Talk:Che Guevara

Evaluations, etc.:

List of "Che Guevara" articles in other languages known to have achieved "Featured Article" status. ( NB: this English version was the first to become a "Featured Article", receiving its bronze star on 12 March 2006. )

Is it possible to sum up your versions?

Rather than the constant reverting and such, can both sides please just state precisely what they'd like, followed by a quick explanation of why, or what they feel to be the key points?
I realize you've been arguing back and forth quite a bit about this, but it gets hard after a while to see precisely what it is that each person actually wants to say.Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc's version

In the months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of officials and political and ideological opponents from the previous regime.

• I want to keep the wording as neutral as possible and at the same time not blanket label everyone as deserving to have been killed or imprisoned.
• I want to avoid the term war criminals as I think it could apply to both sides and does little for the article's neutrality.
• I would like to point out, but will refrain from for the sake of neutrality, that as supreme prosecutor he also ordered the extrajudicial execution and imprisionment of an unknown number of prisoners of conscience and people of ideologies that he disliked, following the motto "if in doubt, shoot". He also was instrumental in setting up Cuba's first political/social Gulag. I don't, however, think these particulars belong in the intro, but perhaps somewhere else in the article.
• I would not object to including wording to portraying that some contend that those tried were done so in spite of their innocence or because guilt by associate and the contention that those tried were suspected of being criminals in some sense or another from a recently deposed regime.

Gtadoc 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen's version

My preferred version was the featured version, praised by massive consensus, and approved by experts on the matter off-site before Jimbo arrived. Without the distortions and woeful attempts to misrepresent the immense historical complexity of Cuba 1959-65 in two sentences.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps theres an easy way to do this; but I went all the way back in the history to look at that version and it didn't claim that they were all war criminals, it mentioned that some were accused war criminals, others political dissonents, others previous officials, etc. and they weren't given proper trials. I think it was ironic that in the intro it said that Che was not given a proper trial, yet we're now refusing to mention that he didn't give the same to his victims either. In any event, I think just removing the wording that says they were all war criminals will solve the pov problem. Fmehdi 05:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. None of what you mention has ever been in the lead of this article until Jimbo's intervention. Why not? Because it would be a POV, reductionist and wrong to do so.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the June 2006 version, so what isn't true? You are right though, the lead was different, it focused more on the Che as a martyr outlook, saying he was killed w/o trial, then the main body revealed the rest. I was wondering why you were trying to include in the lead only one part of what was in the main body of the previous text? It seems that if it is going to be in the lead (I don't know where that was decided, but it seems it was at some point) it should have all the perspectives just as it did in the main body of the FA. Fmehdi 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention a couple of points here:

• 1. "War crimes" would seem to be a less than idoneous usage to describe what the individuals in question were accused of if one accepts the definition of the term in War Crimes -- WP and War Crimes -- EB

• 2. Rather than trying to derive a version of the controverted section of the Intro amenable to all current editors from past versions of this article, might we perhaps look instead at some secondary sources of "good repute" for inspiration? For example, in his book The History of Cuba(2005), Clifford L. Staten writes:

Many of Batista's military and civilian leaders were given public show trials. Hundreds were executed and the government confiscated their properties. (Source: "The History of Cuba" by Clifford L. Staten, Paperback: 176 pages, Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (August 11, 2005), page 90. ISBN-10: 1403962596, ISBN-13: 978-1403962591.)

Couldn't Staten's dispassionate (and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate) description of the events in question serve as a point of departure for us to re-write the disputed section of the Intro? -- Polaris999 18:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<other name>'s version

<If anyone else has a version, please put it here>

I prefer this one:

• In the months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of political opponents, including officials of the deposed Batista regime, often without due process of law.

It's fair as it states the victims were political opponents, and that some of these opponents were Batisa regime officials. I think it's also important to mention the victims were executed without due process of law. In fact, some victims, such as Col. Cornelio Rojas, were executed on Guevara's orders with no trial at all. But I'll not push it....

BTW, here is youtube video footage of Rojas summary execution.

--C.J. Griffin 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would kind of like to see something like :Following the successful revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the incarceration and execution of hundreds, if not thousands of civilians, some of whom were accused of crimes perpetrated by the previous regime.

