should nominate it. FA reviewers give excellent evaluation and advice. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are formatting issues I was going to work on before proposing it for FAC. See Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#Cleanup?. I haven't gotten around to starting. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors, I understand your concerns regarding the difficulty to grasp the topic. Che is indeed controversial. The idea of a peer review is to check how does this article appear for a new pair of eyes. If there is a perception of a better quality than the 06' standard and an interest to nominate this article to FA in the future, a peer review may be a good start. As for my concerns, in a superficial reading I had the impression that article is too favorable to Che (e.g. most of the section that . I did not check the sources yet. I agree that internet is not the best resource to do such work, and I can check some academic publications of historians and published material in my Univ's library once I return from the break. Is there any important sources that are missing? I noted some in the to-do list, but I don't know if the status is acurate. Although I am not a specialist, I am willing to help. I work in the Wiki-portuguese and my plan was to translate the article and include some -pt sources, but as there seems to be a neutrality dispute, I prefer to work on the article before translating it. What do you think? Editor br (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

br, what is your view of the current Portugese Che Article and how it relates to this English version? Additionally, for those that can understand them, there is also the Spanish Che article or the French Che Article which may help in weighing the npov of this English version. I respect your view that the current article is "too favorable", although we have had accusations recently of the article also being "too critical". As for texts, I would recommend consulting the 3 main biographies by Anderson, Taibo II, and Castaneda (mentioned up above) which were also recognized by User:Jbmurray (whose objectivity I believe is unquestioned) as being the primary reliable texts on the issue in the past.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor br, you're certainly welcome to edit the article. It's my impression that there has been some criticism of the article as too favourable to Che, but not so much clearly-stated argument about what needs to be changed to balance it out. The article tends to just report things as facts, but at least one of the featured-article reviewers thought it should more often state both sides of things (e.g. along the lines of "this source says this but that source says that"); that seems like a good idea to me, too. I have no opinion about whether a peer review would be a good idea at this time, so go ahead if you like. When specific issues are raised, I might (or might not) get involved in discussing them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, I will be on vacation (and not able to post) till January 4th. Upon my return I would be more than willing to take part in any peer review, group discussion, FA process etc that editors feel is warranted. I obviously do not WP:Own the article, and understand if some process should get underway before my return. In my absence, I would cede questions intended for me to User:Coppertwig ... whose judgment I hold in high regard.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the Portuguese article is bellow acceptable standards, that is why I am looking for other versions to base a new edit of the article upon. I will read the Spanish version and give my thoughts. Furthermore, I will briefly check the three bios you mentioned in the library, late January, when I go back to the University. Let me know what needs to be done in between. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist

