Talk:Che Guevara/All-11to15

Target

Is it just me or are the repeated attempts to insert information about an American retail store removing Guevara's image from some product or other of marginal relevance to this article? I understand that many editors are from the United States, but - as I have written often on these pages - these additions give the rest of us the impression that we are sleeping with the elephant. Meaning that minor twitches in one corner of the world are magnified well out of proportion. As this "factoid" is of little interest to me, or I imagine the vast majority of people in the world who also know or care very little about American retail habits, perhaps these references are better suited to the Che Guevara in popular culture page.--Zleitzen 12:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see any record of repeated attempts in the talk pages, but if there's been an edit war going on here, just let me know. I'm anxious to open discussion about it mostly because it is directly tied into (and even contradicts) the material in that section of the article. The Che Gueveara in popular culture article isn't really appropriate since it doesn't really discuss the implications of any of the appearances and is really just more of a listing of places his name has appeared. I'll agree that the factoid is American-centric, but I don't know how much of the global Che Guevara cult is truly global. It certainly has a large presence in the US. I'm not going to fight for its inclusion, but I was shocked to see that the page didn't mention it. Mikeliveshere 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The info had been added 2-3 times before to the article and removed. I would summize that the Guevara legacy is indeed global, and is perhaps at its least potent in the United States for obvious reasons (it was operatives representing the government of that nation that hunted him down}. Within the third world, and especially Latin America, Guevara's political focus is very much alive and contemporary, independent of the opinions of a few Western leftists. One of the reasons I am reticent about the new information is that this truth, Guevara's almost universal popularity in the world outside the US, is barely reflected at all, which places the actions of a US retail store in sharp perspective. Sometimes it seems to me as though we are editing articles about the Dali Llama on the Chinese wikipedia. --Zleitzen 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, how would you feel about its inclusion in Che Guevara (photo). I think it's important to talk about the current perception of Che and that this is a good case study of that in America, but I agree that it is only tangentially related to Che and his politics, which means it could be inappropriate for a page that deals mostly with his history. Mikeliveshere 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Adolescent Revolutionary Romanticism

I think that it's probably true that Che's current popularity is mostly a symptom of the cited adolescent revolutionary romanticism. What I'm curious about is how that interacts with the recent Target controversy that I added to the article. I think this controversy is fairly notable and contributes to the analysis of current perception of Che, and it doesn't really fit in with the Che in pop culture article, so I put it in here. If you hate it, revert it, but I think it's important. My only concern is that it's right next to a sentence that says the image has lost its political connotation, which I think this disproves...seems to contradict itself. Anyone wanna help me fix this up? Also, I (poorly) edited some surrounding text to diminish the contradiction. Mikeliveshere 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, I personally do not find it notable that a store in the US rejects the image of Guevara, I feel that it says as much about the individual political culture of the US as it does about Guevara's legacy. I'm not sure how the Target story contradicts anything previously on the page, but I just find it requires a leap of imagination for non-US readers who are not fully familiar with the importance of this, to imagine why this is an issue of any great concern. I think the analysis of relevant intellectuals is important, and a broad study of the legacy amongst cultures is of interest, whilst this story is just too parochial.--Zleitzen 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zleitzen on this point. If the position of Target re Guevara's image is going to be discussed in the CG article, shouldn't we also ascertain and include that of Walmart (and perhaps those of BestBuy, Sears, etc.) And then it would no doubt be necessary to add in the views of comparable stores throughout the world so as to avoid geographic bias. This is rapidly spiralling downwards into absurdity and, in my opinion, detracts from -- and diminishes the quality of -- this Wikipedia article. -- Polaris999 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates a broad(er) study of the legacy amongst cultures. I don't think we need to list the position of every retail store, but at least multiple cultures. It's not the store that's rejecting the image, but the people. The article says the image has 'long since shed its political connotations' and I think this proves that that's probably not so true. Plus, the reference that it comes from talks primarily about his American legacy (Madonna, Andy Warhol). In fact, the only thing it says about any Latin American legacy is that he's been mostly forgotten, except by leftist guerilla groups, which seems to suggest that it still has every political connotation it once did. I think a really good section on legacy would explain this. Mikeliveshere 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikeliveshere, I implore you to make the additions you suggest to the section in question. -- Polaris999 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. If I did, it would probably read something to the effect of "After his death, Che Guevara became a mainstream icon for Americans, seemingly stripped of politicial connotations. (then cite the Observer article that's already there) Nevertheless, recent works Jon Lee Anderson, Régis Debray, Jorge Castañeda and others have continued to demystify the image of Guevara..." (and then maybe show that these works are having real world implications by citing the Target example.) In Cuba, Che's symbol endures as a political symbol to represent Communist ideals. In other parts of the globe, Guevara's ideological legacy is kept alive only by a few remaining leftist guerilla movements in places such as Mexico or the Congo." The problem is that I'm not sure how true this is. It's pretty much a verbatim quote of The Observer article referenced on the page, but I'm sure other sources that acknowledge the events Zleitzen talks about would disagree. Mikeliveshere 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the contradiction Mike speaks about. The articles states "[some believe] the image has long since shed its political connotations". We are discussing whether his image appears on a CD cover or not in an American store. I would consider that issue to have zero connection with Guevara's political positions of anti-imperialism, statism, revolution, anti-US capitalism etc. Therefore it seems to me that to even have the debate supports the statement that his image has indeed shed its political connotations, at least in North America or perhaps Western Europe. As for the Latin American legacy, I don't know who wrote that Guevara's legacy has been mostly forgotten, but they obviously haven't been following the news over the last 6-7 years. The Sandinistas just regained power last month in the latest of a series of events that could trace roots directly back to Guevara's methods and ideology. Whilst in Argentina, Hugo Chavez and Castro recently visited Guevara's home and paid tribute surrounded by 1000s of chanting supporters. Evo Morales has been seen wearing a Guevara T-shirt and quoting him to crowds etc. These people are not adolescent romantics nor guerillas, in fact they are some of the most powerful and important people in the hemisphere. As far as I can tell, the legacy has been reduced to quibbles about CD covers in the North-West, but is very much alive in Latin America. Whether people like it or not. Perhaps this contrast is something to be explored?--Zleitzen 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

After 24 hours, I've reverted the edits because I personally like the original article more than my own edits. I was hoping someone would take my edits and run with them to include more discussion of modern-day perception. I would say this is probably difficult because it involves making sweeping generalizations about various cultures. However, the referenced article from The Observer suggests two things that we can both agree just aren't true: 1) In the United States, Che Guevara's image has been stripped of political implications by (for example) Madonna and Andy Warhol. The branding is still controversial, and I believe it becomes more controversial every day as true awareness starts to spread. 2) The article also suggests that Che's memory is completely forgotten in most LA countries aside from leftist fringe groups.

That being said, I'll admit that my interest in Che is primarily to learn about "The Cult of Che" and the branding. I'm interested to know more about whether or not Che is romanticized globally or exclusively in the US by "adolecent revolutionary romantics." The American perception is hotly split by people who want to treat Che mythically (and usually show some disregard for his history) and people who think those people are ignorantly worshipping a mass murderer. The only source that Wiki links to on the subject of branding is dominated by what I would say is out-of-date information on American perception and what is probably a complete error about him on an international level. So Zleitzen, any chance we can cite some information about the Sandinistas or Evo Morales to get a better understanding of the true legacy? As it stands, the article seems to talk more about his legacy in the '70s than his present-day legacy. Mikeliveshere 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikeliveshere, I think that an exploration of perceptions of Guevara in various parts of the world would be extremely interesting — although beyond the scope of this article, the length of which has already drawn some criticism. How would you feel about creating a "linked" (child) article with a title such as "The Cult of Che" or "Perceptions of Che Guevara"? Or, if you prefer, we could set up a sandbox here within the Talk: Che Guevara pages where a draft could be developed to the point where it would merit article status? -- Polaris999 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can come up with. Let me do some more research and brainstorm a little bit. :) Mikeliveshere 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given it some thought, and having read some of the discussions below, have added an additional paragraph detailing some of the points discussed above. It appears that the impact of Guevara, and his position in the Latin American pantheon - probably the most important aspect of his legacy - appears to be overlooked and apparently unknown to many in the wider world. So I have re-added reference to the Target CD case and hopefully contrasted it with the response from the Bolivarians and so on.--Zleitzen 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Guevara's Tactics

It would seem to me that Guevara's tactics were faulty and failed (thank G-d) for a number of reasons that include: (1) once it was clear that if the military of each country surrendered as in Cuba they would be executed, thus these militaries fought to the death; (2) Guevara despised and ignored the need for supporting militia (e.g. Escopeteros; (3) the preparation of his guerrillas in Cuba was often faulty (e.g. indigenous languages chosen were often incorrect for the area of action); (4) the personnel chosen were often ("White") or at least not indigenous to the area of action; (5) weapons and tactics of his opponents changed and improved, especially due to the Vietnam experience and above all his ideology of hate, his insistence on rigid ideological "purity" and a propensity to attempt to solve all problems through executions was alien to Latin American traditions. Documentation of this will follow in the next few days. El Jigue 12-28-06

Z: One of the best references on the bloody failure of the Guevaran approach to guerrilla warfare in Guatemala is: Le Bot, Yvon 1997 La guerra en tierras mayas (War in Mayan Lands). Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico D.F ISBN-10 9681645375, ISBN-13 978-9681645373

or if you prefer it in French: Lebot, Yvon 1992 La guerre en terre maya: Communauté, violence et modernité au Guatemala, 1970-1992 Editions Karthala. Paris ISBN-10 286537369X, ISBN-13 978-2865373697

Although this book gives too much credence to Rigoberta Menchú at the time it was written Menchú's little changes to history were not well known.

El Jigue 1-2-07

Terribly one-sided, as always. Oh, and for your information: I've checked that title with my professors (I am a student of history, Leiden University, Holland), and the author is noted for doing a horribly unprofessional job in that 'work'. Kindly come up with a better example of your slanted views. 82.176.211.33 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm perhaps you might address and give examples of the specific errors your professors see in that book. El Jigue 1-7-067

Why so little mention of Guevara's bad side?

I posted a few sentences that mentioned Guevara's actions at La Cabana prison and the fact that he created Cuba's prison camps. I also cited an external source. This seems much better than the current statement that he was appointed to various posts in the Cuban government. The current version makes it seem like he was just some innocent bureaucrat.

I don't see why someone deleted my changes, unless you are determined to preserve the hero-worship flavor of the current article.

~Mike W.

I can't see anywhere in the history of the article where you edited it under your IP number which is how you are currently editing. Perhaps it was not this article. I urge you to get an account which gives you easy access to history and a watchlist.--Dakota 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

This is a rather common occurence with regards to this article. I've noticed other past edits backed up by excellent sources, reverted very quickly, with condemnations coming against those who expanded the information here. Unfortunately, it seems as though most information that casts any sort of light deemed "negative" is wiped out.

Goatboy95 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And that, is a shame. Che Guevara, has faults like anyone else. If backed by excellent sources? 'negative' findings, do indeed belong on this article. GoodDay 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While Ché was "responsible" for every trial that occurred in La Cabaña (as every case had to be aproved by him), much of the information regarding it has been wildly exagerated (by several sources, but Ché was mainly demonized by cuban exiles, at least back in the day, even to ridiculous levels, some were exagerations while other down right fabrications), first he did not conducted any trial or execution himself nor were civilians ever executed there (of the two trial houses, house 1 was for militars and police members and executed several of them, the second one was for civilians and it didnt executed any of them). Such events were compared to the trials of Nuremberg by Castro himself when he recieved criticism regarding the executions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.74 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

It may not always be the case, but the vast majority of the "sources" attached to such comments which other editors have deleted come from decisively anti-cuban and anti-communist webistes who in turn have not provided any sources for their articles. In which case they are far from "excellent sources" and fall foul of the Wikipedia verifiable sources policy. Such comments should be quite rightly deleted unless a verifiable source can be obtained. Canderra 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Define anti-Cuba (note the upper case in Cuban) and since when was being anti-communist a crime or proof of bias (note lower case communist) El Jigue 1-18-07

I think the term anti-Cuban is pretty self-obvious. I never said anything at all to imply being anti-communist was a crime either. It is obviously proof of bias though! Any research done by anti-communist groups should be subject to the same extra levels of scrutiny as that done by pro-communist groups as both are likely to have attempted to 'twist' the facts. Canderra 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One ponders if it is merely POV to consider anti-Cuba as equivalent to ant-Castro. El Jigue 1-21-07

I see you point that if taken literally the term doesn't quite make sense however it is a common convention to refer to a distinctive regime by the name of the nation. Canderra 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"first he did not conducted any trial or execution himself nor were civilians ever executed there"

Hmmm, a fewllow named "Ruben," with whom I grew up would tend to disagree with that statement as he was a civilian executed at La Cabana. Actually, I remember the day his mother, wife and I went to see him for the last time. We heard the shots that killed him as we left the fort. Not quite sure where you found that information but, figured, in honor of those killed there, that this fact should be known. That's not to say that I don't understand where you're coming from - we've had 40-plus years of propaganda coming out of the island so, your misconseption is certainly explainable. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

Regards,

Goatboy95 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance from Cuba section

There are six paragraphs about Guevara "disappearing". This may have made sense in 1965 as it was a secret then, well, it wasn't really, as said later on - "Despite the fact that Guevara sought to conceal his presence in the Congo, the U.S. government was fully aware of his location and activities: The National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting all of his incoming and outgoing transmissions via equipment aboard the USNS Valdez, a floating listening post which continuously cruised the Indian Ocean off Dar-es-Salaam for that purpose." The US knew exactly where Guevara was, but that certainly didn't stop Voice of America etc. from spreading rumors that Guevara was jailed by Castro, there was a split in the Cuban leadership etc. Six paragraphs of uncited rumor from decades ago, which has been shown to be baseless conjecture doesn't warrant being in here. Even if it wasn't cited. "Castro's critics sometimes say his explanations for Guevara's disappearance have always been suspect (see below), and many found it surprising that Guevara never announced his intentions publicly, but only through an undated and uncharacteristically obsequious letter to Castro." Guevara announced his intentions not to remain in Cuba before he even landed in Cuba, this sort of thing is quite silly. Ruy Lopez 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor change in the spelling of 'che'

"Che" is not spelled chê or ché in Portuguese, but as tchê, and only like that. I know it because I'm from southern Brazil and use the expression frequently. The old text and the new one are down here.

"It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che", due to his frequent use of the Argentine interjection Che (pronounced /tʃe/), which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially in various English-speaking countries. Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and southern Brazil (where the interjection is rendered 'chê' or 'ché' in written Portuguese) are the only areas where this expression is used, making it a trademark of the Rioplatense region".

"It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che", due to his frequent use of the Argentine interjection Che (pronounced /tʃe/), which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially in various English-speaking countries. Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and southern Brazil (where the interjection is rendered 'tchê' in written Portuguese) are the only areas where this expression is used, making it a trademark of the Rioplatense region".

MBhvilar 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have a repeat of your posting? GoodDay 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vilasuso?

How reliable is Vilasuso's story about La Cabaña?, aparently he was a lawyer working there, but other than that, this is the only observation made in that particular section, no figures, no npov information, just the opinnion of one man, NPOV?:

(regarding La Cabaña) "According to José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara"

But why is the opinnion of one man that important to be placed here?, one quick look at the source will lead us that is from an anti-communist site [1], specialising in nothing but reader digest-like stories about cuban repression. Even though Vilasuso's own story has even been discredited by Gustavo Carmona, who was one of the prisoners in La Cabaña[2].

Though the source may indeed appear partisan, I don't think there is any doubt amongst mainstream scholars - including various leftist sources - that the trials were hastily constructed and would fail most standard legal principles. I believe there were various attempts to impose due process, but the conditions of the immediate post revolution era were such that this made little impression. I think the trials could fairly be described as summary. It should be noted however, that the climate of "drive through justice" was severely influenced by the memory of the violent chaos of the post-Machado period in the 1930s, where lawless retributions were rife. It was considered that the speedy trials and executions in 1959, including the stadium trials, were methods to prevent greater lawlessness and deter citizens from seeking their own retributions against Batista informants and other individuals.--Zleitzen 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"How reliable is Vilasuso's story about La Cabaña?" That's like asking "How reliable is your source saying the Earth orbits the sun? LOL

Goatboy95 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One has only to read "La Ley de la Sierra" to understand that these "trials" were carried out with systemic bias in favor of the prosecution [3] [4] [5]. "De acuerdo a la ley de la Sierra, se juzgaban hechos sin consideración de principios jurídicos generales. El derecho de Habeas Corpus había sido suprimido.