Just my thoughts; I think it kind of includes all positions. And it also mentions that those on trial were not military personel but rather civilians. I was trying to think of a way to add that at least some were innocent people caught up in the violence but couldn't figure out how to do it while sounding neutral, perhaps someone else can try. Maybe also something about how it may have laid the groudwork for future oppression? I'm also new to this discussion so take it for what its worth :) Fmehdi 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made this point before; "due process of law" is possibly a biased term. The due process of law likely alluded to is one probably not accepted by Cuba at the time. Also, in the aftermath of the overthrow of the previous regime the Communists were acting under Revolutionary Theory which would allow such actions. This means that the killings took place under due process of law, just not the laws which most people (including me) would proscribe to. However, if the rules then allowed Guevara to order the summary execution of "enemies of the people" then he was not conflicting with the law. LessHeard vanU 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case it should be noted that way; you're right, but I think it needs to be mentioned your way so the reader knows at least it wasn't with what we would consider a lawful process but with what may have been considered lawful at the time. Though, to be fair, even slavery was considered lawful for a long time, but immoral even so. Fmehdi 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If the term "...without due process of law." was replaced by "according to Marxist Revolutionary theory." with the same refs, etc. it would indicate to the reader that it was not done in accordance to international law, but under the terms then applicable. I think that is pretty neutral. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But completely false. Marxist Revolutionary theory had nothing to do with the post revolution executions nor Guevara's spell in La Cabana, which took place when Manuel Urrutia was President, and when the government was headed by liberals. The Cuban revolution wasn't a Marxist revolution - and the executions were no more or less lawful in Cuba than the executions of Nazi collaborators in France in 1945, or the executions of Baathists in Iraq. C.J. Griffith discusses the execution of the Santa Clara Police Chief Cornelio Rojas, shot by revolutionary troops having been allowed to give the firing order, whilst the city was on fire during two days of fighting in the final battle of the revolution. That's what happens in a war against a regime, whether its the Taliban, the Baathists, France 1945 or the Batista regime.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Zleitzen in thinking that we should avoid excessively highlighting in the lead this issue that seems not to arise in other encyclopedic histories. However a brief neutral statement seems appropriate, with the arguments on both sides expanded to the extent necessary for npov in the "Cuba" section. The sentence at present has the "war criminals" assertion which is obviously contested:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.

My suggestion is that this should be made more open, with detail going in the relevant section:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of people associated with the previous regime.

That attempts to cover civilians and innocents. "Political opponents" may be true of many, but doesn't really fit Batista's secret police. .. dave souza, talk 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Che oversaw the execution of around 300 people were widely acknowledged to have committed atrocities under the Batista dictatorship. There weren't "thousands" nor were those executed "innocents." Due process of law was served, as the law of the time was revolutionary law, and the trials were held in public, on a democratic basis, with large numbers of Cuban workers and farmers delivering judgment. (Source: "Fidel: The Untold Story," a documentary by Estela Bravo, which includes admission by former a CIA leader that the people executed were criminals, murderers and rapists, and that many were associated with or belonged directly to the CIA.) Redflagflying 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that numerous other sources say the opposite; in particular there was no rule of law (as could be expected of the time, for example the trials were often in the middle of the night) and criminals were lumped together with successful businessmen and accusations simply flung around until a judgement was pronounced. But, since we can't say it that way...something in between...Gtadoc 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are these "numerous other sources"? List them. Redflagflying 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just read the previous versions of the article, its already sourced in the body about the executions (and at some points in the lead). Gtadoc 05:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip Agee calls bullshit. Redflagflying 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good for him. Next? Gtadoc 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