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

IP 67, (1) Such adjectives/neologisms would be inappropriate and WP:POV, (2) Wikipedia has words that they WP:AVOID and "Terrorist"/"Terrorism" is one of them, (3) Che is not known for having carried out any "terrorist" attacks, thus calling him the "Godfather" (itself an inappropriately hyperbolic term) would be unwarranted. --- As an aside, I would suggest expanding your reading list on the subject beyond hyper-partisan blogs or negationist/polemicists (I can provide you an array of varied sources, both pro-and-con, if interested).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Red, the Osama Bin Laden article has the word terroist in the first paragraph. Che Guevara was a terrorist he terrorized Cuba, the Congo, Bolivia, he attempted cordinated attacks on the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell but this plan was foiled by the FBI and RCMP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (67.201.136.122 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, it is your WP:POV that he "terrorized" Cuba, others (including the majority of verifiable and reliable published sources) disagree with your assessment. We are not here to include our own personal views (that should be left to a blog / editorial letter etc). We as editors are here to document the views of those experts, scholars in the field, and neutral sources - who have published material on the subject. This WP:FRINGE theory about Che plotting to blow up the Statue of Liberty, is not included in any of the 3 major Guevara biographies (Anderson, Taibo II, Castaneda) or the other (30 + biographies that deal with Che), nor has it been noted by WP:reliable or non-partisan sources. The only person I am aware that makes such a claim is Humberto Fontova, who would not be considered an objective or scholarly (main source) for such a claim (or any other for that matter), especially one that does not appear in other sources dealing with the same subject. Moreover, Fontova’s sourcing (par for the course with him unfortunately) for this "accusation" is also not clear, nor is there definitive proof to WP:verify it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Red, most of John Lee Anderson's book was writen within Cuba, how can an objective and unbiased account be writen from inside a police state, that heroizes Che. Che is a hero in Lebanon where more succesful terrorists influenced by Che, drove out democracy, then proceeeded to drive democracy out of Isreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, Jon Lee Anderson spent over 5 years researching his 814 page biography, which is viewed by nearly all reviewers as the definitive English-language work on the subject (the first 4 pages of the book are cited accolades from nearly every newspaper/magazine in the Western Press) + the book contains over 50 pgs of sources. Moreover, although yes Anderson did spend 3 years within Cuba (speaking to friends, family, consulting govt archives, Che’s widow, fellow guerrillas etc ... and no not Fidel or Raul) he also spent (as he discusses in the introduction) 2 years traversing Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, The United Kingdom, Moscow, Washington D.C., and yes even Cuban exiles in Miami (including CIA agent Felix Rodriguez). I will let others decide if Anderson should have spent 3 years in Cuba (the place that is most discussed in the book & for which Che is most known) or whether those years would have been more fruitful in say Iceland or Bangladesh. --- Have you read Anderson’s work? If you haven’t, I would urge you to check out Amazon’s reader reviews and possibly acquire yourself a copy. Anderson himself states (pg IV) that his mission was to counter the “Official Cuban hagiographies” & the “tiresome demonizations” which existed on the subject. Furthermore you have the biographies by Castaneda and Taibo II as well, which do not mention your proposed revision. ----- As for your comments on the tragic turmoil which has plagued Lebanon, Che’s standing as a “hero” there could be relevant to the Legacy of Che Guevara article, but I’m not sure Wikipedia affords editors the leeway to blame current political actions (regardless of their heinous nature) on figures that have been dead for 41 years, and who may have “inspired” such behavior. If you are Lebanese, I can certainly empathize with your plight, but these issues are unfortunately not relevant to this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Redif had wrote it in Iceland after doing research in Cuba I would trust Anderson's work to be reliable yes (not sure about censors in Bangledesh), but he didn't he wrote it in Cuba under the eyes of Castro's Regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm can become lost in written form. IP 67, the point was that Anderson compiled research for the portion on Che's life in Cuba - in the appropriate of all places - Cuba. Additionally, Castro's "censors" had no editorial control over Anderson's work. The final composition was formulated at the end of the 5 years of research and compiled outside of Cuba, free from those omnipresent "eyes" you seem to believe Castro possesses. Jon Lee Anderson lives in Spain and New York City and is not under the auspices of "Castro's regime". Do you have any verifiable evidence (what Wikipedia relies on WP:VERIFY) to call Anderson's research into question, or is it simply your unsubstantiated belief that the book you apparently have never read, must be unfairly slanted?   Redthoreau(talk)RT 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Back to the topic at hand. Che Guevara said the to Daily Worker (a Communist Newspapaer) reporter Sam Russell "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims." That is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

but Castro (Who appointed Guevara) became head of Cuba in an illeagal coup, it is not a legitamate government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, that is your opinion, not a stated fact (nor a commonly held view). Also which or whose "law" are you relying on when you declare the overthrow of Batista's dictatorship illegal? There is no international body that precipitates the “legitimate” means for a transfer of power, and coup d'état or internal revolution is recognized as a ‘legitimate’ transfer of power within international law. If they weren’t, the U.N. would have to expel half of their members.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Baptista coup was in violation of Cuba's constetution signed in 1940. The Castro accession was legitimate only until the provisional government was able to hold elections in accordance with the costetution. Castro violated that agreement and and betrayed the rebbelion as such the Castro should have been removed from power, which was attempted from 1959-1965 however US support of the rebels ceased in 1962, this was a failure of the Americans as the USSR (also an illegitamte government) was supplying planes, tanks, and advisors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

why Category:Anti-globalization ?