Las declaraciones del oficial investigador constituían pruebas irrefutables. El abogado defensor limitaba su acción a admitir las acusaciones aunque invocando la generosidad del gobierno, solicitaba una disminución de la condena. Por aquellos días Guevara era visible con su boina negra, tabaco ladeado, rostro cantinflesco, y brazo en cabestrillo. Estaba sumamente delgado y en el hablar pausado y frío, dejaba entrever su "posse" de eminencia gris y total sujección a la teoría marxista. En su despacho, se reunían numerosas personas discutiendo acaloradamente sobre la marcha del proceso revolucionario. Sin embargo, su conversación solía cargarse de ironía, nunca mostró alteración de temperamento y tampoco atendía criterios dispares. A más de un colega lo amonestó en privado, en público a todos: su consigna era de dominio público. "No demoren las causas, esto es una revolución, no usen métodos legales burgueses, las pruebas son secundarias. Hay que proceder por convicción. Es una pandilla de crimnales, asesinos. Además, recuerden que hay un tribunal de Apelación." El tribunal nunca declaró con lugar un recurso, confirmaba las sentencias de oficio y lo presidía el comandante Ernesto Guevera Serna." [6] El Although personal memories are not allowed here I can testify it was that way Jigue 1-16-07

This should be in English; see Wikipedia: Talk page. GoodDay 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Translation via Babelfish reveals little sense but at least it is in English:

"According to the law of the Mountain range, facts without consideration of general legal principles were judged. The right of Habeas Corpus had been suppressed. The declarations of the investigating officer constituted irrefutables tests. The defense counsel limited his action to admit the accusations although invoking the generosity of the government, he asked for a diminution of the sentence. By those days Guevara he was visible with his black beret, tipped tobacco, cantinflesco face, and arm in cabestrillo. He was extremely thin and in slow and cold speaking, posse "of gray eminence let glimpse his" and total attachment to the Marxist theory. In their office, numerous people met heatedly discussing on the march of the revolutionary process. Nevertheless, its conversation used to load itself of irony, it never showed alteration of temperament and it did not take care of criteria either different. To more of a colleague she admonished it in private, in public to all: its slogan era of public dominion. "they do not delay the causes, this is a revolution, do not use bourgeois legal methods, the tests are secondary. It is necessary to come by conviction. She is a gang of crimnales, assassins. In addition, they remember that there is a court of Appeal." The court never declared with place a resource, confirmed the office sentences and commander Ernesto Guevera Serna presided over." [ 7 ] the personal Although memories plows not allowed here I dog testify it was that way".

As always, sources for this 'source' (which I am not familiar with and from the wording implies at least some bias) must be validated. One person's opinion over one particular trial does not offer proof that the original claim is true, nor is that quite what seems to be being said in the above passage ' (whatever that is, maybe the Spanish version makes more sense). An interesting passage none the less. Canderra 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano: Were it worthwhile I might translated it but it seems that were I to do that it would be immediately erased. As it stands now in Wikipedia another language can be used if no other reference in"English could satisfactorily replace it El Jigue 1-21-07

Maybe it wouldn't have been erased, Little Joe. GoodDay 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian

Editors keep adding the category "humanitarian" to this article. I've removed it once, perhaps other users could better explain why this isn't really appropriate. Indeed Guevara went to work in a leper colony in his younger days, but by the early 60s he had been responsible for making various calls which accelerated near nuclear war, insulted and abused many of his subordinates, personally shot people in the head etc. He was been described as arrogant, brutal and overly aggressive even by his closest confidants. We're not talking about Mother Theresa here. --Zleitzen 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Posts

On January 16, 2007 anon user 200.28.199.74 removed the section Why is this guy so beloved? on this talk page. Though his methods may have been good-intentioned (and possible correct), should an anon-user have the right to remove other editors postings? GoodDay 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano: would it be malicious to say that that was their faith and profession. el Jigue 1-21-06

Not quite sure what you're saying? Little Joe. GoodDay 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Has this section been replaced yet? El Jigue 1-22-07

The Removing Posts section hasn't been 'erased' (obviously), the Why is this guy so Beloved section was 'erased' on January 16th, 2007 (see 'histoy' of this 'talk page'). My point was & is, should any editors have the right to remove other editors postings. Yes or No. GoodDay 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is 'NO'. I've givin' advice to that anon-user (200.28.199.74), not to remove posts again. GoodDay 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano but with that stuff be re-inserted. El Jigue 1-26-07

Not entirely sure what you've said. Contact the anon-user, give him you views. GoodDay 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Che's purges redux

There is an academic reference at [7] which supports at least in part what I stated previously about the Che's purges in the Sierra. El Jigue 1-21-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have read Julia Sweig's book and used it as a reference before, EJ. I highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it, as it covers a lot of the Frank País arena. Though I don't remember reading anything about Guevara murdering the non-ideological in the Sierra, nor does she detail any of the rumors you have discussed concerning País's death. Given that Julia E. Sweig is one of the leading historical authorities on the Cuban revolution anywhere, and has written and spoken about events in much detail many times, perhaps you could contact her with these revelations and perhaps, oversights.--Zleitzen 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Z: The trouble with theSweig book is unbalanced source material. This deficiency is discribed in: Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground.(Book Review) The Historian - June 22, 2004 Luis Martinez-Fernandez

Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground. By Julia E. Sweig. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pp. xv, 254. $29.95.)

This review starts “Few, if any, t.....”

but the critical part of this review is:

"The bulk of the documentary evidence sustaining the book consists of hundreds of documents housed at the Cuban Council of State’s Office of Historic Affairs, which the Cuban government made available to Sweig while keeping the archive’s doors closed to other researchers. This valuable and fascinating collection of documents allowed the author to paint a well-documented and nuanced perspective on llano- sierra relations as well as on how the leaders of the 26th of July Movement related to other anti-Batista figures. These sources are complimented by much of the extant historiography on the insurrection and around twenty interviews that Sweig conducted in Cuba. Although the able use of the Council of State’s documents stands as one of the book’s most salient contributions, the admittedly sanitized nature of the document collection and the author’s failure to interview voices beyond those loyal to the Castro regime produces a somewhat distorted picture of the events and a more favorable portrayal of Castro. The correspondence between Castro and former president Carlos Prío Socarrás, for example, which was withheld from the author, would have most likely exposed the politiquero (politically opportunistic) side of Castro. Contrary to Sweig’s conclusion that Castro was opposed to politiquería, while scolding Hart and others for overtures to Cuba’s politicians, three years earlier he had maneuvered to secure for himself Havana’s mayoralty in exchange for supporting Justo Carrillo, leader of the Agrupación Montecristi, who at the time appeared most likely to emerge as the post-Batista leading figure. Likewise, had Sweig interviewed and/or used sources written by key protagonists who are not Castro supporters such as Colonel Ramón Barquín, Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, Carlos Franqui, Huber Matos, and Gustavo Arcos, to name only five, she would have produced a more accurate and balanced view of the Cuban insurrection. Unfortunately, such manifestations of Miami-phobia plague much of the scholarship on Cuba. Despite these problems in terms of the selection of sources, Sweig’s book is an important and useful contribution for the understanding of the struggle against Batista." by Rutgers University's Luis Martínez-Fernández "

El Jigue 1-22-07

Was Guevara included among the crew of Granma to function as an executioner?

Usually an executioner is either anonymous (e.g. hooded) or has a background distant from his victims. For this reason foreigners are often given this function. And it is anomalous for a chosen executioner not to have a previous "kill" before assuming that "job." When one reads of the preparations to sail in the Granma to Cuba, apparently there were a few executions or attempts to execute in which Guevara played a major role. In addition, Guevara's record in Guatemala has gaps which might suggest such. Will provide citations later. El Jigue 1-26-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografía de Fidel Castro. Destino Ediciones. Barcelona, Editora Planeta Mexicana, Mexico D.F. ISBN 8423336042. ISBN 9707490012 pp. 695-696 Lists four "traitors" secretly executed before the Granma left Mexico these were Jesus Bello Melgarejo, Arturo Avalos Marcos, Cirilio Guerra plus a fourth unnamed individual. One was said executed by Raul Castro. This leaves three who could have been executed by the Che. Now I do not completely trust Fuentes as a source, not because he does not know, but because he follows "line" that is suspiciously closer to the present Cuban government official dogma than I would like. BTW on page 692 Joaquin Ordoqui, is quoted as saying the Antonio Blanco Rico, Batista's chief of Military Intelligence (who was assassinated in Havana before Castro landed in 1956) was a member of the Cuban Communist Party. This can be taken to suggest that the Cuban communist party as usual was playing both sides of the fence. On page 696 this author states that Guevara was in Mexico for two years and three months which is sufficient time for quite a lot of things. El Jigue 1-27-07

Thanks again EJ, more food for thought and this information has been noted. Apparently, the graves of those executed in Mexico remain to this day. I understood those executions to be the responsibility of Fidel's "council" and I might be wrong but at least one of these men was executed by Fidel himself. I'm not sure if Guevara, who was not yet an integral figure at that time was directly involved. This would be an area that I imagine Polaris would have some further details on.--Zleitzen 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

new details

There is a new reference (unfortunately for some in Spanish):

Arzuaga, Javier 2006 (accessed 1-29-07) Complete Radio interview on executions in la Cabaña in 1959 and related topics interviewed by Guillermo Toledo and others on El Programa Radial Magazine Cubano on 12-17-06. Transcript from ContactCuba. Com [8]

This reference has a number of odd spellings (e.g. Autilio instead of Eutimio) however, it contains novel information such as the execution of the killers in the Humbolt 7 murders, an event we know now to have been triggered by a communist party informant ("Marquito" I think). While the death of Ariel Lima a 16 year old, and anti-Batista resistance activist, who had turned informer to avoid the rape of his mother, was immediate. This together with such known Guevara acts as keeping BRAC files secret, strongly suggests that the Che was interested in "whitewashing" communist party's colaboration with Batista by informing on other resistance leaders. In addition the previously cited attribution of communist party affiliation (by Fuentes) of Colonel Blanco Rico the head of Batista Military Intelligence (SIM), also detracts from the credibility of details in Guevara's accounts of the war against Batista, and can be taken to suggest the possibility of bias beyond that of an expected military leader's self-serving statements. Another interesting statement found in this reference is the suggestion that partisans of Raul Castro are at present trying (as mentioned before) to burden Guevara with Raul's own actions. There is reference to Arzuaga's new book "Cuba 1959: La Galera de la muerte" which I have not yet read. El Jigue 1-29-0617:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (most odd all I did was put in tildes)

A new investigation suggests that the remains, said be those of the Che, buried in Cuba are not authentic [9]. El Jigue2-3-07

Legends

Guevara is executed and his topless body goes on display. The article then states that "photographs taken at that time gave rise to legends such as those of San Ernesto de La Higuera and El Cristo de Vallegrande", and there is a link to this page, which is in foreign. This sentence has been widely copied and translated across the internet, but what does it mean? What are the legends of San Ernesto de La Higuera and El Cristo de Vallegrande? -Ashley Pomeroy 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Che's family history

Che has a family name of Lynch which can be traced back to his grahdmother on his father's side . His grandmother has roots in Co.Galway which is on the west coast of Ireland . His father was quoted one time saying his son has the rebel blood of an Irishman running through his veins . Che had a night out in Limerick on his way from Prague back to Cuba and it was reported he and his men arrived back at shannon airport with bunches of shamrock on there chest (it was close to St.Patricks Day) after having a few pint's of the black stuff . Buts lets not forget the Irish saying "NEVER LET THE TRUYH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY" . His name of Guavaero has its roots in the basque region of Spain which is another region famous for its rebel fighters . If you ask me its no wonder he became the revolutionary icon he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.134.187.17 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Template

Ernesto Guevara de la Serna
Alberto Korda's famous photograph.
Born	June 14, 1928 Rosario, Argentina
Died	October 9, 1967 La Higuera, Bolivia
Other names	Che
Organization	26th of July Movement

I was wonder why is there no Template:Infobox revolution biography with image on this article, like on Martin Luther King, Jr.. It would look like this:

Furthermore can one use the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg (the famous Che Guevara photo) on this article under fair use? - C mon 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page did indeed have a template such as the above, but someone deleted the picture (albeit a cropped version) yesterday, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Please add your template to the page.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing

An excerpt from WP:IC:

'A number of Wikipedia articles have inline citations, and in the case of Featured Articles (formally "Brilliant Prose" articles), Featured Articles Candidates, Good Articles, Good Article Candidates, and (when applicable) A-Class Articles, inline citations are considered mandatory.'

This is a Featured Article and the information re sourcing provided by the statement included in the text of the article "an interview released by one of his household staff in a History Channel documentary about his life" does not meet the minimal standards set forth in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style; I have therefore removed the material in question. Please view comparison here: [10] .

Polaris999 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
* * * * *

Che Guevarra Myths Are Many

There are two Che Guevaras-- the flashy Left-icon, and real Che Guevarra who was an egotistical and obsessive mass-executioner for the Castro regime. Time for the truth to be told: Sources for Che Guevarra Myths.

71.208.219.6 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass executioner - waht are you on?

Fake?

The current article says:

“ In 1997, the skeletal remains of Guevara's handless body were exhumed from beneath an air strip near Vallegrande, positively identified by DNA matching […] ”

Hi Zleitzen:

An article by Maite Rico and Bertrand de la Grande has been published this month in Letras Libres (the magazine of Enrique Krauze) claiming that the discovery of the Che remains was a fake.

If I remember correctly you know Spanish. I will quote from today’s article by Mario Vargas Llosa in Reforma: “De todo ello concluyen que los restos del Che no son los que reposan en el museo de Santa Clara […] y que el supuesto descubrimiento fue una pura representación teatral rigurosamente fraguada para complacer a Fidel Castro”.

—Cesar Tort 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cesar Tort. Indeed, I saw that the other day. Certainly worthy of a mention here - I was hoping someone else would do the honours ;) Here is a good source for the story in English : Bones in Cuban mausoleum are not Guevara's, claims magazine.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for External Links

The External Links section is becoming very large. A number of the links clearly do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, which I am including below for reference. Perhaps upon reading these guidelines, users who have added links that do not meet these criteria will kindly remove them; or, if not, perhaps other editors will take the necessary action ... -- Polaris999 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative music site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site. Source: WP:MOS page entitled Links normally to be avoided

Comment re La Coubre Explosion (copied from CG article page) : opinions requested

The following comment was posted a few minutes ago by User:Bogden400 and I am copying it here so that it will receive wider readership among editors.

Sentence is not clear. Mainly because the explosion is not explained it detail, so people who are reading this will be confused by the phrase "when a second explosion occured", as I was. Mainly because a first explosion is not mentioned. Will somebody with more knowledge about this explosion please edit this sentence to include some background information first.

While I do agree with User:Bogden400 that the explosion of La Coubre is not explained in the paragraph in question in the Che Guevara article, since La Coubre is wikified and the incident is fully discussed in the linked-to WP article, I have hesitated to add text to the CG article to describe the event. However, perhaps a sentence or two should be added to clarify the context? I would like to hear how other editors feel about this, and also see any suggestions as to the text that might be added. Thank you -- Polaris999 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that a sentence or two would be good, Polaris. But I took a look at the paragraph - realised that I hadn't noticed it before - and nearly choked on my cornflakes. Whilst the explanation that the CIA deliberately bombed the boat has always seemed dubious Fidel rhetoric - the most likely explanation being that it was a terrible workplace accident perhaps due to procedural negligence, which happened to coincide with actual attacks on Cuba - the convoluted belief that "Guevara's soviet rivals" were somehow responsible for the explosions is well... a wild conspiracy theory - based on no evidence at all - from an unreliable source here.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zleitzen -- Thank you for your comments. That remark re "Guevara's soviet rivals" was a contribution by EJ. It confused me when I first read it, then I came to interpret it to mean that Roca, Grobart, and their associates might have sabotaged the ship, presumably with the intention of fomenting further discord between Cuba and the USA. In any case, even if they did so, they certainly did not do it because they were "rivals" of Guevara's since at that point in time he and they were actually collaborators, working hand in hand to lead Cuba along a socialist/communist path. Howver, since no one ever raised questions about this paragraph until now, I had concluded that I must be the only one who had problems with it, and therefore kept silent. Any chance you could apply a touch of the Zleitzen magic to it and bring form out of chaos? -- Polaris999 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Zleitzen, for your redact of the paragraph re La Coubre. What a welcome improvement! -- Polaris999 08:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy of banners

Some weeks ago, one editor gathered all of the "project banners" that had been placed on this Talk page into a single banner with the text "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click on [show] for further details"; clicking then caused the individual banners to be shown. This method seemed like a good one to me. However, several days ago, another editor re-inserted all of the banners so that they again display individually at the top of the Talk page -- without, however, removing the banner created by the former editor that consolidates all of them as described above.