General Discussion

• I think we should seriously consider page protection until we get this worked out.
• I know this format is a bit screwy, but I think it'll help to address what each side wants. Particularly helpful for less-involved editors. (Makes getting an outside opinion a bit easier without ignoring someone's desires entirely) Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't particularly like the idea of, for example, specifically naming homosexuals as his victims, even if it's true. It isn't that killing gays is good or anything; I just don't see the need to highlight any specific group. (which is why I preferred "for political and social reasons". It doesn't single one group out)Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to avoid explicitly using terms like "war criminals", especially "suspected war criminals". Like "terrorist", it's a word that's best to try to avoid unless it's specifically necessary. What's more, it shouldn't be used to describe all of those killed unless it applies to every single person killed, and "suspected war criminals" tends to beg the question, "who suspected them? An international body, or Estrada?" That said, there still may be some wiggle room. For example, it may be possible to come up with a phrasing which includes some of the actual roles mentioned in Zleitzen's reference quote. Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for the phrase "suspected war criminals" to be included. The citation quite clearly states this and while anybody reading the article in depth will have the context explained, anybody skimming it will be totally oblivious to any weighting in the argument provided this particular incident is not allowed to dominate the lead. I've already pointed out that if this is to be included then the lead needs to be balanced with other events at a similar granularity. As it stands we are slowly seeing this section grow to assume an importance out of balance with the rest of the lead. I see we now have "...suspected officials from and members of..." which, aside from being ugly prose, is redundant: officials from the regime must surely be members of it. And what exactly is the reference next to "dictator" telling us apart from the fact we want one of our FAs to look piss poor by citing the Concise EB? Yomangani^talk 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Yomangani. POV terms shouldn't be used just because of one source as it slants a casual reader's opinion. John Smith's 10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ok if it doesn't say this, but it can substitute the phrase with something more general, vague, or encompassing, as that would not be accurate per the source. I personally think the phrase used by the source is perfectly fine, and valid, for that was the reason they were on trial--suspected war crimes. Just being an official of the ex regime, or being an opponent is not what they were on trial for, per the source.Giovanni33 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the source is one that says one thing, and two or three others say another...well why should the more extreme one be the one that wins out? Other sources state they weren't even really on trial, just killed, but I don't think we should just say that either. It seemed perfectly neutral without adding the term 'war criminals' to describe regular people (even some kids for g sake!) I don't think it should be generalizing like that when clearly it wasn't so.Fmehdi 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

--Dianoz 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC):Dianoz Can someone plase make a criticism section and move such quotes as this one:

Author Christopher Hitchens, who was a socialist and a supporter of the Cuban revolution in the 1960s but has since changed his views, summarised Guevara's legacy thus: "Che's iconic status was assured because he failed. His story was one of defeat and isolation, and that's why it is so seductive. Had he lived, the myth of Che would have long since died."[85]

It's biast to end an article with such opinions. Someone "could" say the same thing about Caesar, Spartacus (if we take the movie interpretation of history), or Terry Fox. And please stop the bickering and unlock the page.

I've drafted a wider rewrite of the lead at Talk:Che_Guevara/rewrite, in which I've attempted to focus attention away from the single controversial sentence and bring in some general discussion of his life at the same level as the role as "supreme prosecutor". I believe that it can all be cited from the article if necessary, but I haven't loaded the lead with citations as they really shouldn't be necessary if the detail is covered in the article proper. There is discussion of his successes and failures and character traits. Most of the changes are expansions to what were existing points, but I have cut back a few redundant words and phrases (most of which had crept in since the article was promoted).

Some points about it:

• The quote about his "aggressive quality" comes from Castro, so is nice to use in the lead on the "anti" side of the argument.

Might you perhaps take a few moments to read the topic Paragraph_in_urgent_need_of_a_re-write that appears some paragraphs higher up on this same Talk page and provides important information about this quote and its context? Thank you -- Polaris999 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've used "members" rather than "suspected war criminals" in our favourite sentence, as

1. any "suspected war criminals" would undoubtedly be classed as members of the previous regime
2. "suspected" (as Bladestorm pointed out above) begs the question as to who they were suspected by. If it is (as it is) by the new regime then it is hardly a neutral assessment;
3. The reference source clearly states "suspected war criminals" so anybody that wishes to analyse the use of that word in the lead can see what is written;
4. "members" is neutral enough (hopefully) to encompass both "innocent victims" and "war criminals". It doesn't make a judgement other than a broad classification.
5. Within the larger context of the rewritten lead it doesn't skew the judgement of the reader one way or the other. We have plenty of examples of his character, successes and failures without needing to fight over whether this neutral wording is neutral enough.