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

I believe he is most likely in that category because his ideas, and his denunciations of "neocolonialism" have been utilized by those who oppose the current neo-liberal policies identified as "globalization." Fidel Castro for instance has repeatedly cited Che's own statements to not only critique globalization, but to show how in his mind - Che was "prophetic" in his criticisms and warnings of such a system.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you can interpret Jesus' words to say that his statements were a critique of globalization. That's just POV: The category doesn't belong there. bogdan (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If Jesus' words were heavily utilized amongst many in the anti-globalization movement, then your red herring/analogy might be relevant. Che's critiques of what we now call "globalization” existed before the term was clearly defined ... however this does not negate the fact that his ideas do bear relevance in the anti-globalization community and are accurately identified as not only a ideological pre-cursor, but an “early warning” by those who prescribe to an anti-globalization ethos. There is nothing POV, about such a reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think if you go to an anti-globalization rally you might find people carrying placards with Che's image on them. A web search for "Che anti-globalization" has about 40,000 hits. If my arithmetic is right, that's about 5% of all the hits for "anti-globalization". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean Economic globalization which is often described as plain globalization. Che did a lot of travelling on the global scale.86.42.210.51 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Che was a communist, that meant he sought the end of nationalism, and economic globalism controlled by a central authority. Marx claimed that workers revolutions in German States, Austria, France, and Great Britain would lead to the fall of Capitalism by 1850, in 1873 he predicted the economic panic would lead to a second wave of revolution, it did not. in 1905 Lenin claimed that the reason capitalism did not fall was because of Imperialism, not just the capitalist exploitation of the worker but also the capitalist exploitation of poor countries like Russia. So the goal was that by causing revolutions in Cuba, or Bolivia, or Peru it would cause revolution in Mexico, if countries like the Congo fell it would lead to workers revolutions in the United States and Europe which would allow for a communist world by which a Communist order (probably Moscow)could distribute goods equally and dismantle capitalism. It is a very centralist concept which allows no room for non conformity, free arts, variations on status quo and which has proven unsuccessful on a small scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk)16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 67, see WP:FORUM & WP:OR. This talk page is not a discussion forum for the life/ideas of Marx etc. It is about Guevara (the man), and about improvements related to the article. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was merely describing the evolution of Communist ideology, and how they they would explain Che's worldview and actions, specifically why his anit-American views were not anti-globaist but pro globalist revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Physician?

Why is he called a physician in the first sentence? To my knowledge he never practised. There are rumors that he might not even have graduated.[7]--87.162.13.177 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the source you are relying on is a partisan "blog", this issue was discussed recently ... with the archived discussion being here ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#"physician"?. It is irrefutable that Guevara studied and practiced medicine throughout his life. He also served in a war as a medic and provided medical care to countless individuals (as discussed in his diary). The issue seems to be whether "physician" implies possessing a M.D.? Note that he is not referred to as a "Dr." even though during his life, and since his death, many reliable sources have done so. In my opinion "physician" is sufficiently vague to describe the role he played at various points in his life, but I am open to suggestions as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In reference to 'rumors/smears' of there not being a diploma, I've tracked down a published text which contains a copy of Guevara's original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated). The source is [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer - Translated from the Spanish by Sarah L. Smith, Marea Editorial, 2006, ISBN 9871307071. Ferrer was a longtime childhood friend of Che, and apparently when Guevara passed the last of his 12 exams in 1953, he "shook the diploma in Calica's face" to show him that he had passed. Ferrer had been telling Guevara that he would never finish, and this was Guevara's way to finally (and triumphantly) show him he had (Che also gave him a copy), so that they could embark on their trip throughout Latin America (Che's 2nd, this one subsequently after the more widely publicized Motorcycle Diaries). --- I would be more than willing to scan the page/image and post it here on the talk page, as long as Wikipedia would allow me to do so. Or perhaps I will make a fair use claim, and include a link to it as part of the article. Any suggestions are welcome.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This is not my general neighborhood, but I sometimes work with Coppertwig on copyright issues, and he asked me to share my opinion on this. :) First, this is too recent to be public domain, so the document can't be posted here on the talk page unless the copyright owner has released it or licensed it in a way that we can use it. If you want to advance a fair use claim, I would consider getting feedback first at WP:MCQ. This doesn't seem to fall into any of the standard allowances at WP:NFC, though perhaps it could be worked around into point 8 under images (kind of dubious; as I understand it, that point is when an image is itself historically significant, like File:Kent State massacre.jpg). Any fair use, obviously, would require commentary. Though I have not worked on this article (and don't intend to at this point :)), I do wonder if it it isn't sufficiently simply to add a line somewhere in the article (which I've not read; maybe it's there already) about this event with an inline citation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your input and will add a note to the references.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Showing he graduated from medical school would not prove he was a physician, only that he graduated from medical school. Not the same thing. Is there much argument that he graduated from medical school? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

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

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