Obviously, we should not have both methods present on this Talk page simultaneously as is now the case, so I suppose we will have to find out which of the two methods of displaying the banners is preferred. Perhaps we could do an informal poll within this topic where people can express their opinions as to which should be used. -- Polaris999 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In favor of consolidated banner:

In favor of individually-displayed banners:

Support. Editors have argued about the consolidated banner on other pages, the main argument being that users have to wade through a page of these things before getting to the talk section. However, the consolidated banner hides the important details about the project, and also obscures the relevant WP:Portal link. Increasing access to these elements of wikipedia is essential to make other users aware of the many different pages surrounding the topic and encourage much needed participation. As this article is a prominent page for WP:Cuba, and the Cuba:Portal (for example), it would be a wasted opportunity not to advertise these features. The best option would be keep the banners but just add this template, which still allows our tortured editors to be rid of those meddlesome banners with one click, but keeps them visible for others. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Zleitzen. I have inserted Template:skiptotoctalk as you suggested, and remmed out the consolidated banner. -- Polaris999 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine someone will come along any time now and consolidate the banners anyway. By the way, Polaris, what do you make of the new map? I was browsing the sprawling, Joycean Spanish version of the CG article the other day and spotted that an editor had been creating maps like their life depended on it. Eclipsing our timid efforts of cartography on the Cuban Revolution articles. I sneaked out with one and it added to our page. I think another of our pics was deleted without reason - so the Guatemala section needed some complimentary visuals.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wikipedia entry on Che Guevara critically different

Simply put, the spanish entry clashes with key information presented in the english entry. If anyone likes, I can point to and translate excerpts of the spanish entry, which cites sources just as the english version. In a nutshell, the spanish version portrays Che Guevara as characterised by the following: - Tolerance of errors commited by people under his command - Integration, recognition, and treatment as equals of guajiros and ethnic minorites under his command - Solidarity and general incarnation of his "New Socialist Man" (Hombre Nuevo Socialista) philosophy, in which voluntary work is cornerstone - He performed voluntary work every week, working in metalurgies as well as crop fields - He refused any other payments or luxuries when in key gorvernmental positions, conserving only his original meager salary in order to set a "revolutionary example"

And there are many more. Again, you can see where these things come into conflict with the information present in the english entry. Again, I can provide transcriptions of the spanish entry if needed, and cite sources. Wryn 10:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think the Spanish article is as good as this one, it is way to long and wouldn't pass the requirements for a featured article on this wikipedia. Regarding the points, refusing payments is in this article, as is Hombre Nuevo, other points relating to Cuba such as the voluntary work are in the daughter article Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution which covers the philosophy in greater detail.

However "tolerance of errors commited by people under his command" and "treatment as equals of guajiros and ethnic minorites" is not the case in my view. There are several instances of Guevara's cruel mistreatment of young fighters under his command who had made errors, as well as his at times offensive attitude to uneducated workers. Also, post-revolution, when young black revolutionaries took over a club in Havana after having been refused entry by a racist door policy, Guevara - their commander - scolded them with some liberal blurb that "the revolution had not progressed far enough" for such reckless activity. Marcus Garvey he was not.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Points noted regarding Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution. I still think there should be some mention about Hombre Nuevo and the importance given to voluntary work beyond this paragraph:

"His essay El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba (1965) (Man and Socialism in Cuba) advocates the need to shape a "new man" (hombre nuevo) in conjunction with a socialist state. Some saw Guevara as the simultaneously glamorous and austere model of that "new man."

Particularly because acting on such ideas through voluntary work was arguably an important moment and aspect of his life.

Regarding black discrimination, that is another point of clashing information with the different entries. In the spanish version Guevara's groups had an integration of blacks and guajiros and important ranks where given to its members, not a common practice at that time. Self-edit: Here is more on the matter, a translated fragment from his speech to the United Nations in 1964 http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Discurso_en_la_ONU%2C_11_de_diciembre_de_1964

Llegará el día en que esta Asamblea adquiera aún más madurez y le demande al gobierno norteamericano garantías para la vida de la población negra y latinoamericana que vive en este país, norteamericanos de origen o adopción, la mayoría de ellos. ¿Cómo puede constituirse en gendarme de la libertad quien asesina a sus propios hijos y los discrimina diariamente por el color de la piel, quien deja en libertad a los asesinos de los negros, los protege además, y castiga a la población negra por exigir el respeto a sus legítimos derechos de hombres libres?

The translation:

There will come a day in which this Asembly will adquire more maturity and make a demand towards the government of the United States of garanties for the life of the black and latin american populations living in that country, the majority of them north americans of origin or adoption. How can one constitute onself as protector of liberty, he who murders their own children and discriminates them on a daily basis by the colour of their skin, who lets the murderers of blacks roam free, who it even protects, and punishes the black population for demanding the respect towards their legitimate rights as free men?

He differentiated between errors and treason, two matters he handled distinctively different, tolerance towards errors but intolerance towards treason. On the offensive attitudes towards workers, there is a single notable example to the contrary, the case being his romance with Zoila Rodríguez García, a guajira. There is a testimony by García in which Guevara shows her a book with yellow letters on the cover. Garcia asks if they are gold, to which Guevara chuckles, and answeres "No, this is a book about communism". She was a bit embarrassed to ask what communism was, since she didn't know. It didn't seemt to affect his opinion of her, his treatment towards her or their relationship.

One final point I forgot to mention during the Cuban Revolution, during a succesful siege by Guevara's group, he stayed afterwards to tend the injuries of both his group and the rival combatant's. He reached a truce with the other groups medic to leave the most severly injured under his watch, so long as repercusive action was not taken against them after he left, a truce which was latter proven to be upheld. Wryn 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Legacy & Criticisms

It's equally interesting and laughable to note a criticism section here, whereas articles such as those of Castro, Stalin and Hitler don't have one (this is not to say there’s no criticism there at all). Moreover, too many sources are of American origin (or rather, Cuban-American) and of dubious background (such as Felix Rodriguez, the “heroic” killing machine). Ok, there’s Jean Paul Sartre and few others… shall I understand that established scholars from other parts of the world systematically and unanimously overlooked Guevara or their views are not in line with the article’s general tone?!

At last but not least, there’s a general feeling that “this guy had to be stupid and tyrannical because he was a commie… oooh, and because CIA took him out!”. Usually when reconstructing somebody’s image positive and negative views are weighted with equal scrutiny… in Guevara’s case negative testimonies must have been true while positive reviews must have been either propaganda or exaggerations… so much with NPOV! 81.96.126.218 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Cuban American Felix Rodriguez who wrote the “heroic” killing machine it was Peruvian Alvaro Vargas Llosa. I'm not sure which Cuban-Americans you are referring to? You are right to pick up on Vargas though because he is a complete idiot. The point referenced to him is this;

in much of Latin America, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years.

Which to me sounds rather like blaming Geronimo for the subsequent brutality of the white settlers. But if you are the same editor that wrote the above section, you have yet to convince me that there are any glaring omissions, or that there is much to be removed. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No Zleitzen, the coment in this section was not written by me. (Nevertheless, I do agree with the point being made, but that's a side issue). Seeing as how you answered this comment and not the one I made above, I will have to ask just why exactly you need to be convinced of any glaring omissions. Do you have some sort of administrator status over this page? (no sarcasm intended, only a legitimate question). For glaring omissions, my points are already stated. Wether you agree to them or not is subject to debate for which you haven't presented credible sources or substantial evidence on your behalf (the incident with the racist club for example). I, on the other half, have present substantial evidence and credible sources to the contrary (his speach towards the United Nations in 1964). I was trying to have a reasonable debate with you, but since I'm not noting any disposition from you, I will then have to Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages and cite my sources, regardless of your degree of personal convicement or foundness. You are of course, entitled to debate, just as I, or anyone else here is for that matter. Wryn 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wryn. I can site my sources -

• racist club incident : Richard Gott. Cuba a new history p.172-174 based on the testimonies of Pombo Villegas.
• Or this: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 567. "Once, when he took economist Regino Boti with him to the farm and tested some of the men on their reading comprehension. One man did so badly that Che insulted him, saying: "Well, if you keep studying maybe you'll get to be as smart as an ox in twenty years" and turning on his heel. The poor guajiro was so humiliated he began crying. Boti went back to talk to Che, telling him that he had been wrong to be so harsh, to go back and talk like a man, to lift his spirits again. Such episodes were commonplace"
• Or this Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 340. "When Pombo Villegas and others went on a hunger strike to complain about the food, Che had at first threatened to shoot them. In the end, after conferring with Fidel, he had softened the sanction, making them go without food for five days."

etc. etc. The rest of my points are already on the page. We can await your edits to see if they are an improvement, but I was still unconvinced by what you thought was missing from this article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've added a bit of info regarding his romance with Zoila Rodríguez García and the Minas del Frío Cadet School, its a start for now. Hopefully the very POV tone of this article will begin to balance towards a more NOPV tone, backed up by solid facts that are conveniently not present at the moment, cited from reliable sources. Wryn 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wryn. You've removed the sentence about the watch, which as you rightly observe is not cited. However, it is on the following page of Anderson's book which you have cited. Can I take it that you have not read the book you are citing from? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at this page in which that paragraph matches the same paragrapth on this entry exacty. In fact, there are several paragraphs which match each other, so I have to turn the tables and question if you have read Anderson's book in return. If you happen to be the editor of the article on the mentioned page, given Wikipedia´s stance on self-citing, the page in question would seem an unpublished synthesis of published material. Remeber to avoid Conflict of Interest and No Original Reseach. Wryn 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen, my apologies, I thought you were referring to something else. Add the part about the watch again if you want, cited. My previous points on Conflict of Interest still stands though.Wryn 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me completely. What conflict of interest? The link you have provided is a "scrape" from this page. As the information we provide is copy free, other websites take it and place it on their sites. See here, there are tons of them.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Z: three points

(1) Your analogy to Geronimo may be far more apt than intended. Since Gernomimo was a leader of the Apaches, whose reputation and apparently real record of rape, torture and murder exceeded even the loose mores of the times. BTW there is a link to Cuba since Leonard Wood got his medal of honor for the capture of Geronimo (it is said he was only marginally linked to it)

(2) The said romance with Zoila must have occurred in the quite luxurious headquarters the Che had ordered constructed for himself at that dreadful cold place called Las Minas del Frio

(3) There is now even more question about the location of Guevara's remains [11]. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that Leonard Wood captured Geronimo, EJ. Thank you for that tidbit.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read that Geronimo surrendered in 1886 to a General Nelson A. Miles [12],[13]--Dakota 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Luxurios headquarters? Perhaps you mean Cadet School.Wryn 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Change the introduction?

The intro portrays Guevara as a socialist, but it mentions nothing of his methods which have been highly criticized. Could we please put this in? It is very important and cannot be ignored (it only receives light mention in the article).

I do agree, the intro should mention something about the dark side of him, from the execution of homosexuals to murdering political rivals. As it is its kind of like having a whole article on Stalin w/o mentioning his purges (ok, so I got to far...but not by much). Gtadoc 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

I've removed the following section recently added, simply because I think there are too many problems with it to clean up in one or two edits. One of the problems is that it seems to be directly translated from another article - without any effort to fix grammar issues, and actually links to the Spanish wikipedia - which is neither policy or practice. As this is a featured article, I would ask editors not to text dump poorly worded material to a page. The below addition will need to be discussed and sorted out before being readded to the page.

In 1958, Che Guevara installed Cadet School in Minas del Frío, moments during which the Movimiento 26 de Julio had installed themselves in Sierra Maestra with the objective of overthrowing the dictatorship of Fugliencio Batista. During this time in Minas del Frío he started a relationship with Zoila Rodríguez García, a guajira who lived in Sierra Maestra and, like the rest of her family, colaborated with the guerrilla.

Other editors comments are welcome.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice move, though a rather ridiculous argumentation. If grammar is such a problem in such a small paragraph, isn't it a bit ridiculous to say it's too much of a hassle to fix it in one edit? Likewise, the link can be easily removed in no time. But of course, you would rather leave out a text that mentions his relationship with García, a guajira, which contradicts the general tone of this article that Che was racist. Nice move. Conveniently, the part about him being a poetry and literary enthusiast has been removed from the introductory paragraph. Folks, lets cut the crap. Why don't you just say he was a racist, gun-totting unthinking godless commie? No, of course you can't say that, it wouldn't be serious enough or encyclopedic. Ironic though how thats what the article exactly implies. Despite the verbosity, your machinations are completly evident to those of us who can see the reeking anti-Che, anticommunist, POV of this article. (For example, the paragraph phrasing "Che became known as a 'comandante'". Newsflash, Commander is a typical designation of any communist group leader, in contrast to "officer". No need to give it such an aura of esoterism.).

In any case, I've given up on this and other wikipedia articles relating to similar matters (if you think the english and spanish entries on Che are clashing, just look at the entry on Hugo Chavez. The clashing is 100 times worse if not more... Dear God...).

I can understand differing interpretations of data, but the extent of manipulation on information on this and other entries sets a downright slandering POV tone, if not being a complete slander falling short of propaganda, no matter how formalistic and archival the redaction is.

In a place where neutrality is the desired goal, it makes me sick to see how information is manipulated and presented in such a guiltless way.

Oh well. Live and learn. Wryn 16:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a request for comment on my anti-Che, anticommunist, POV machinations here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You mention grammar issues with the paragraph, yet I've just run a spell check and the only grammatical error it has is with the word "colaborated" instead of "collaborated". Are you seriously telling me, with a straight face, that a -single- grammar error was meritory of the deletion of an entire paragraph? Oh right, it also has a link. Removing the entire paragraph would be more suitable than removing a single link? Maybe its the word "installed" which is causing trouble. The use is legitimate though. From dictionary.com:

installed: To settle in an indicated place or condition; establish: installed myself in the spare room.Wryn 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence implies consent, eh?Wryn 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first exposure to the subject, who died before I was born. I have no emotional attachment either way.
I have read the removed section in question several times, and I still have no idea what it is trying to convey. "Installed" is certainly a big part of the problem, but overall it seems to be poorly translated. Another example is the clearly non-english word "guajira". In the second sentence, "...he started..." leads me to believe that Che is the subject, he began an undefined relationship, with a person, perhaps a female ("her family"), and then he colaborated with someone referred to only as "guerrilla". Also, too many pronouns for clarity, specifically the trailing "guerrilla".
I'm not sure what any of this means, but I'm fairly certain I have it all wrong. If it can't be clarified, it should not be included.64.58.131.2 20:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Marxist or Marxist-Leninist?

This matter has been previously discussed ( In Talk Archive #2 and In Talk Archive #6) and a consensus reached that the adjective "Marxist" was the best choice for the lead paragraph.