• I've left out any mention of the Cuban missile crisis, Bay of Pigs and various other events where I'm unsure of the extent or importance of his involvement. Bearing in mind this should be a summary of the article, I think any case for inclusion of other events would need to argue for expansion of the detail in which they are covered in the main body.
• The first citation is missing as it references a named ref in the infobox (so will work in the article proper).

I believe that it is NPOV as written, and would like to get broad agreement to use it in the article. Any major objections need to be sorted out beforehand, but any minor objection can be thrashed out once we have removed the disputed tag. Yomangani^talk 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rewrite, and Polaris's point above regarding Paragraph_in_urgent_need_of_a_re-write encapsulates the problems on this talk page. Your interjection of an out of context Castro quote to the lead is a massive and obvious distortion of the quote itself. What people have done here since arriving in Jimbo's wake is distort and misrepresent reliable historical records, either to force some POV on the page, or to mediate some phoney dispute with good intentions. And when these distortions have been challenged, people have been falsely characterised as having "a pro-Guevara" slant, and the issue has been falsely claimed to be a POV dispute between "two sides". This isn't a POV dispute between two sides. And myself, Polaris and others do not have a "pro-Guevara slant" here. It is about having an accurate article. Since Jimbo's intervention, this formerly highly rated article has gained the air of a shoddy selective opinion piece. No more evident than the proposed use of the Castro quote in the lead, I'm afraid. (For what its worth - I added it to the legacy section of the article in the first place, much to my regret seeing as how it is being distorted now) -- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rewrite either, but you have to face the fact that since the visitation of Jimbo in his role as "ordinary editor" his important "fact" has been inserted in the lead and looks like it is going to stay there no matter how much you kick and scream about it (and, the way it is going, it seems destined to be expanded to explain in graphic detail the reasoning behind the choice of each word in the sentence). With that in mind, and as nobody else seemed interested in doing anything other than rewording "the killings", I tried to draft a lead with some balance against that single incident. With regard to the Castro quote, if we believe that the average reader is going to be unable to see it in context of reckless audacity and think that it implies ruthlessness (which is right next to it in the lead so would be redundant) or randomly violent we can drop it from the lead, but more importantly if we believe that, then what the hell is it still doing in the article? I wish all my urgent projects were as urgent as that urgently needed rewrite. Anyway, I shall remove this from my watchlist now and look forward to its appearance at WP:FAR or WP:RFAR. Have fun. Yomangani^talk 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Castro quote in the article? There's a big difference between having a selective quote within a summary of various opinions in the final section, compared with having it isolated in the lead. I think this article should go to WP:FAR and WP:RFAR, because it has been hijacked and destabilised by Jimbo Wales, and its value and credibility is diminishing as a result. I also suggest that Jimbo go to the featured version in Spanish and do the same as it is far less critical than ours and always has been. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for the version of the most disputed sentence at Talk:Che_Guevara/rewrite. I happen to have first-hand knowledge from unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources of a number of entirely inoffensive people who fell to our "supreme prosecutor" for no other reason than that they prospered under the conditions of life then extant. Killing them was like killing rabbits of a field you've roped off to turn into a garden-- their "offense" was simply that they'd successfully adapted to the previous lay of the land. If they were killed because they were not deemed an acceptable part of the newly favored use of the land, at least be honest and simply refer to them as "members of the previous" system. To imply they were all "war criminals", as the current lead does, makes us look foolish. This change should be made immediately while the rest is debated (I would favor mention of the Missile Crisis in the lead-- it is of significance to the entire world, not just Cuba or Congo or Bolivia). JDG 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG, I disagree. I also have first-hand knowledge from "unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources" that is not entirely congruent with your views. In my opinion, this is the reason the article must be based on WP:V, WP:RS etc. as any article should be and not on personal information no matter how "unimpeachable". You and I may disagree on the degree of "unimpeachability" of our respective sources. Naturally I tend to believe my first-hand sources since your sources are unknown to me. How would this quality (relative impeachability of personal sources) be evaluated and resolved? Sincerely, Mattisse 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Henri, I don't claim that first-hand (but unpublished) sources can be evaluated and resolved for the purposes of a W article. There are many high-quality published sources for the rewritten sentence. It has simply been the will of this article's editors that has determined which subsets of sources are emphasized. I disagree with this approach. NPOV is best reached by representing multiple opinions, not by attempting a totally dispassionate narrative voice extending even to sources and quotes, as this article mostly does... I mention my personal sources because I feel I know that a significant number of those destroyed at La Cabana were in no way "war criminals". So I naturally would want to see this knowledge incorporated into the article in a way consistent with policy... But I'm curious: your personal sources claim that every single one of those executed was a war criminal? JDG 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quite. The same happens when using verifiable sources, since the literature (in English, anyway) is likely going to come from either the pro or anti Castro/Guevara factions. Is anyone familiar with any history of Cuba/Castro/Guevara that is disparaged by both "sides", for not representing the truth as they see it, which may be the source of more balanced/neutral cites? If there is no such thing then the lead (and the article) needs to be a balancing act between the two viewpoints. LessHeard vanU 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am most comfortable if we leave the issue of "unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources" out of the discussion and deal with information that is properly sourced from whatever point of view. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the first problem being that Miami is just chock full of first hand accounts that no doubt differ from the first hand accounts coming from S. America and the few from Cuba, however, it seems there is one source claiming they are war criminals, and several claiming that they were mostly just members of the old government and/or members of society who prospered under it. Perhaps we could write something to the effect of "some claim..., while most others..." otherwise it seems that the current wording is the minority view. I do apologize for being absent from this debate, I am going to be fortunate enough to be able to go to Cuba in the coming month (oh, the joy of being a student again, and being able to get a student visa) to staff a humanitarian medical clinic there and later in Haiti so I will be away from wikipedia for a while. Gtadoc 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So this page has been very quiet; It looks to me as if there is a concensus to make this [[1]] the new intro version, with any minor details to be worked out later if need be (but not, for example, adding back in the old pov wording that started this). If this is the agreed upon version (or close enough to it) I'll ask for the page to be unprotected. Gtadoc 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is of any particular interest, but just thought I would point out that the suggested re-write [[2]] contains numerous factual errors. It does not make sense to me that, because the existing intro has one sentence (i.e. re the executions) that requires minor modification, it should be replaced by a complete "re-write" that incorporates numerous inaccuracies, the egregious nature of which should be apparent to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Guevara's life. I am not going to detail them here, but if the "re-write" is put into the article, I will tag each such occurrence.