It should be borne in mind that, in the last years of his life, Guevara had become quite critical of Lenin who, he had concluded, was "the culprit" responsible for the series of errors that had ultimately resulted in the Soviet Union taking the "capitalist path". He develops this line of thought in Apuntes críticos a la economía (published by Ocean Press, 1 August 2006), a fact that is recorded by Anderson on page 697 of the edition ISBN 0-8021-3558-7(pbk.). In view of his position in this regard, I do not see how it can be considered appropriate to label him a "Leninist", but I would welcome the opportunity to read other editors' opinions on the subject. -- Polaris999 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Imperialism is a leninist concept. "Marxism" by itself denotes something more akin to left communism, council communism, luxemburgism, or simply reformist. But hey, feel free to leave simply "Marxism", its less explanatory and sounds more pejorative, goes well with the tone of the article. Wryn 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph in urgent need of a re-write

Reference is made here to the "Cuba" section of the main Che Guevara article, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#Cuba , specifically to the first two sentences of its 3rd paragraph, which read as follows:

Guevara became a leader among the rebels, a Comandante (English translation: Major), respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess, During the guerrilla campaign Guevara was feared for his ruthlessness, which Fidel Castro described as an "excessively aggressive quality", being personally responsible for the execution and torture of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies.

1. Re Sentence #1: This is actually a text string rather than a sentence, having been truncated to the point that it now ends with a comma. Either its original text should be restored or it should be entirely re-written.

2. Re Sentence #2: This sentence is quite a piece of work, having been written in such a way that it seems to quote Fidel Castro describing Guevara's "ruthlessness". However, this representation is either a serious misunderstanding or a deliberate deception since Castro's words are taken completely out of context and their meaning grossly distorted. In order to let editors easily view the actual words spoken by Castro in their original context, I have extracted the relevant paragraphs from the speech in question in both the original Spanish [14] and an English translation (by Ocean Books [15]) and pasted them side by side in the table below. As is apparent, the "aggressiveness" that Castro attributes to Guevara is not "ruthlessness" but rather audacity and his constant willingness to sacrifice his life for others. Not surprisingly, the pages cited in the "source note" attached to this strange sentence, i.e., "Anderson pp. 269-270, 277-278", make no reference whatsoever to this or any other speech by Fidel Castro about Guevara or any other topic.

It is beyond obvious that Sentence #2 does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and needs to be replaced. While I could have done this myself, I thought it was more in keeping with the Wikipedia community spirit to present the problem here on the Talk page so that all editors who wish to participate in crafting the replacement text will have the opportunity to do so. (Please post your suggestions, comments, etc. below the table.) Thank you -- Polaris999 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from the speech delivered by Fidel Castro Ruz on October 18, 1967 "Che was an incomparable soldier. Che was an incomparable leader. Che was, from a military point of view, an extraordinarily capable person, extraordinarily courageous, extraordinarily aggressive. If, as a guerrilla, he had his Achilles’ heel, it was this excessively aggressive quality, his absolute contempt for danger." ... "What is so strange about the fact that this artist died in combat? What is stranger is that he did not die in combat on one of the innumerable occasions when he risked his life during our revolutionary struggle. Many times it was necessary to take steps to keep him from losing his life in actions of minor significance. "And so it was in combat — in one of the many battles he fought — that he lost his life. We do not have sufficient evidence to enable us to deduce what circumstances preceded that combat, or how far he may have acted in an excessively aggressive way. But, we repeat, if as a guerrilla he had an Achilles’ heel, it was his excessive aggressiveness, his absolute contempt for danger."

Fragmentos del discurso pronunciado por Fidel Castro Ruz el 18 de octubre de 1967 "Che era un insuperable soldado; Che era un insuperable jefe; Che era, desde el punto militar, un hombre extraordinariamente capaz, extraordinariamente valeroso, extraordinariamente agresivo. Si como guerrillero tenía un talón de Aquiles, ese talón de Aquiles era su excesiva agresividad, era su absoluto desprecio al peligro." ... "¿Qué tiene de extraño que ese artista muera en un combate? Todavía tiene mucho más de extraordinario el hecho de que en las innumerables ocasiones en que arriesgó esa vida durante nuestra lucha revolucionaria no hubiese muerto en algún combate. Y muchas fueron las veces en que fue necesario actuar para impedir que en acciones de menor trascendencia perdiera la vida. "Y así, en un combate, ¡en uno de los tantos combates que libró!, perdió la vida. No poseemos suficientes elementos de juicio para poder hacer alguna deducción acerca de todas las circunstancias que precedieron ese combate, acerca de hasta qué grado pudo haber actuado de una manera excesivamente agresiva, pero —repetimos— si como guerrillero tenia un talón de Aquiles, ese talón de Aquiles era su excesiva agresividad, su absoluto desprecio por el peligro."

Please post your suggestions re how to improve these sentences here:

Hello Polaris. That was added a few days ago by an anonymous editor, I tried to clean it up and at least give it a source but it appears to have got mixed up in another sentence and become even more garbled. Presumably the "aggressive quality" was taken by the editor from the legacy section, whilst I added the Anderson pp. 269-270, 277-278 to source the "execution and torture of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies". Those pages actually do refer to the execution of such. Any efforts to improve this addition are welcome.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

This article presents Guevara from the viewpoint that he was a self-sacrificial, heroic man. He was "murdered" - not "a murderer".

I asked for a POV check, but none occured. The tag was simply removed.

1. Floyd Brown wrote:
   • Che was a mass executioner who conducted many of his executions without a jury. Che said, “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary.” Such a judicial procedure in his mind was “just an archaic bourgeoisie detail.” He reminded those who listened that “this is a revolution! And a revolutionary must be a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.” [16]

• Now this is the best I could do in a few minutes of googling, but better sources are no doubt available.

1. Humborto's book about Fidel Castro says:
   • Fidel’s firing squads killed thousands of Cubans
2. Che himself said:
   • "Executions? ... Certainly we execute! ... And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the revolution's enemies!" [17]
   • According to the Black Book of Communism, those firing-squad executions had reached around 10,000 by that time.

I ask you to consider that there is a legitimate POV dispute here, and to postpone removal of the NPOV-dispute tag until the matter has actually been resolved. Please read the following excerpt from Wikipedia:POV check:

• For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV}}, and explain the reasons on the talk page.
• In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

Let's discuss this dispute. --Uncle Ed 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) I think on the basis that you are on probation for POV and tendentious editing - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 – for what I imagine will be an eternity - then the addition of the tag without any accompanying talk page conversation (of which there will need to be a lot) was illegitimate and extremely unhelpful to this article and wikipedia. This is a featured article and has been much scrutinized by people who know about the subject matter before you showed up. Your linking to the POV guideline "...In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved." was not wise. These issues have been resolved time and again via the use of reliable sources. Its removal was justified.

(2) There is no legitimate dispute, Ed Poor. And no one is "edit-warring" over the use of the template. Read the article - which is sourced to numerous major scholars of Cuban history before you start sourcing material to blogs like babalublog and someone called Floyd Brown (?)

(3) Again. Read the article. What is missing that your sources provide? Given that we actually have a list of the names of the 170 or so executions Che Guevara is said to have been responsible for in La Cabana, then you can be sure that editors have poured over this in far more detail than yourself and FloydBrown. Your "10,000" figure from the Black Book of Communism, though obviously in dispute, is unrelated to Guevara anyway and the figures come largely from the wars against the bandits.

My view is this: Above I can be found disputing this article with an editor who believes the article is a disgraceful anti-Che Guevara tract - and I was accused of having an "anti-Che, anticommunist, POV". So the article is either too anti-Guevara or too pro-Guevara to various editors who haven’t really backed up what they claim beyond basic hyperbole and useless sources. Now I know that you Ed, actually do have an “anti-Che, anticommunist, POV”. Perhaps you can argue with the other editor on a blog somewhere and let us get on with working on the article. But do not add a POV tag to a featured article without reading it first and without some serious sources. Guevara has been the subject of numerous major biographies, and the Cuban revolution is well covered by scholars. What do historians such as Anderson, Thomas, Castañeda, Dorschner etc say on the subject Ed? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments to Ed. You write "this article presents Guevara from the viewpoint that he was a self-sacrificial, heroic man". This is a sample of sentences from the article for you to read. Please reconsider whether these statements present a pro-Guevara POV problem in this article that requires your tag...-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Guevara was also feared for his ruthlessness, and was responsible for the execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies." "he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities.." "these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara." "It is estimated that approximately 179 to 500 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time." "Guevara helped organize revolutionary expeditions overseas, all of which failed." "he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities." "Studies addressing problematic characteristics of Guevara's life have cited his principal role in setting up Cuba's first post-revolutionary labor camps, his unsympathetic treatment of captured fighters during various guerrilla campaigns, and his frequent humiliations of those deemed his intellectual inferiors." "Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose legacy was the creation of a more bureaucratic, authoritarian regime" "Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years." "Borba observed the many half-completed or empty factories in Cuba, a legacy of Guevara's tenure as Minister of Industries, "standing like sad memories of the conflict between pretension and reality" "he is remembered by some as the "The Butcher of la Cabaña", a reference to Guevara’s post-revolutionary role as “supreme prosecutor” at the Cabana fortress." "Che has been romanticized over the years, but there is a darker side to his story. He looks like a rock star, but he executed a lot of people without trial or defense." "Guevara is shown casually shooting wounded Batista foot soldiers where they lie." "public opposition which compared Guevara to Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler."

If by editors not backing up claims beyond basic hyperbole and useless sources you were refering to me, then you're setting up a straw man. I did give you valid sources, I cited his speach to the United Nations in 1964, along with the romance with García from "Che Entre Nosotros". Yet that comment was completely ignored. When you removed the section I contributed, you claimed it was due to grammar errors. Yet I responded noting there was a single error, and that comment was also ignored. So really, what am I supposed to think?

I would rather have an article without featured status that is informatively accurate, rather than a featured article which is informatively inaccurate. And I thought that this was the goal of Wikipedia -to provide as accurate information as possible. I was discussing/editing basing myself on that principle, yet you question my motives. So now I question yours, unless I'm wrong, and it's in Wikipedia's best interest to sacrife information as long as featured article can be achived/maintained. Which would be a real shame if it was.

As for the use of hyperbole, another straw man. Exactly where did I use hyperbole? The only hyperbole I see is within the article. Comparing Che Guevara to Bin Laden and Hitler? Give me a break.Wryn 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The hyperbole and strawman arguments are as follows, from you who has arrived to claim the article is anti-Guevara: "[this article]...sets a downright slandering POV tone, if not being a complete slander falling short of propaganda, no matter how formalistic and archival the redaction is. In a place where neutrality is the desired goal, it makes me sick to see how information is manipulated and presented in such a guiltless way." and from Ed who has arrived to claim that "this article presents Guevara from the viewpoint that he was a self-sacrificial, heroic man" and that it "hides the fact that Guevara is a murderer". If you prefer, myself and the more neutral editors who are well schooled in the subject matter - and who worked hard on this article with wording issues and detailed sourcing - can retire and let you fight it out amongst yourselves. Of course the article will lose its featured status, and much of this hard work will be diminished to the detriment of the article and wikipedia. By the way, please re-read your earlier paragraph, if you believe that this ; "Che Guevara installed Cadet School in Minas del Frío, moments during which the Movimiento 26 de Julio had installed themselves in Sierra Maestra" is grammatically correct, then you obviously had a different schooling in English than myself. It also repeated some points mentioned earlier. I have cleaned up your paragraphs and restored them to the article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't retire from the discussion. I have no desire to make the article lose its feature status.

I'm still studying the placement of statements like, "It is estimated that approximately 179 to 500 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time."

And I appreciate your willingness to take up this matter. --Uncle Ed 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(to Zleitzen) Ok, the paragraph was missing an "a" after installed. The comment I made that is being refered to as hyperbole, was part of a latter response, my earlier responses were based on sources and and did not resort to hyperbole, those are the ones I was refering to originally. When I said Guevara was not racist, I provided documented examples to support that claim. I was not basing myself on a purely ideological position to do so. And yes, right now, I do feel as if the article is saying "Che is racist". But I'm not saying the article should say "Che was not racist", I'm saying the article should say:

• "Arguments in favor of attributing racism to Guevara include..."
• "Counter-arguments against the attribution of racism to Guevara include..."

Can you see that I'm only trying to add balance to parts I feel are unbalanced?Wryn 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Wryn. At what point in the article do you believe that it says or even implies "Che Guevara is racist"? Che Guevara wasn't racist, but he failed to understand many of the issues of Afro-Cubans in Cuba, and Africans themselves on his adventure in the Congo. As did Castro whose views on race at that time were akin to middle America of the early 60s rather than Angela Davis. All this is well documented in academic texts and admitted to by those involved much later. But this isn't on the page anyway so I you've lost me. To Ed, take up what matter? There is no matter that I can see other than you placing a POV tag on a much scrutinised article - that has passed a rigorous screening process and has even been on the main page - and presenting Floyd Brown (?) and a blog in your defence. Now you are pondering the placement of something on a page, how long do we have to wait for this?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reply to Ed: The era we are referring to is the immediate-post revolutionary period and (as usual) I am re-hashing the details same 500-550 people executed in the first 6-12 months or so. Of which all mainstream sources refer to in detail as the "to-the-wall" judicial executions of Batista secret police figures and other collaborators. The larger figures span a decade that includes several wars (War of the Bandits/Bay of Pigs) and campaigns against continued armed "counter revolutionary" resistance groups. Incidentally, Guevara's spell as prosecutor in La Cabaña lasted only 6 months in early 1959.

Remember that this was after a long brutal war against Batista's military regime that perpetrated countless civilian atrocities. It should be noted that the climate of "drive through justice" was severely influenced by the memory of the violent chaos of the post-Machado period in the 1930s, where lawless retributions were rife. It was considered that the speedy trials and executions in 1959, including the stadium trials, were methods to prevent greater lawlessness and deter citizens from seeking their own retributions against Batista informants and other individuals. This all took place amid a backdrop of hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets and demanding justice. Here is a British newsreel from the era that should help us understand the mood [18]. The report notes that 50 people alone died in just one riot, initiated by people demanding justice outside a Batista prison.

An interesting story that might illuminate the issue is that of the trial of 44 Batista airmen in 1959, accused of war-crimes in Santiago. When these men were found innocent, rioting and deep unrest in Santiago against the decision forced a retrial and the judgement was overturned by Castro claiming "revolutionary justice is based not on legal precepts but moral conviction". The men were therefore sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment. That provides a picture not only of the legal chaos of the era, but of the typical accusations, charges and punishments that were being banded about at the time. The heated atmosphere was compared to France in 1945 by various international observers, where there were also tragic cases of gross miscarriages of justice.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

to Zleitzen: My apologies, I mixed up the information from the article itself with the information from talk page discussions above. As a side note, I find it ironic that at first you supported views that regarded Guevara as racist (the racist club incident) and in your latest response you claim that Guevara was not racist, only that he failed to understand certain issues of Afro-Cubans and Africans in his Congo expedition. As another side note, this is a view I don't share (from a documented basis), but this is another matter.

The Legacy and Cult of Che parts of the article contains these phrases: "his principal role in setting up Cuba's first post-revolutionary labor camps, his unsympathetic treatment of captured fighters during various guerrilla campaigns, and his frequent humiliations of those deemed his intellectual inferiors.", this "some of whom consider Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose legacy was the creation of a more bureaucratic, authoritarian regime. Detractors have also theorized that in much of Latin America, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years." and this "public opposition which compared Guevara to Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler", etc.

I can see that there are phrases which support different viewpoints, such as Guevara becoming the figure of inspiration for guerrillas / socialist leaders in idealistic terms, and his image/persona becoming an icon of consumerism. However, the very important viewpoint that I feel is missing is that Guevara's life and essays serve as the basis for a social critique from a materialist view, not a solely ideal or romantic one as is portrayed by the article right now. I would go as far as to claim, at least in latin america, that the support for Che comes from a materialist agreement to his writtings/life, not from a romanticized or idealistic depiction of Che. Such a latter consideration is more typical of "First World" countries, and is in fact, completely contrary to Marxist thought, which is strictly materialistic/scientific.

I believe that the solution would be to include this fourth viewpoint, Che's support from a materialist viewpoint advocated by different authors and groups, which I feel is a key element missing right now. Of course this would be included from relevant sources. What do you think?Wryn 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to plunge deeply into this, except to remark that we are dealing with an article that is very difficult to get right. There is no general scholarly consensus on Che Guevara. There are serious, well-intentioned people who consider him a monster and there are serious, well-intentioned people who consider him a hero and role model. He makes Robespierre look positively uncontroversial, in that even the latter-day partisans of Robespierre tend to believe that he ultimately shed excessive blood, whereas the partisans of Guevara usually do not. And, whatever you think of his politics or his conduct, his self-sacrifice in going to Bolivia was large: a man in ill health, who could have been a diplomat or a government official, chose to be a guerrilla fighter.

I don't think that we should downplay his role as an "executioner" (certainly not a "murderer", any more than a "murder victim"), but I don't think we should exaggerate it, either. It is hard to imagine that the Cuban Revolution could have proceeded without such killings, and it is not one of history's bloodier revolutions, nor is Guevara a figure like Lavrentiy Beria, known mainly for his activities in the apparatus of repression. Offhand, the article might be improved by one sentence in the lead mentioning his role overseeing executions at La Cabaña: the lead is probably a bit unbalanced in this respect. And I could imagine "deepening" the legacy section, both positive and negative. But it seems to me that, other than that, in the "narrative" portions of the article, the balance is about right, and that we have to recognize that this is an article that is never going to make everyone completely happy. - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how his alleged "self-sacrifice" in trying to disrupt the peace in Bolivia could in any sense be considered positive except by those who support that kind of terrorist subversion. Making him into a hero for his conduct towards the Bolivian people is pushing it, IMO, SqueakBox 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the liberation of the black slaves in the United States an act of terrorist subversion? What about the French Revolution or American war of Independence? Surely they were subversive terrorists.

Yes, there was peace in Bolivia, people were peacefully starving to death. Wryn 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add some of what Jmabel said above, to the article intro.

• There are serious, well-intentioned people who consider him a monster and there are serious, well-intentioned people who consider him a hero and role model.
• It is hard to imagine that the Cuban Revolution could have proceeded without such killings

This would highlight the fact that appraisals of Guevara are deeply split: monster vs. hero is about as sharp a distinction as I can think of. That his "extra-judicial killings" (executions? murders?) were essential to Castro's consolidation of power may also be of interest. I'm looking into a theme of how Communist regimes get installed; it's not always via a democratic process (see "Democratically elected"), is it? --Uncle Ed 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, what about the vast majority of people in the world who do not view the Guevara as a either a monster or a hero? And where appraisals are no more deeply split than they are about Charles de Gaulle. I don't think Jmabel is inferring that the post revolution La Cabana executions were essential for Castro's consolidation of power, they were enacted for the purposes of progressing a revolution against what was already a brutal and undemocratic state. The executions of alleged Batista strongmen and collaborators had massive popular support, were compared to the retributions in France post WWII by outside observers, and were unconnected to the the instillation of a "Communist regime" which occurred long after Guevara left La Cabana in the summer of 1959. Wars and their aftermaths tend to result in unlawful deaths. Some - far more bloody than the Cuban revolution - involve the murders of 1000s of women, children and other non-combatants. Many of those responsible for these deaths are even praised for their foresight and moral clarity. We already provide the necessary information on the events in question relating to Guevara's executions. If the facts are not enough for an encyclopedia article, then we're not writing an encyclopedia article anymore. We're writing an opinion piece. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Z: Very few people argue that the first executions in La Caban~a were not excusable (I do but I am against the death penalty). However, as the executions continued and the targeted populations shifted from known/or accused Batista criminals to those who opposed Guevara's and Castro's view of the Revolution then it became clear that the objective was to suppress and terrorize any in the population who wanted democracy. On re-examination many of Guevara's executions in the Sierra Maestra appear to have been intended not as much for military necessity, but to expand marxist control of what was then a popular revolt for democracy against the Batista dictatorship. You will have to await my book to see such in English. One of the difficulties involved in evalutating this circumstance is that much of the commonly known written record was authored by Guevaraand then translated to English. In his overseas adventures Guevara caused at least several hundred unnecessary deaths in Africa and South America in actions that also involved overturning some, notable Venezuelan, democracies. BTW Winston Churchill was taken in by communist operatives during the war in the Balkans, and thus made the erroneous decision to support "Tito," and not the Royalists forces. Churchill himself was not free from bloodlust as noted in his writings on the Sudan Campaign (which strangely and perhaps forgivingly foreshadows present events), and some of his anti-semitic remarks prior to WWII have come to light recently. As to the time line, one can rationally take the view that a marxist take over of Cuba was in progress (is incubation a better word?) since "Fabio Grobart" (which strangely translates to steathy grave digger if one evaluates the first name in Roman Empire history and the second name in Slavic languages) arrive in Cuba circa 1922, and this continued with a series of steathy assassinations notably that of Sandalio Junco, and the apparent recruitement of Castro as early as 1948. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello EJ. Regarding Churchill, you are correct to note his bloodlust in Sudan, and more shockingly - his attitude to the Kurds in Iraq, and it is safe to say he was responsible for far more deaths of innocent people including children than Guevara in the fight for his political beliefs of the time (British colonialism and its economic interests in the middle east). (Incidentally, the Churchill lead describes how "his speeches were a great inspiration to the embattled Allied forces" without mentioning that the most recognisable were actually read by Norman Shelley, a BBC actor). Whatsmore, whilst Churchill was terrorising Arab and Kurdish civilians, his ideological peers were conducting massacres in India, had set up concentration camps for civilians in South Africa, were hunting down innocent aborigine women and children and hanging them on trees in Australia, were overseeing the torture of civilians in Egypt etc etc. Churchill, a man who approved of gassing innocent Kurdish villagers whom he called "uncivilised tribes", is enshrined as a heroic architect of this modern civilisation and the greatest ever Briton, a role model beyond reproach who has his likeness duplicated on pictures and statues throughout the land, and whose bulldog image has come to symbolise all that is noble in an island's resistance to foreign rule. Perhaps if we were Kurdish or Sudanese historians, we might note that his article "hides the fact that he was a murderer" as well. But I think that would be overdramatic, ahistorical POV pushing to do so, and would damage the efforts of editors who are improving that page.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the POV dispute tag, in large part because multiple citations to criticisms of Che and his legacy have been removed from the main article. Examples include http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=4815 and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12467. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag I included has been removed. I can find no explanation as to why. As such, I am re-introducing it, and request a reply from anyone who removes it following this sentence, please. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 15:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism Magazine and FrontPage Magazine can hardly be called reliable sources in this case. CapMag is (at least ostensibly) about economy, and both magazines plainly represent extreme ideologies. The articles you link to are not serious historical examinations of Che Guevara.

Moreover, there was a long POV discussion above, but nothing was added to it since mid-April; thus, the POV tag can be removed, as there isn't anyone actively protesting the article's POV. If you have substantial evidence of a biased POV, please open a new section in this article and explain your reasons. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I respectfully disagree that Capitalism Magazine and FrontPage Magazine are unreliable sources. This holds particularly true when the main article continues to have links to publications on the opposite side of the political spectrum that are just as obscure (if not more so), including but not limited to "Che Guevara - A legacy of struggle by Daniel Waldron in Socialist View, No. 13 Winter 2004, an Irish socialist journal," and "Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved on June 28, 2006." As long as these latter sources continue to be cited -- and in my opinion, they should be -- then sources like Capitalism Magazine and FrontPage Magazine should also be cited. I continue to actively protest this article's POV. As such, I have re-introduced the POV tag. Kind regards, Mike A. Smith96.224.3.71 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

I had read somewhere that Che Guevara had argued with Castro to take control of the missiles and launch them at the United States. Does anyone have information on this? The Che Guevara page just states that Guevara was quoted as saying that had the U.S. launched a strike against Cuba, then the missiles would have been launched against the U.S.

i dnt no about tha. but kruscef had authrized nucler weapon attacks if the U.S inadaev(Esskater11 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

I've read that too; he felt betrayed by the Soviets and said that if it was up to him (or perhaps if it were up to Cuba, don't recall) he would have launched them all. Gtadoc 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

His Forced Labour Camps

Why isnt there any infomation about the christian labour camps he was in control, or the camps he put the people infected with aids in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.225.93 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. I wonder why Guevara's role in setting up camps for AIDS victims in the 1960s is being censored on this page? Surely this is notable. Guevara apparently shows extraordinary malevolent medical abilities by diagnosing a disease that was first known to the mainstream scientific community in the early 1980s. Is there no end to his evil genius? The article should also highlight his planned assassination attempt on John Paul II, his premeditated "Down with Disco" campaign and his warnings of the dangers of the Sony Walkman to children's ears. --Oakhouse 08:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AIDS in the 1960s. Censorship ? There was also some censorship about Julius Caesar driving an Alfa-Romeo. Ericd 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the Che putting homosexuals in labour camps, many where they ended up dying. It is a shame that pretty much everything about the labour camps is ignored in the article though. Gtadoc 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Article No Longer Encyclopedic

This article has turned into a total whitewash of Che's activities during and after the Cuban Revolution, and a deep seepage of weasel words has infiltrated the article. Unverified laudatory and sympathetic claims run rampant. This article isn't useful or reliable at this point, and requires a total re-write, without the apologist POV. - MSTCrow 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Add appropriate tags if you really think so. Or even better - state concrete problematic sections and fix them if you good enough sources.--Svetovid 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't just a complete revert to its Featured version be better? there is a lot of weaselness, removing it manually is an ardous task, a revertion and subsecuent addition of any notable contribution and/or update is a lot more simple and accurate. -凶 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

John Lee Anderson

Who is John Lee Anderson is he a reliable source ? Ericd 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

the introduction needs to be changed. It doesn't introduce anything.71.235.40.128 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the real Che Guevara?

I hear and read so many things about Che Guevara that I can not believe any of the things I read. The reason is because the people that are writting them are ignorant and communist sympathizers. I wish everyone would just read Humberto Fontova's "Exposing The Real Che Guevara...And the Useful Idiots Who Idiolize Him." Economics, Healthcare, poor people are all things you hear about what he and Fidel have done. However, read the book and you will find out how horribly they destroyed Cuba's Economy. You will find out that Cuban healthcare was in place since the 1930's and was the foundation for international healthcare reform. Furthermore, you will find out about how far ahead Cuba was in terms of Social and political correctiveness, women judges, black presidnets and leaders. Finally, the Labour camps, Not Christian, Not for the sick...Forced labor camps. In WWII, we called them Concentration Camps and Extermination Camps. How proud people must be to where shirts or clothes with Che's Photo on it when he has personally killed between 14,000 and 21,000 cubans by his orders. He ran Cuba's Economy to be third world country. Also Che has run out of Cuba, over 500,000 cubans. You will see how he was cought trying to destroy American landmarks and people. How he loathed artist and musicians, but those are the people that find his plight righteous today...he destroyed a culture and a people. I just hope that the book I recommend is read by at least one person who then can pass it along to others. Perception is not reality, we can stop this insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.209.239 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 June 2007

Please sign your posts as explained at the top of this page.

Please read WP:TALK for guidelines. Do not insult those who disagree with you, do not generalize, and stick to constructive fact-based criticism. This is not the place to advertise books or denounce crimes. Half of what of you said above is simply wrong, another part is incoherent ("personally... by his orders"), and the rest is already in the article in some form, properly sourced. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Before being acussed of being communist I will leave clear that I'm not Cuban or in any way related to his movement, now with that out of the way I would recoment you read WP:CIVIL before posting any other comment. -凶 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was really tempted to site that book, as though the title is a bit extreme he does make some very good points in it (in a very politically incorrect way) and seems to have done his research. Some of those points should be in the article, assuming that the purpose of the article is to inform and not simply to glamourize.Gtadoc 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I think the introduction to this article is horribly biased, in that it completely omits mention of what is surely one of the most important facts about Che: that he was directly responsible for the extra-judicial killing of "several hundred" (the lowest estimates I have seen) or "several thousand" (his own estimate, as I understand it) or "tens of thousands" (as some sources have it). The article consistently downplays Guevara's bloodthirst and legacy of death and destruction.

It seems a terrible omission that leads the reader far from NPOV.

I write here as an ordinary reader and editor of Wikipedia, of course. :)--Jimbo Wales 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll be working on re-writing it. Thank you for alerting us of the situation, normal Wikipedian :-) Yours sincerely, Eddie 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Eddie. By coincidence, there was another Ed that wanted to re-work this article, who had a similar user page declaration to yours. But went on a wiki-break the day you started editing here. Coincidentally, again, he shared almost exactly the same view as Jimbo above. Given this whole range of happy coincidences, I look forward to reading your informed re-write with much interest.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the editor, pal. Wikidan829 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the single most potent way to balance the article in line w/ Jimbo's comments would be to expand discussion of Guevara's admission that, during the Missile Crisis, had he and Castro controlled the missiles, they would have fired them onto American cities as soon as the blockade started. He would have regarded this as "a beautiful death", despite having killed tens of millions of innocent Americans, despite the annihilation of Cuba and probably despite a global nuclear holocaust killing billions and destroying civilization. I am hoping you will expand the two sentences currently dealing with this and that you will summarize the incident in the intro. JDG 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wales (adopts Clint Eastwood voice). I've come out of retirement for this so you'll have to do better than that ;) I don't buy your comments, they don't wash, and you can read my response to another editor of a similar persuasion & style above.

If you were to find one more critical encyclopedic entry for Che Guevara than this, I will withdraw my comments, but I invite you to examine other encyclopedic entries - britannica, encarta etc - and return with your thoughts. When you say that you write "as an ordinary reader" - you actually appear to write as an ahistorical and naive partisan. "Guevara's bloodthirst and legacy of death". Hmmm, OK. In fact, banging a POV tag on an article as thoroughly worked as this, accompanied by such talk page comments, seems shoddy and tantamount to POV sabotage in itself. This is all very disappointing and reflects badly on the site, and yourself Jimbo for that matter.

A number of very experienced and knowledgeable people on this subject have spent many, many hours over years improving this article to its current high standard. Where it stood as an excellent advert for the process itself until about 4 hours ago when you turned up. I myself have posted this article to various friends and old colleagues over the last year or two - all experts in the field - to nods of approval all round and praise for the process. Keep in mind that the long term editors here have had to endure attacks from editors who insist that the article is an anti-Guevara screed as well as the type of attacks from people of your persuasion. Ask yourself, who has the POV problem here?

As for the other comments. JDG writes that we should "expand discussion of Guevara's admission that, during the Missile Crisis, had he and Castro controlled the missiles, they would have fired them onto American cities". How can you possibly "expand" what was an anecdotal, brief statement which is already in the article? From where will you glean this additional information?