-- Polaris999 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the time being, everything ought to be sourced even in the intro. This will make statements in the intro more credible. Sourcing is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, and the only way to go to prevent warring. If statements are in the intro, they should be sourced somewhere in the article and you should be able to find citations there. I don't think you should make up a version to make it sound neutral. Also, I don't think you should use quotes without clear citations anywhere, including the intro. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, alternatively, we could leave it how it is while only changing the one offending sentence? Gtadoc 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict} To me, more care needs to be put into the rewrite than appears to be the case. For example, I just looked at Footnote 5, the last one in the intro.[3] It looks, on casual glance, to be supporting the quote "excessively aggressive quality" as, of course, a quote must be sourced. In actuality it has nothing to do with that quote. To me that is the sort of writing that needs to be avoided if there is going to be any broad agreement to move forward. So I would support going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed, than to use one that has a casual disregard for facts. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The option proposed by Mattisse, i.e. "going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed" would be my preference also. -- Polaris999 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you wanted to work some more on your rewrite, Polaris (not volunteering you for more work!), I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?) and leave the rest how it was. Gtadoc 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, it is rather a lot to expect anyone who is serious about the article to want to want to work on it now after what has happened. Perhaps Polaris disagrees and is willing to work on the sentence. If not, then I would go with your suggestion of returning the article to its prior state (before all this started) and removing the offending sentence completely. My feeling is also that the page needs to continue to be protected as nothing has been settled. No new sources have been offered (that I know of) so the status of the POV complaint essentially remains the same. If the POV tag is removed it will probably be quickly returned, and I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go through all this again. Perhaps we all need a rest and we should let the article alone for a while until serious editors are willing to get involved . My experience with articles on Cuba is that once this sort of thing happens, it is a long time, if ever, before serious editors are willing to put work into an article again. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a problem with one editor in particular who went a little nuts, with some people trying to defend him based on how he had acted once in the past...I'm sure I'll have some more interest and time in writing after I return from my trip (about Cuba and Haiti). For the moment I'm mostly writing on science pages in the brief time I have. I'm also in the process of rewriting a history website for the DOE that I stumbled across and found most sorry. If no one else pings in I'll make a request for the change (removing the sentence) but not to unprotect the page. Gtadoc 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Gtadoc -- I was wondering if you would please clarify what you were referring to when you wrote (above) "I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?)" because I have not done any re-write of that sentence or of any other part of the intro since Jimbo made his comments about the CG article on 7 July 2007. When I mentioned a re-write (above), I was referring to that done by User:Yomangani and posted at Talk:Che Guevara/rewrite -- and I definitely do not think we should adopt it because of the factual errors and sourcing problems it contains.