Is this supposed be an article based on extensive factual detail from the most thorough sources, (ie an encyclopedia article) or is this an opinion piece full of speculation of Che Guevara's "blood thirst"? I guess it's up to Jimbo, its his reputation on the line in the end. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I laugh out loud. Guevara's clearly stated desire, corroborated by Castro, to nuke the U.S. is "an anecdotal, brief statement". Yeah, just an off-the-cuff remark about wanting to tip off Armageddon...John Lee Anderson was a respected longtime writer and editor of England's leading socialist paper, but to Zleitzen what he reported is mere anecdote. Talk about POV. To ignore, or, when you can't ignore, minimize facts that go against one's leanings, is almost a definition of POV... This article has been in need of a critical going-over for a long time. JDG 06:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon Lee Anderson was not editor of England's leading socialist paper, nor was he the recipient of the anecdote. It was Sam Russell. It was merely reported in Anderson's book. Here's where the problems start. It helps to know the subject matter. And the article for that matter, because it's sourced to Sam Russell and already detailed if you cared to check. And for the record, I have repeatedly stated elsewhere that I can't stand Che Guevara. I think he was an asshole. I just want serious, informative and factually correct articles of the kind you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia on a subject that have a passion for. And I think this kind of business - uninformed editors turning up, calling the shots, making wild claims amidst factual errors - is really damaging to wikipedia's credibility. In this case it seems to come from the top down, but virtually none of the statements by new editors on this article are in any way serious or informed. Guevara "locking up people with Aids", Guevara's "bloodlust", "Is Anderson a reliable source?", "Guevara didn't study medicine", "Anderson an editor of Britain's leading socialist paper", "hides the fact he was a murderer" etc etc etc... How can anyone take this process seriously? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to blockade say the UK the goverment would probably take the view that it was within it's rights to vapourise the cities of whoever was behind the blockade.Geni 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But the key question is not whether or not it was morally right for Guevera to make the remark, but whether we should have an article deeply biased by the omission of the fact that he said it. Perhaps Guevera was right, and it would have been a wonderful and glorious thing for Cuba to have started a nuclear war with the United States. Doesn't matter. It is still noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. It gets an equal level of coverage as Jacques Chirac threat to nuke anyone any state that was behind terrorist actions that hurt french interests.Geni 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Jimbo's "key question" is that it was added in March 2004 and has remained in the article ever since. Which can only lead us to assume that Jimbo hasn't even read the article he finds "horribly biased".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I read this article as it existed about half a year ago and did some checking on the journalist who reported this quote, then came back here earlier today after reading "Eddie"'s entry on Jimbo's Talk page, took a quick (too quick) look at the footnote and mixed up Anderson with Russell... I know how you feel, as I've contributed to a few long, carefully assembled articles myself and have had to deal with newish editors just coming in and blasting away. But sometimes being that close to an article can blind you to the real impression it is making on the average reader. I don't think Jimbo can be blamed for feeling the article as it stands mostly reads as a suck up to those who idolize Guevara. Maybe the people you've worked with have, in the pursuit of what they saw as NPOV, toned down material detailing, for instance, Che's involvement in summary killings at La Cabaña. Although there's a sizable paragraph devoted to it, the writing simply doesn't convey how personally brutal the guy was, nor how the majority of those killed hadn't done much more wrong than simply participating in the Cuban society they were born to. I've felt for a while now that the best way to attain NPOV is to allow descriptions, mostly in the form of quotes, that convey the heartfelt convictions of all parties, in language that could never be called "weasely". This as opposed to the other primary technique to attain NPOV, which is to flatten everything out in one long dispassionate drone. JDG 09:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"... the real impression it is making on the average reader." It depends upon who that reader is and what their motives are. I presume we can discount the Latin American scholars and archivists who I passed the article to who were very impressed with the standard, and wikipedia's ability to describe subjects like that - (Ironically, Jimbo seems to have shot down one of the best adverts for his own site due to his own POV!). We can also discount the 10,000s of people who have read this article previously and have not complained despite being on the main page, or the people who voted for it to be a featured article. "I don't think Jimbo can be blamed for feeling the article as it stands mostly reads as a suck up to those who idolize Guevara." Yes he can. He obviously hasn't read professional encyclopedic accounts if he thinks this is "a suck up". If Jimbo can find the below quotes in any other encyclopedic study of Che Guevara, it might be worth considering that he made some sort has a point. Until that moment, his interjection reads like the rantings of an ignorant and unhelpful partisan who is acting on some other motive that has yet to be ascertained, though will become clear eventually I imagine. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At present this article states the following. If these can be found in any encyclopedia entry for Guevara elsewhere, then Jimbo might have a point: "Guevara was also feared for his ruthlessness, and was responsible for the execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies." "he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities.." "these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara." "It is estimated that approximately 179 to 500 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time." "Guevara helped organize revolutionary expeditions overseas, all of which failed." "he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities." "Studies addressing problematic characteristics of Guevara's life have cited his principal role in setting up Cuba's first post-revolutionary labor camps, his unsympathetic treatment of captured fighters during various guerrilla campaigns, and his frequent humiliations of those deemed his intellectual inferiors." "Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose legacy was the creation of a more bureaucratic, authoritarian regime" "Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years." "Borba observed the many half-completed or empty factories in Cuba, a legacy of Guevara's tenure as Minister of Industries, "standing like sad memories of the conflict between pretension and reality" "he is remembered by some as the "The Butcher of la Cabaña", a reference to Guevara’s post-revolutionary role as “supreme prosecutor” at the Cabana fortress." "Che has been romanticized over the years, but there is a darker side to his story. He looks like a rock star, but he executed a lot of people without trial or defense." "Guevara is shown casually shooting wounded Batista foot soldiers where they lie." "public opposition which compared Guevara to Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler."

First: "It is estimated that approximately 179 to 500 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time" is a downplaying of the matter by using the smallest available estimate. Guevara himself has been quoted as estimating the total number as being in the thousands.

Second: My complaint is primarily about the introduction to the piece. The body is a bit better, although it still displays bias by cherrypicking the claims to cover. The introduction should have, as a minimum, a paragraph describing how he is thought of today as "The Butcher of la Cabaña", and should include a reasonable range of estimates of the number of murders he committed in the brutal crackdowns that led to Castro's complete control of Cuba.--Jimbo Wales 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill opening section doesn't mention some of his more negative names or that he authorised the gassing of the kurds. David Lloyd George doesn't mentional the "welsh goat" nickname at all. Nicknames and the like generaly only make it into the opening if people won't otherwise recognise the person (Peter Sutcliffe for example). A full paragraph in the intro? Joseph Stalin racks up 1 line for 20 million killed. The same with Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust.Geni 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, it sounds like those articles could likely use some work too. I haven't looked at those articles, so I can't really comment. But I don't think it is particularly relevant to the fact that this article is biased and needs to be fixed.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote on my talk page, "salient fact about him is that he was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator." Is this is the attitude to scholarship and neutrality Jimbo is advocating here? To even enter a debate on that level, before discussing the problematic details with Jimbo's first statement (which have been discussed ad nauseum previously using extensive reliable sourcing, to the point where we've been discussing names of victims), is to lower one's sights significantly, I believe. I note Jimbo hasn't addressed the challenge to produce a professional encyclopedia article that is more critical than our own. Despite this, our own formerly praised article is still deemed "cherrypicking", "downplaying", "horribly biased" and so on. So there does seem little point entering into a rational, factual, historical exchange here. Though Geni is correct to wonder why other articles on political figures far more destructive than Guevara have not been subjected to this kind of carry on.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely do think it is appropriate to talk about the salient fact that Guevara was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator. Indeed, those are the actions which made him notable and famous in the first place.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo, but that is just not true. Che Guevara is notable for his role in one revolution against a regime - and - having succeeded, his subsequent efforts to foment revolutions against a host of similar regimes in Latin America and the Third World. If he was so notable for the points you mention, you think Britannica, Encarta and so on would mention it in their leads, wouldn't you?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to express my disappointment with Jimbo here. He seems to be lowering the standard on NPOV discourse. I don't think any editor should come in with statements about a biography subject's "bloodthirst" without offering some sort of reference. Jimbo, do you have any references indicating that Guevara had a thirst for blood? Moreover, even given ideal references, I don't think we should use that sort of charged language or anything like that in an article. The introductions for articles on Tomás de Torquemada, Vlad III the Impaler, and Ted Bundy all downplay their bloodthirst. Wikipedia is about presenting facts, such as how many people died under Guevara's extra-judicial killings, not speculations on the psyche of a historical figure or graphic descriptions of their wrongdoings. I don't think including the nickname of "Butcher of la Cabaña" in the introduction is appropriate either. The nickname seems to be less than noteworthy: A Google search for "Butcher of la Cabaña" turns up 147 hits. In comparison, the less than popular nickname Dumbya for George W. Bush turns up 121,000.

It sounds like the phrase "Butcher of la Cabaña" should perhaps be removed from the article entirely, then.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Butcher of la Cabaña" quote, which I added to the article if I recall, is important as it is encapsulates the sentiments of various Cuban exiles' vociferous opposition to the revolution. I don't believe such a quote is appropriate for the lead, however.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the best Wikipedia principles, even if not official, is "let the facts speak for themselves." Jimbo, if you think the intro here is biased by including a low estimate of Che's killings, then please provide some sourced estimates.--Bkwillwm 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bkwillwm, my problem with the intro is not that it is "biased by including a low estimate of Che's killings", but that his legendary brutality and advocacy (and execution) of extrajudicial killings in defense of the revolution are not mentioned at all in the introduction.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to sound so aggressive here, but I think both of you (Zleitzen and Bkwillwm) are... how can it be put?... psyching yourselves out on this topic (perhaps due to a severe "forest for the trees" effect), so that you don't even register the plain meaning and importance of certain key, highly sourced statements, along with the reality, of course, that those statements should convey. For instance, in 1962 Guevara was the #2 man in the government of a nation which suddenly harbored enough nuclear megatonnage and launch capacity to start an apocalyptic attack upon the United States. To my knowledge, we still don't know how much influence Castro and Guevara had with Khrushchev and his top people, but it's safe to say it was much greater than zero, as these two had just successfully lobbied for the shipment of the missiles in the first place. So this man who had a major influence in probably the weightiest decisions made on the planet to that date has clearly stated he exerted this influence in favor of annihilating ~25 million Americans at one stroke, knowingly igniting an all but locked-in series of counterattacks that would end with billions dead, civilization destroyed and the survivors earnestly looking upon those who were killed as the lucky ones. It is plain and obvious logic that tells the reader of these events: this man had to be possessed of a gigantic, pathological hatred and bloodthirst against the people living within societies he deemed "bourgeois" and "imperialist". In fact, it is difficult to establish a greater bloodthirst displayed by anyone in a position of eminent authority ever. Yes, Hitler accomplished 8 million or so non-combatant deaths and certainly wanted more; Stalin has been "credited" with up to 18 or so million and perhaps wanted more; Genghis Khan had his warriors kill hundreds or thousands of non-combatants after nearly every battle and certainly wanted more; Che Guevara lacked the capacity to order underlings to kill a large number of non-combatants, but in the one situation in which his hatred and bloodthirst could lead to the death of non-combatants he strenuously attempted to have 25 or 30 million killed outright and upwards of 2 1/2 billion killed in all probability, and there was simply no room for him to want more dead beyond that. And now, in the face of this uncontested history of Che and the Missile Crisis, Bkwillwm comes here and states "I don't think any editor should come in with statements about a biography subject's "bloodthirst" without offering some sort of reference." The reference is in the Daily Worker and in Castro's corroboration of that reference. There is also the largely uncontested reference of his actions at La Cabaña, where he put his bloodthirst into action exactly to the greatest extent he could. These are simple, thoroughly documented accounts of a mind matched in cruelty only by the first tier of historical mass murderers; Hitler, et al. Jimbo Wales is dealing with clear evidence on the simple plane of observable reality. His detractors on this page are caught up in some kind of funnel cloud of complexity, unable to just get free and deal with the facts on the ground. It seems they have been trying to mediate NPOV for so long with the insistent, loud voices of Che-idolizers ringing in their ears that they cannot now put those fact-proof fanatics to one side and write with a simple regard for historical accuracy. Obviously, if an editor with that regard comes along and asks why this plain legacy of bloodthirst, destruction and agitation for destruction on a planetary scale is being downplayed, the response is going to be full of talk about "levels of scholarship" and the need for references beyond the scores of references already collected... I'm hoping Jimbo chooses to make a little project of this, delivering one or two polished sentences for the intro encapsulating ultra-documented facts that show this man's insane inhumanity. JDG 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently every nuclear power other than China has a formal policy of retaining the right to a premptive nuclear strike. Are you going to argue then that most major world leaders are bloodthirsty?Geni 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mistook my point. I haven't seen any reference (by which I mean a citable source) that says that Che was "bloodthirsty." True, Che committed violence, but we can't assume he committed violence out of bloodthirst. He may have been extremely dedicated to a dogma and willing to sacrifice the lives of others (and himself) to realize his ideological goals rather than trying to quench a thrist for blood. Assuming Che committed and advocated violence because he was blood thirsty is original research unless you find an appropriate reference to cite. I also thinks you should not dwell too much on Che's Daily Worker quote on a nuclear attack against the US. He might have been speaking loudly because they took away his big stick. We probably won't ever know how true the statement was. We should let the statement speak for itself.--Bkwillwm 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While Guevara was a self confessed killer, was he ever convicted in open court (one where he had proper representation) of murder? If not, then he is not a murderer. I feel it may balance the romantic bias to mention he did kill many people in the opening paragraph, but "murderer" is a legal term that should be used only under specific circumstances.

Also, re Che and Fidel being wicked for wanting to site missiles just off the US coast - the US sited missiles all over Europe pointing at the USSR/Soviet cities; are the past heads of Western countries also to be described as potential baby killers? Remember, NPOV works both ways... LessHeard vanU 12:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to assume a straw man here. I have been (falsely) accused here of coming in with a POV, but basically I just want the article to be neutral, and it self-evidently is not at the current time. I have not argued that the article should describe Guevara as "bloodthirsty" or "potential baby killer" or "murderer". It should, rather, report neutrally on the well-documented and relevant facts about him. I think that any world leader (US, USSR, China, etc.) who would make a statement advocating the start of a nuclear war should (and would) have that mentioned in the article. It's quite a noteworthy thing to have said. So I am glad it is in the article and think it should remain.--Jimbo Wales 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, the missile quote was added in March 2004 and has remained in the article ever since.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It was more a comment that the majority of English language sourced references are going to give an emphasis on the basis that the individual followed a Marxist Revolutinary ideology (which will likely be implied as bad) from which the taking of life of "innocents" will be deemed murder - as opposed to the more benign sounding collateral damage when civilians are killed by the forces of the Free World. For an appropriate NPOV overview the language chosen will need to be as neutral as the content. The term "murderer", outside of a conviction, is (IMO) an example of subjective language. Finally, the capacity to kill (in great numbers) is something that humans have nearly always invested in their political leaders. It isn't perhaps as noteworthy as it first appears.LessHeard vanU 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jimbo, that's quite astonishing that you disavow coming here with a POV, yet in the very same edit you state "I absolutely do think it is appropriate to talk about the salient fact that Guevara was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator." You do understand that your word choice ("mass murderer", "crimes") does signal a certain moral stance that is I believe far from universally agreed upon? No? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG, I didn't see a single source in any of your comments, just a whole heap of opinions about "bloodlust", something about Hitler, and implications that other editors, who are merely following the line of all professional encyclopedias and 95% of other WP political biographies, are "Che-idolizers", "fact-proof fanatics" etc. Regarding the missiles, the Cuban party line, expressed many times, was that the missiles were to be used in the event of a full invasion - Castro expressed this in his famous letter the Khrushchev [19]. It had already been established here in the past that Sam Russell, of the British Communist Party,[20] is not the most reliable source on these matters, given the fact that by the time of Russell's comments, Guevara had already been smeared by the global Soviet propaganda machine (which included the Daily Worker) following his various attacks on the Soviet model. However, the Russell quote remains in the article as it should, and it was the main editors who rightly insisted on its inclusion. You haven't explained how you plan to "expand" on this comment. The only possible avenue of expansion is to note that it differed markedly from other statements made at the time by the Cuban leadership and was only revealed by a partisan Guevara critic.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you didn't see a single source in any of my comments. This is a Talk page... And you are now doing on this page what you have done in the article since 2004-- you assume there is nothing more to the Nuke-the-US quote than a ticked-off Che, fresh from being outmanuevered by JFK, just being a bit petulant with the Daily Worker reporter. Maybe you're right-- but just to go on your assumption seems to fly in the face of the scholarship you profess. If this quote was something more than that, can you tell me it doesn't deserve a mention in the intro? To assume "the only possible avenue of expansion" is in the direction of downplaying its importance is just not the kind of pre-judging I would expect on Wikipedia and just loops back to the matter of bias raised by Jimbo. JDG 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

John Major mentianed a policy of being prepared to nuke anyone any time for any reason. Nuclear weapons are not even mentioned in his article. Jacques Chirac's dirrect threat to nuke any state that was behind terrorist actions that hurt french interests gets one line in the entire article. So threats to nuke are not mentioned in opening sections. For Harry S. Truman who did order the bomb dropped there is a one line mention in the opening.Geni 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Geni-- I apologize. I have been meaning to reply to your other messages on this page for a few days now... Surely you must see how Guevara's statement was fundamentally different from any of these you mention here and in previous comments. I don't know Major's or Chirac's exact words, but whatever they were and however you have interpreted them, they could not have been on the level of Guevara's purely evil/insane intent that day in 1962. I know this because both Major and Chirac served many years without any red-alert nuclear brinksmanship going down, despite many incidents during their tenures that seem to match the criteria for nuclear attack that you assign to them. By contrast, we know that Guevara was using his influence to actually, then and there, let loose the missiles (not even in response to an attack nor even the threat of an attack, but to the threat of a passive blockade). These are very different things and occupy utterly different positions in any realistic moral spectrum... By the way, it might interest you to know that I believe Truman, his top aides (particularly Stimson) and in fact a majority of the American people went what I can only call "morally insane" in August of 1945. The dropping of those two bombs was just... what can I say? ... heinous and sick (and completely unnecessary). I simply can't explain what got into them at the time (I'm with Ike, who said "[...]the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." in the 11/11/1963 issue of Newsweek). The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should occupy a majority of the Truman intro. JDG 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag

To the many arguments against the tag above, I would add article quality–please don't just note that it's a Featured article–there are FAs and FAs–but note the glowing FAC review it got, with essentially the same lead as today. Also, a disagreement about the lead only, which seems to be what we have here, hardly warrants a general NPOV tag. How to formulate the lead in relation to the article as a whole is not a matter of what facts, opinions, or sources get included in the article, or of tone, but rather of Wikipedia custom and convention. As several people point out above, with salient examples, that custom is to keep the Lead crisp, concise, and encyclopedic, to go out of our way to avoid having it read as an opinion piece, to specifically, even, downplay graphic descriptions of wrongdoings (seen in the examples of how "articles on political figures far more destructive than Guevara have not been subjected to this kind of carry on").