What Mattisse has written immediately above perfectly captures my feelings about recent events related to the CG article. Nevertheless, I would be willing to work with either or both of you to try to improve the sentence in question. I have been searching through my published sources and seeking out others via the web and feel that it should not be impossible to come up with a version that would be acceptable to most wikipedians (although I readily admit that I may be deluding myself here ... )  I thought that we might start by making a list of points that are generally agreed upon re the La Cabaña tribunals and CG's role in them (all accompanied by reputable sources as per WP:V), then proceed from there to ever so carefully craft a sentence ... If anyone is interested in giving this approach a try (or would like to suggest a better one), please let me know. Thank you -- Polaris999 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I too have been confused by Gtdoc's seemingly haphazard references to rewrites and I am not clear what version he intends to restore. His replies to my comments seem to ignore my concerns and go on about other things that I do not understand. If he intends to restore the original intro (the one before all this started), I would be willing (tentatively) to work with you. My hesitation is that I am not at all clear what is happening now. The fact that there was no response at all to a suggestion that would result in a major change was interpreted as consent suggests to me some clarification is needed. I do not feel like I know what is going on now and would not feel comfortable proceeding until I do. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mattisse -- I share your concerns and hope that clarification will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I compared the pre-Jimbo version (the one on which Jimbo placed the NPOV tag on 07-07-07) of the intro with the current one and confirmed that there are only a couple of differences: (1) the first sentence of the pre-Jimbo version contains a reference to CG being a "medical doctor" which someone had recently inserted and which I consider superfluous in this location, hence I prefer the current version of that sentence which omits it; and (2) the sentence re the executions that has been added into the current version. As to whether or not the latter sentence belongs in the intro, I have no opinion about this one way or the other; however, if it is going to be included, I would like it to be re-written to improve its accuracy and clarity -- nevertheless, I am in no rush to do this, and accept that your idea of a cooling-off period may be the best way to go at this point.

Thank you -- Polaris999 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, if you are confused of something feel free to ask on my talk page. If you don't understand something its better to ask a specific question rather than just say your confused, otherwise its hard to address your concerns specifically (and its much faster than posting here that you are confused...)

I feel we need to fix the current page as it is currently locked in the version that has the problem sentence in it. As for the rewrite I noticed it was unsigned in the page I was looking at and Polaris was the user that had commented next, with his sig seemingly attached to both texts. I looked on a different page and see that it was a different author. It seems as if some want the protection to stay with the current version because they feel it indicates there is some sort of support for that version or validation of it when I feel that just the opposite is the case. I agree with polaris on both his points, and I also agree we should be able to find a way to reconstruct the sentence about the executions to make it both sourced and neutral (I hope...). Mattisse I would also like to point out that while you feel that some people were thrashed after Jimbo's intervention, I know it went both ways as I came here afterwards and tried to help work with what was left and received a slew of personal attacks from the anti jimbo side for simply trying to improve what was left of the article...this seems to be the usual in WP though (in my limited time here) especially when feelings of ownership become involved. Gtadoc 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Gtadoc, please read my concerns about unprotecting the page. Polaris999 has agreed with them. You never responded to my concerns voiced in that post, excerpted below:

My feeling is also that the page needs to continue to be protected as nothing has been settled. No new sources have been offered (that I know of) so the status of the POV complaint essentially remains the same. If the POV tag is removed it will probably be quickly returned, and I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go through all this again. Perhaps we all need a rest and we should let the article alone for a while until serious editors are willing to get involved . My experience with articles on Cuba is that once this sort of thing happens, it is a long time, if ever, before serious editors are willing to put work into an article again.

Excuse me for saying so, but it seems to me you are giving the carefully worded comments I and other have written only cursory attention, certainly not enough to warrant the time we put into them. Every time I voice a concern you ignore the content of my concern and answer in a rambling way about personal issues from you own life that do not pertain to the article at all, or you say the issue all boils down to an editor going "nuts." On this, I do not know what you are referring to and I am doubtful that any one editor going nuts caused this problem (unless you mean Jimbo!). It occurs to me you do not understand the situation. Also, you interpretation of no response to your proposal for the intro as meaning a group consensus is worrisome. How can silence from a diverse and vociferous group mean consensus? Sincerely, Mattisse 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you speak as if we've had long drawn out conversations in the past and that I've ignored you the whole time. If you carefully read what I wrote, and I hope since you advise others to read carefully that you would do the same, you will see that I was addressing both you and Polaris. I believe I have addressed the issue you were confused about twice now (above for example:'it was unsigned in the page I was looking at and Polaris was the user that had commented next, with his sig seemingly attached to both texts. I looked on a different page and see that it was a different author') I am fine with page protection as long as it isn't just an attempt to have it kept the way it is, particularly with the one sentence thats clearly out of place as its written. I also agree theres no point in removing the pov tag. While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occured after Jimbo's comments, I think you also recall that during the edit war I tried to make small changes as a fresh editor to this article and got my talk pages flamed by Zleitzen, who you tried to defend by rambling about personal issues that did not partain to the article (if I may borrow your language). If Polaris has the time I would be grateful if he wants to do a rewrite. It seems you've misunderstood some of my earlier posts, however, now that you've discovered once again my talk page I hope there won't be any more problems with that in the future. Regards, Gtadoc 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Gtadoc

Gtadoc, please read the comments above.

My first comment was on July 29. It was not argumentative and did not suggest content or make accusations. I merely suggest we stick to material that is sourced. Further, I have not edited the CC page at all, certainly not in the last year. Secondly, every proposal I made Polaris999 agreed with, so when you say you agree with Polaris999, you are agreeing with my proposals. I am sorry for missing your clarification about confusing Polaris999's edit with someone else's. I apologize to you for that. I proposed and Polaris999 agreed that:

1. My preference is to go back to the original verson (before all this started and modify or eliminate the offending sentence.

2. That the page needs to continue to be locked as nothing has changed, no new sources have been offered, and no consensus has been agreed to.

3. That both of us are unclear which version you intend to restore and want clarification from you

4. That he accepts my idea of a cooling off period.

In addition Polaris999 suggested that in the meantime we could work on correcting the offending sentence.

Mattisse: There is not really any accusation. You notice the word, perhaps. I don't know what role you played. I do know that you attempted to defend the actions of one of the more flagrant offenders, though, and really thats what I was getting at. I agreed in my writing to all 4 of your points, and thank you for going back and reading what I said. My only addition to your points 1-4, is this (which Polaris also agrees with and you mention): the sentence refering to the execution of "war criminals" be changed or removed instead of allowing it to stay in the text indefenately. Regards, Gtadoc 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gtadoc"