Jimbo Wales is in fact no ordinary editor, and however much he may wish to temporarily assume that role, ordinariness isn't a quality to be donned at will. The proof is that the NPOV tag he placed is still there, in spite of the strong arguments against it on this page. Per the discussion above, and a good thorough read of Wikipedia:Consensus, I'm removing the tag now. Many cogent arguments–by fact (lack of sourcing), analogy (comparison with downplaying of killings, and notable absence of nicknames and graphic detail, in articles on other political figures), and statistics (unimpressive number of Google hits for the proposed phrase ""Butcher of la Cabaña") –against having the tag are offered by many users above, whereas two of the editors in favour of the tag, User:Jimbo Wales and User:Boricuaeddie, seem pretty much unwilling to engage in the discussion, reply to points made, answer questions, etc. There is only one user on the pro-tag side, User:JDG, who actually discusses. Please consider opening an article RfC, anybody who wishes to reinsert the tag. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Wow, Bishonen, I am really surprised to hear you say that I am "unwilling to engage in the discussion". What am I doing here, if not engaging in the discussion?

The NPOV tag belongs in the article because there is, in fact, a dispute about the neutrality of the entry. Please put it back until that dispute is resolved.--Jimbo Wales 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I spoke of unwillingness to engage because when I wrote, your latest post on this page had been followed by seven substantial posts responding to you, addressing you, and asking you questions, and you had not replied to any of them. Actually, I had originally written something in recognition of the fact that responding might demand time you didn't have, but I didn't like the sound of it–there was something condescending about it–so I pared it down to "unwilling". Sorry if that was too brief to fit the case. I still think quite a few of those anti-tag posts, right above here, deserve and require thoughtful replies. If anything, more than mine does, since several of them are far more substantial than mine, and come from specialists in the subject, who have spent much time on the article. (I've never edited it before,as far as I can recollect.) No, I'm afraid I won't reinstate the tag. Every wikipedia page with a remotely political or religious angle would carry such a tag, if we're to follow a principle whereby a single editor gets to add it under the argument that "you can't remove it, because I disagree with what this article says." Even considering JDG's input, there is obviously not a generalized POV dispute about the Lead. It's the same Lead as when it was featured in March, and as far as a quick overview of edit summaries tells me, it has only once worn (been disfigured by–I disagree with you about that–think of what it tells the reader, rather than the editor!) such a tag for a couple of weeks since then, added by Ed Poor in April,[21] but apparently supplemented by insufficient discussion.[22] Considering the subject, there's surprisingly little call for an NPOV tag on this page. I think it's up to you to persuade people that it needs to be there, rather than up to me to put it back. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Jimbo Wales, my post is a bit outdated now that Bishonen replied, though I've decided to post it anyway:

(e/c)Perhaps Bishonen's statement was based on the fact that after your post @ 23:13, 7 July 2007 you didn't follow up until 18:56, 9 July 2007, almost two full days later, even though much discussion and speculation ensued in the tween, about what you (the one who tagged NPOV) wanted. Could she have assumed you'd be back? Perhaps. Was it equally reasonable to assume you were busy elsewhere and would leave it for the other editors to resolve? I think so. Peace.Lsi john 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'd concur WP:BRD places the burden on you to justify your edit (tag). Peace.Lsi john 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(Super EC)If nobody minds me commenting (I'll admit that I'm not actually an editor of this article, so feel free to ignore me without offending me)... I really don't understand the clear rationale for including the tag. For example, using the lower estimates on the number of extrajudicial killings? While although I can understand why you'd want to include all (reasonable) estimates, it seems like choosing a conservative figure isn't downplaying so much as refusing to sensationalize. Just say what you know. Let people speculate on what they want. Your stance on "The Butcher of la Cabaña" also confuses me.

First, you assert that it should be right in the lead ("The introduction should have, as a minimum, a paragraph describing how he is thought of today as 'The Butcher of la Cabaña'"). Then, when you find out that it's a somewhat obscure moniker, you immediately switch to saying it should be removed entirely (apparently ignoring the fact that the original context dealt with how he was known to cuban exiles, which makes the name less important for the introduction, but still very much notable, in terms of his legacy in Cuba). Can you see how it can be hard to follow your objections to the article when, when someone shows that you're entirely wrong about one part, you still don't seem to re-examine your overall position? (Personally, when I find out that my opinions on a subject have been largely influenced by incorrect information, I try to see if my opinion really should change) It just seems odd (and hard to understand) why you'd want the name to be either right in the introduction or not at all, rather than, for example, where it makes most sense?

And, terms like, "mass murderer" and "legendary brutality" really don't help to enforce the neutrality of the article.

Yes, there is some dispute over the neutrality of the article. But you've yet to introduce an objective, easy-to-address list of problems with it. You haven't really provided very much to work with. Beyond your desire to see him portrayed as a brutal mass murderer in the introductory sentence, and to have one of his names either included in the first paragraph or not at all, I honestly don't see the precise dispute here. As such, further discussion is absolutely warranted, and your issues should be dealt with once they're better explained, but putting such a conspicuous tag on the article, with no actual (fair) way to resolve the "dispute" doesn't seem entirely appropriate. Bladestorm 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? people there is a reason for the N:POV tag on this article, as a latin user that has heavily contributed to pages about several countries, I find it slightly hard to admit it but the truth is the truth, I recon it might be somewhat hard to write an article about a revolutionary or a revolutionary group avoiding POV, hell I single handely cleaned about 3,000 kbs of POV on Boricua Popular Army, but the fact of the matter is that Che killed for what he believed in, and he was fierce about it. In my opinion the sadest part of this page is that as it stands is not even Featured Article material anymore, the introduction of POV here has been massive since it passed FAC but people only try to help when they feel their article is threatened, like somebody adding a POV, OR or cleanup tag instead of dealing with the mess before it goes out of control, need proof? "I posted a comment in a section above suggesting we reverted back to the original Featured Version above and it went unheard, when suggested that I tried to aboid exactly what is happening now, since the subject is dead there is not going to be a massive ammount of new information pouring in and whatever ammount of useful information that has been added since there can be easily readded avoiding hours of POV cleanup. -凶 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)DDF, I don't think it's fair to accuse people of trying to protect the article just because they feel it's being threatened by constructive attempts. In this case, and in this very specific case, no strong arguments are being made to explain how the article has a skewed POV. For example, what are we supposed to do when Jimbo says the article is "deeply biased by the omission of the fact that he said" that he would've nuked the US, when it does include that statement? If the bias is based on the omission of information that is in the article, then how can we possibly solve that POV dispute? By removing it and then re-adding it?
How can we deal with an argument that flip-flops between saying that we should call him 'The Butcher of la Cabaña' right in the introduction (ignoring that it wasn't so notable a moniker) and that we shouldn't acknowledge the name at all (ignoring that it's still relevant in the correct context)? If both using it and not using it would be considered POV, then what are we supposed to do?
Trust me, there is no reluctance to address legitimate concerns. And there is no reluctance to cooperate and collaborate. But a NPOV tag really needs to be backed up with specific problems. Not accusations of omitting things that can be found by anyone who does a Ctrl+F for "nuclear" in the article. Not confusing arguments about how extra monikers are only valid if used outside their proper context. And not even your general assertion that, yes, "there is a reason for the N:POV tag on this article."
If you think it should address how 'fierce' he was, then just find some good reliable, notable sources that talk about his ferocity. But insisting that he be outright portrayed as a "mass murderer" of "legendary brutality", outside any quotes, is hardly going to get anything accomplished. In short, state the actual specific problems with the article, and let's address'em one by one. :) Bladestorm 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't mean add legendary brutality to the lead, because that in my opinion is pov by itself, but it can be rephrased, say something like this: He was notable for the stregth of his convictions, to the point of being capable of executing or sentencing those who opposed them to death. of course this is just from the top of my head and I'm sleepy, I'm sure there are many ways of writting the content N:POV, god forbid we add the 'The Butcher of la Cabaña' line in the lead but a line detailing he was strong in his beliefs to that point is particulary informative, I think the problem here is just a matter of grammar. On another note there are some instances that have to be sourced as slight as they might seem, for instance:

During an interview with four foreign correspondents on 1 November, Castro remarked that he knew where Guevara was but would not disclose his location, and added, denying reports that his former comrade-in-arms was dead, that "he is in the best of health." Despite Castro's assurances, Guevara's fate remained a mystery at the end of 1965 and his movements and whereabouts continued to be a closely held secret for the next two years.

See? minor things that are probably covered by other references in the article but are unsourced, remember there are critics out there that judge Wikipedia's reliability on small things like this, in a controversial article we need to keep all that might be interpreted as POV or OR sourced, I think if we can focus our attention in this we can keep it where it is but my point avobe is still valid, for some reason in my opinion it seems that sometimes it takes a controversial template or FA review to get everybody's attention. But I must admit it makes me happy its getting all this attention even under the circumtances. -凶 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, tying the killings to the strength of his convictions seems like even that would have to be sourced. It might be better to simply say that he was known for putting his enemies to death, or something to that effect. But, that isn't really a POV issue, so much as an issue of... what's the word... breadth? As in, I think something to that effect would be a good addition, but it isn't necessary to leave up such a conspicuous tab for something like that. Similarly, you're absolutely right that that section should be cited. But that's what we have the {{cn}} tag for. :) Bladestorm 04:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the many instances of minor pov on the article can probably be resolved with a few refs, some {{fact}}/{{cn}}s or one {{OR}} can probably replace the current tag, the thing is there is work due here. For the part about the lead we can probably wait for more opinions on how to add this, but it should be added. -凶 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is utter bunkem. Whatever remains unsourced in this heavily sourced article, which is virtually nothing, is extremely well known to anyone who has a basic knowledge of Che Guevara's life and can be easily sourced. As for the comment: "the introduction of POV here has been massive since it passed FAC" - this is clearly untrue and one only need check the diff of the nominated version [23]. Which beggars the continued question, does anyone who has descended here lately have anything serious, constructive, or truthful thing to say about this article or its history at all?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that the mayority of people interested in reading the entire piece didn't researched his life, right? The pov is usually removed, I didn't say there is a massive ammount left, but there are instances of unreverted edits, lastly don't assume bad faith. -凶 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to provide an example of such there is this line that was introduced post FAC: A key figure in pop culture worldwide... can you really prove he is a key figure worldwide do the people in Samoa or Papua New Guinea know him? any proof? like I said before it is a matter of grammar, a line added here and there that went unnoticed and with time accumulated, capiche? -凶 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So the example of how biased and unsourced this article has become since FA well over a year ago, is the very recent introduction of the statement "Che Guevara became a key figure in pop culture worldwide"? I don't particuarly like the wording and would remove it myself, but does it in any way justify this carry on? Incidentally, Che Guevara's iconography and methods were an an influence in Papua New Guinea on the Bougainville Revolutionary Army in their fight for independence,[24] as they were in most colonial/post-colonial struggles of the late 20th century. He is certainly a key cultural figure in every continent on the planet, but as we can't yet prove that he is a key figure cultural figure on Somoa, Maurtitius or Easter island, perhaps you're right and the editor that added that sentence was wrong.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that added the tag originally, I just reverted it until this is settled, and even proposed a few choices to deal with the "murderer" argument above. I never said it was biased, what I meant in my statement above about it getting pov edits on a daily basis didn't mean all that pov is still in the page, it rather meant that some pov has slipped past the editors and remained there for some time wich resulted in people posting complaints about it not being "encyclopedic anymore", in the process I proposed to revert back to the Featured Version of one year ago to avoid having to pick every line to see if someone added something questionable, please don't consider me a obstacle in the way of improvement as I have always worked to improve the Latin American pages. -凶 10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Worldwide" doesn't mean "for every person in every country in the world" or even "in every country in the world", it means "not provincial" and if that is a statement likely to be challenged then it should be cited, though personally I don't think that is the case. In that statement "key figure" is the more problematic as it assigns him a ranking of sorts. Who are the other key figures and how were they decided?

With regard to bias, I think the problem is not that the article is not NPOV (if you have people arguing from both sides that it is biased one way or the other then that's normally a fairly good indication you've hit the middle ground), but rather that the lead is doesn't encompass any controversial material at all. It tries to avoid the charge of bias by not including or even hinting at controversial material. I'm don't know whether that was a conscious decision, but it fails because as well as providing an introduction, readers want the lead to summarise the entire article. Readers like Jimbo who "know a salient fact about him is that he was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator" will be surprised to find no hint of that in the lead, just as others will be surprised to see no mention of him as the "most complete human being of our time" or as an almost religious symbol of the Cuban Revolution, despite these aspects being covered in the article proper. They aren't looking to see that nothing is mentioned about his personality or individual acts, or that the lead operates as a very high level overview (the entire Cuban Revolution is covered in six words); they notice the things they expected to see aren't there and immediately cry "Bias!". They want what they think is important highlighted in the lead regardless of its scope. That can't be done of course, but as it stands the lead is a chronology of his achievements, rather than a summary of all aspects the article. I think one or two lines on the analysis of his character would rectify that (though I recommend not selecting Jimbo's "salient fact" for that purpose). Yomangani^talk 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DDF, I know that you had absolutely the best of intentions when you restored the tag. However, the tag doesn't mean that there are disagreements. It means that there's a significant dispute over neutrality (or lack thereof). You're addressing very good points, but they don't really have much to do with the overall neutrality of the article. I won't remove it myself, out of respect for your cooperative efforts, but I'd really encourage you to remove it, but still continue with the discussions.
To address some of what you brought up, Yomangani, I do think that DDF had, essentially, a good idea with the notion of including that he killed those who opposed him (or had them killed. same dif). Though I wouldn't want to phrase it in a way that likened him to Hitler (no, that isn't a confirmation of Godwin's law), I also wouldn't want to phrase it quite the same as in my example above (hence my not making the edit myself). Actually, if you don't mind, I think I might create a section break?

How to address killings in the introduction

Though it would, of course, be extremely POV to call him a mass murderer of legendary brutality (outside of quotes) right in the introduction, the killings do seem to still merit inclusion.
The issues to address are that we don't want to downplay them, but we also don't want to sensationalize them to the point of presenting specifically an "anti-che" POV. It seems like we have two options then.

1. We address the fact that he had his opposition killed. We don't call it mass-murder, and try to avoid "extrajudicial killings", as those tend to be somewhat loaded terms to avoid, particularly right in the intro. But there's nothing stopping us from addressing the killings. I'd prefer to directly tie the killings to his 'strong convictions', simply because it sounds somewhat apologistic(is that a word?). Maybe something to the effect of, "He was known for having those who opposed him put to death", or, "He was known for responding to opposition with violence, sometimes death." (okay, so that last one might be a bit corny) We may even try to come up with a sentence that connects the fact that he was summarily executed, just as he'd had others similarly put to death (A way of addressing extrajudicial executions without using a buzzword).
2. We find some quote from a very well-known and notable (but not overtly biased) person who spoke of the killings. For example, some well-known politician, statesman, etc must have talked about the killings. You can be at least a bit more harsh if we're presenting it as a sourced quote, rather than our own personal beliefs.