I guess I should be very careful about showing some compassion for someone I worked with over a year ago another article. That is all I was doing. I was very mistaken to post that on your talk page. However, that has nothing to do with my involvement with this article. However, since that is being held against me and my comments are apparently disregarded on that account, I will withdraw from this article. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm not quiet sure why you are taking everything so personally, or why you insist that everything said is in bad faith. I simply pointed out that you had sided with a very disruptive editor; I realize you both worked at some time on the article and put effort into it, which is why my response to you was that I wasn't going to get into a fight with him but at the same time I wasn't going to try to justify his actions. I was actually going to post something today saying I was withdrawing from the article as well since you had decided you were its protector and defender. In fact this all started as a bit of an experiment, I've been exploring WP a bit after reading about its use in some undergraduate teaching settings. I've been rather dissappointed of what I've found, and probably won't be continuing my involvement with WP in the future. You are free to do whatever you like to the CG article, as clearly you view input that conflicts with your own as personal attacks on you, and since to you my contributions are seen as a waste I won't spend any more time on it. Regards. Gtadoc 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc, you said on your talk page that you were merely pointing out that I had a "side". I don't have a "side" regarding the article itself. In really I know little about Che Guevera. I had personal emotions regarding an issue over another article entirely and made the mistake of expressing them. What "side" am I supposed to have? All I have said is that I believe it is important in these situations to follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. So if that is a "side", then I have one. That is what I believe, that is what I have expressed. Is it because User:Polaris999 has agreed emphatically with everything I have said that you see me as having a side? I have never been accused of bias on Wikipedia—well, except by you. But who decides what is NPOV? That is where WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE come in. Stop accusing me. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never accused you of that, I accused Zleitzen of that. Its not a subtle difference, and I would point back to the comments you made about careful reading. Sources can be used to deliberately insert pov language into an article, which is whats currenlty in the sentence regarding executions in the CG article. Again, not sure what you're taking offense to, but I'll leave you to ponder. Good luck with the article. Gtadoc 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you said was "While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occurred after Jimbo's comments....". I interpret that as an accusation. That is what I take offense to. The "perhaps" does not mitigate it as you claim. I take such accusations seriously because I have always been careful not to engage in what you are accusing me of. Show me an NPOV insertion I have made in an article. Show me how I was responsible for anything, considering my first post ever on this page was July 29, 2007. Yes, I do take offense at that. If you have proof, show me. Otherwise, stop the accusations. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, it seems you have a habit of taking offense to even the smallest things, even on other articles, even after its been pointed out that no offense was intended. I've already explained myself to you. There aren't any accusations, but feel free to feel victimized. Perhaps you need some calming down time, I don't know, as you don't appear to have been listening to what I was saying. I have no more time to spend in an arguement that isn't going anywhere. Best of luck to you, Gtadoc 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Che a mestizo?

Che's familial heritage is listed as Spanish and Irish, mentioning Basque ancestry in both maternal and paternal lines, but says nothing of him actually having any Native blood. Did he? Or was the Cuban Revolution so manned by a Caucasian Argentine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk • contribs)

"Celia de la Serna was a true Argentine blue blood of undiluted Spanish noble lineage. One ancestor had been the Spanish royal viceroy of colonial Peru; another a famous Argentine military general."

As for his father... "He was the great-grandson of one of South America's richest men, and his ancestors included both Spanish and Irish nobility." Source: Che Guevera - A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson; Chapter: Unquiet youth; pp. 4.

Referring to his paternal grandmother, please note that Lynch (surname) is of Irish origin.

P.S. Same but more in detail can found at pages 19-20 of Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el CHE by Paco Ignacio Taibo II-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Added 08/13/2007

In an attempt to clarify this point, the general argentinian population has a low amount of indigenous blood compared to nearly all other south american countries, most of the mestizo people that live in argentina are focused in the northern states close to bolivia, northern chile and paraguay where a strong mestizo and outright indigenous populations still live. Having been born in argentina, there is an outside possibility that che had some indigenous blood, but given his ancestry and the fact that he was argentinian, would make him among the least likely of south americans to have some mestizo blood.

This being said, whether che had mestizo blood or not, and the point of his ancestry, are in my oppinion - as a latin american myself - completely unnecesary and irrelevant points to make, that he had or didn't have mestizo blood in no way affects his feelings of belonging or his idealism. Che was an argentinian and a latin american thru and thru. These considerations have no place whatsoever in discussions about him or in the main article being discussed.

75.15.114.83 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)signed, dalcazar.

I believe Celia de la Cerna was really Celia Scheinermann and she immigrated to South America after fleeing from a Russia Pogrom. Her brother Samuel Scheinermann went from Russia to British Palestine Mandate (today's Israel) and had son Ariel Sharon. Celia has never been refered to the Viceroy of Peru as her father but just her ancestor.