As far as the unsourced stuff is concerned, I'd rather not rely on the fact that people particularly educated about che would know it to be true. Ideally, I think it's best to source anything that could reasonably be questioned by a person who doesn't have a disproportionate amount of knowledge of the topic. That doesn't mean sourcing everything... but still... So, DDF, can you find all the statements that you think should be sourced, and either add {{cn}} tags to them, or include them here? (or both?) Bladestorm 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "opposition" is appropriate as, in the USA and UK, that denotes the party in a democracy that is out of power. The political opponents that Guevara had killed were from the previous administration. As I understand it, this would follow Marxist Revolutionary practice; the execution of the preceding bourgouis masters. Therefore it could be written that he "killed many thousand supporters of the previous regime, in accordance to his revolutionary principles"? LessHeard vanU 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, 'opposition' is also a term in our canadian parliament. :) Anyways, I almost like that, but... I was under the impression that it wasn't absolutely accepted that to definitely have been thousands? (Or am I mistaken?)

Could it perhaps be changed to "killed hundreds, if not thousands, of supporters of the previous regime, in accordance to his revolutionary principles"? That way, it doesn't make too strong of an assertion beyond what is known, but still acknowledges that there are many who believe it was more. (btw, how do other editors here feel about that one?) Bladestorm 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would really rather depend on how solid your sources are for "thousands".Geni 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't have any at all. :) But I'm just assuming that Jimbo does. (Assuming he can come up with pretty nifty sources, are you fine with that phrasing?) Bladestorm 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been busy all day so I logged in kind of late, I'm currently checking my watchlist for vandalism before going to sleep, so I will add the tags when I log in tommorow with a pair of fresh eyes, cheers. -凶 01:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are two contradictory sources for the numbers (has anyone checked the body of the article?) then it could always read "...hundreds (ref), if not thousands (ref), ...". LessHeard vanU 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best way to do it. But that requires getting Jimbo's source on the thousands number. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have returned in the last two days. DDF, do you think you might be able to find a source for this? (or... uh... the other editor on jimbo's side? I'm sorry, but I forgot your name) Bladestorm 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo at his talkpage if he can provide refs... LessHeard vanU 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is well out of line. The lowest known estimate of Guevera's 6 month tenure as "supreme prosecutor" is 179 from the Florida based Cuban archive project (sourced on the article) which is funded by Cuban exiles. Mainstream scholarship, also sourced here and on the daughter article, puts the figure at around 500-550. These occurred after trials - mainly for war-crimes against the Cuban people 1952-1958, albeit the trials clearly failed most legal standards. It should also be noted that the role was imposed on Guevara by Castro in the first weeks of Jan 1959, and he took it reluctantly. This is all sourced in the two articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh... Yeah. Me dumb. :)
I was going to use "killed hundreds of supporters of the previous regime, in accordance to his revolutionary principles" (with the expectation of adding ", if not thousands," once a reference was found), but... then I realized that I don't have a beginning for that sentence. :) So... how do we start that sentence? "During his tenure as supreme prosecutor"? Do we just use, "He "? (We don't need a perfect solution for now, just something so the deaths are addressed in the introduction. We can tweak it later, if necessary) Bladestorm 03:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... "Following the overthrow of the Batista regime, and his appointment as ??? by Castro..."? Is there anything in the main body of the article that can be paraphrased? LessHeard vanU 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the killings are to be addressed in the lead it is not sufficient to merely address the killings. Picking a single controversial event from his life to characterise him in the lead is biased, however unpleasant we may find it or however you try to phrase it (in addition "in accordance with his revolutionary principles" is sourced from where exactly? The best source I can see for that is an interpretation of his own comments). If this approach is taken then the lead needs to be expanded to address other signal events in his life. A better approach in my opinion is to add a line or two directly after the opening sentence summing up the extremes of view with regard to his character. This is easily sourced from the legacy section, and doesn't rely on editorialising around the events.

I reverted the attempt to include the sentence on the killings which claimed "without trial or defense" as that would have to be cited to Andy Garcia's interview with NewsMax and I think we can probably do better than that. The trials may have been for show only but more reliable sources mention that they existed (see footnotes 27 and 28). Yomangani^talk 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Garcia's comments, though I added them to the article, are false. There were trials and a defense, in fact some of these trials are amongst the most famous in Cuban history, and can be viewed in newsreels. The comments are only interesting because the encapsulate a recurring (false) point of view of the Cuban revolution, which is why they were included, but they should not be given anymore coverage than they already are.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so why revert the entire edit? Improve instead of revert. Why not simply remove the "without trials or defense"? Wholesale revert does nothing for forward progress. Peace.Lsi john 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, in my opinion reverting the entire edit is improving the article, as I don't think it should be included. By the way, you don't seem to be following WP:BRD as you claimed in your earlier edit. Yomangani^talk 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If I mis-read the objection then I'll self-revert. I was bold, you reverted and objected to a specific part of the wording. As I read it, you objected to the 'without trial or defense.' So I did not restore that part. Peace.Lsi john 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to come up with some wording that mentions the deaths. If it is NPOV, then it is a fair bet that pretty much nobody will be truly happy with it. Peace.Lsi john 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm objecting to the inclusion of the specific events at La Cabaña without introducing some balance by the inclusion of other important events in his life. I'm not talking about a balance of "good Che" v "evil Che" but a balance of the coverage of the activities in his life. There would be no need to editorialise: if the other important events were to establish a pattern of ruthlessness and bloodthirstiness at the expense of all other qualities then it would be self-evident, but the selection of a single event to cover in detail when the rest of the lead operates at a high level doesn't give that necessary overview of his character. The title of this section would be better as "Whether to address killings in the introduction" as that doesn't presuppose the necessity of including this one particular aspect. For the record, in my suggestion that we just include something on the differing viewpoints in the lead I was thinking of something along the lines of (and this is just along the lines of): A controversial figure, he is reviled by some for his ruthlessness, brutality and "excessively aggressive quality" and adulated by others as the embodiment of the Cuban revolution. The killings could certainly be included as an example of the first viewpoint if necessary, but they require a balancing example or to be set in a wider context. If he was nothing more than a bloodthirsty mass murderer we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yomangani^talk 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm just about convinced that we're not reading the same intro. The entire intro is full of the events in his life. In contrast with your objections, the current intro almost makes him out to be the reincarnation of Ghandi. The text I added, barely addresses any aspect of brutality, and certainly doesn't include anything suggestive of bloodthirsty mass murderer. I'm sure you agree that NPOV doesn't mean we offset every negative with a positive. So I'm wondering, with the current lead, why you feel one simple sentence that states a fact about execution of 100's needs to be mitigated. Peace.Lsi john 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) My offer to self-revert is still on the table, but please give me something to work with. Peace.Lsi john 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't realise the offer would have further conditions attached ;). The lead is full of events in his life but at a very high level. It doesn't mention events that would be at the same level of granularity as the executions, therefore just including them does bias the intro. Why not mention his speech to the UN or the Battle of Santa Clara? The fixation with including the killings rather than these other details mean we are making a judgement about what defines him. As I said before, the lead is currently a chronology which attempts to avoid controversy by ignoring controversial events. I don't think that is good because it paints a picture of somebody your mother might have over for dinner (though we might call her naive for not reading the rest of the article before issuing the invitation), but randomly selecting a single fact to attempt to rectify that situation doesn't rectify it. Yomangani^talk 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may, would it sufficient to add an extra sentence to the beginning of the third paragraph - something like "Guevara became a leader among the rebels, respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess, but feared for his ruthlessness."? The lead section is inevitably a very boiled-down version of the rest of the article, and some editorial judgement has to be exercised: some things have to be left out in the summary, but including others may give them undue weight.

Guevara's ideology clearly led him to perform some acts that most would condemn, but surely it is not really our role as an encyclopedia to praise or to condemn: we just report the facts in as neutral a manner as possible and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.-- !! 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the right sort of idea, but the scope is probably too narrow, unless we add similar statements throughout the lead which may look a little hamfisted. Yomangani^talk 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're trying to work something into the lead that reflects his .. um.. less desirable traits. To do this in an NPOV manner, you wouldn't water it down with how much his comrades respected his courage and military prowess. NPOV means you 'fairly' reflect the viewpoint, it doesn't mean you balance it with something lovey dovey in order to get a neutral statement. If the viewpoint we want to reflect says he was a ruthless bastard, then the statement should simply say he was a ruthless bastard. (I'm not saying thats what we're trying to reflect. But I'm pretty sure NPOV means.. say it.. don't dilute it.) Peace.Lsi john 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the objection of specificity; the statement currently in place is rather non-specific. It is a rather undetailed statement that seems to be in keeping with the rest of his 'career' outline. Peace.Lsi john 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to clear up your added statement in the article. But it now looks pretty daft to have this 6 month role, which was greatly overshadowed by numerous dramatic episodes in Guevara's life, hanging around. Yomangani is entirely correct with his reading of the article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem in a nutshell

Jimbo's argument is POV because what is his bloodthirsty extra-judicial killings, are other's duly judged death sentences by military tribunal.

This can certainly be solved by looking at what the reliable, verifiable sources tell us:

Verifiability over truth
wasn't Jimbo who came up with that?

Everything else is WP:SOAPBOXING, plain and simple.

--Cerejota 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. If Jimbo's on a soapbox, you're on another one just as tall. You basically say "one man's bloodthirsty extra-judicial killings are another man's duly judged death sentences by military tribunal". So how is the former man POV and the latter man NPOV? You say to go to the sources. But two reasonable men studying the same uncontested events will come to radically different characterizations. Why is your characterization NPOV?... Well, I'll tell you: your characterization is not NPOV. And I'll tell you the real reason one man (Jimbo) studies the events and comes to one characterization and why another man (Cerejota) studies the same events and comes to another characterization: it is that the former possesses an ethics rooted in common sense and mercy, and that the latter possesses a relativistic ethics rooted in demagoguery. JDG 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary to start talking about where editors' ethics are rooted.

And, for the record, our characterizing him either way lacks neutrality. Though he may, indeed, have been a mass-murderer, we can't use that phrase. It's a word that's best to be avoided when it isn't absolutely necessary. (Much like I wouldn't suggest calling certain world leaders "terrorists", even if a very strong case could be made for it) We can talk about other notable sources characterizing him that way. We can talk about what's factual: that he had people killed. Whether it was murder or for the good of blah-blah-blah isn't for us to characterize. Present the facts. Include notable opinions when appropriate. And dismissing one editor's opinions because they have no ethics, or putting undue weight on another's because they're pious and infallible isn't going to accomplish anything. Content, not contributer. Bladestorm 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG: Please cool down. I didn't argue, as you say, that either of the two positions was NPOV. You can contrast two views without having to support either. I ask you apologize for putting words in my mouth, and for your personal attack of calling me a demagogue. I am deeply hurt by your callous treatment of a fellow editor that you have never met, know nothing about, and yet you choose to misrepresent and call names.

Bladestorm is completely right in his comments and I fully agree with him.

Jimbo does have a point in speaking about balance issues, but he fails as an editor (and is disingenious in his claim to being simply an editor) when he soapboxes his view on facts without backing them up with reliable and verifiable sources. He might be right in his comments, but again, we are about "verifiability not truth". --Cerejota 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota-- please accept my apology. I was getting caught up in my "this man, that man" line of thought, but I should have kept the "men" completely abstract. You are right-- I don't know you, other than a single opinion I disagree with... On the other hand, please let's not overstate what I wrote. Intimating that someone's ethics may be relativistic, etc.,. is not equal to a profanity-laced personal attack. I don't agree that I sank to the level of "calling names"... Also, with all respect, I must disagree with your latest comment on Jimbo. What you don't seem to be registering here is that Jimbo and others do not need to find additional "reliable and verifiable sources". As they say in legal circles, everybody is "agreed as to the facts". It is our varying characterization of those facts that is causing this trouble. You, Bladestorm, Bkwillm, Zleitsen and others choose to characterize, or quote those who characterize, the La Cabana killings as barely outside the judicial/law-enforcement norm. Jimbo, Dark_Dragon_Flame, Eddie, I and a few others would emphasize the extra-judicial aspect more than the article currently does. JDG 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wast the comparison I found offensive, it was the demagogue part. I am a rational human being who assumes that others is wikipedia also are rational human beings. I feel no need to reduce myself to demagoguery, and being accused of such for simply pointing out wikipedia policies on content is an insult beyond the pale, bordering on the uncivil.--Cerejota 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... are you sure you want to include me in either list? I believe I phrased it something like, "had those who opposed him killed"? Something like that? I merely objected to using buzzwords like, "mass-murderer", or talking about "legendary brutality" outside any sources.

Incidentally, I don't mean to attack or badger you, but just a note: I'll actually be far less offended if someone calls me a stinking pile of garbage than if they were to question my ethics or integrity. (I'm not saying you meant to do either. I'm only addressing whether or not talking about ethics is in the same realm as personal attacks) Bladestorm 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I compare the "to the wall" retribution period in Cuba 1959 to the French chaos of 1945. I do that because that is how scholars, international observers and the media described it at the time. I've read a few of the trial notes of the period, some of them were fairly legitimate, some of them deeply spurious. All of them were under a shadow of mass public, popular demands for justice from Cubans against the previous regime. Watch this. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG, I again ask you stop the mis-characterization of my views. I have stated my views and they have absolutely anything to do with taking sides on a POV war. I simply commented that any characterization we do of any event must come from reliable and verifiable sources. You lump me with a set of editors without any evidence and in complete contravention of what few words I have written here. It is obvious you are not listening to your fellow editors and just soapboxing.--Cerejota 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor

Just thought I would point out, while its popular to refer to Guevara as a doctor he dropped out of school and while here that would make him unable to take any title in that time and place he could take the title of medic, not doctor. 129.82.217.44 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the only records ever produced they indicate a medics education, though this was a similar but lesser medical degree at the time. Also reference Ernesto Che Guevara: Mito Y Realidad , by Enrique Ros (ISBN: 0897299884). Gtadoc 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Response: I think your label as a doctor depends on where you practice. In America and perhaps Argentina, he may have been limited in practice, but in the presence of the peasantry in the mountains of Cuba, and in the nomadic band of freedom fighters he traveled with, I'm sure his knowledge of medicine(at whatever level) was welcome. I would argue that if your understanding of medicine surpasses that of the society around you (due to lack of health care representation)and people begin to come to you for medical assistance, then you are the doctor for that community. The legacy of "Che" in Cuba has inspired many to pursue medical degrees, and Cuba exports more doctors for humanitarian work than anyone in the world. They produce more doctors per capita in the world. Not a bad role model for someone that was "just a medic."

I agree, it was impressive, more so even if we call him by what he was, that he was appreciated and served as a role model is actually hightened by the fact that he chose to do so instead of finishing his education. Gtadoc 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

---

And that outweighs the five sources saying he was a doctor how? --John 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read them, and have you the ability to determine if the education mentioned qualifies him as a doctor or a medic? It doesn't seem like the authors of those sources do either. As for the number I'll add more when I'm off work today. Gtadoc 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Guevara qualified from medical school in March 1953, but would only have been able to practice as a junior until 3-4 years of field work. After that time he could call himself a doctor, not before. This has been much discussed previously. I think you've have misunderstood the Anderson source you added to the content note, it was the Guatemalan Unions that stopped Guevara working as a foreigner because he refused to join the Communist party. This is explained and sourced in the article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize it was probably discussed earlier, and I suppose taking it out of the article all together could be a solution; he never completed the field work (clinical work), and it wasn't just going out and working as a medic but really completing an internship that he needed to do (he essentially had what we today in medical school refer to as the basic science years). I realize that he was stopped from working by the union in Guatemala, however, he wasn't qualified to work as a doctor in Argentina in the first place; I'm not familiar enough with Guatemala's system to know if the same applied there (for a modern example, many Cuban "medics" are considered "doctors" in some Latin countries). Its interesting though that the other sources say he finished his medical education but never point out that the words have different meaning than what we assume today in the USA or UK and result in a different terminal degree if not followed by clinical education. I don't think it really degrades the people who support the Che, if he did do what the supporters claim then it was because of his ability not because of any educational background. Gtadoc 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that's interesting. --John 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag needs to go.

DDF, I think you'll agree that, while although there's still work to do, that work doesn't reflect an overt lack of neutrality.
Currently, jimbo's missing. I assume he'll be back, but he never properly explained the tag last time either. As things currently stand, there are no specific neutrality problems being pointed out. As such, I think it's time to remove the tag, but continue with the work.
I'll wait for DDF's reply before removing it. (Or, of course, for the presentation of actual neutrality issues, if those come first)
But if DDF, or anyone else, doesn't come up with a specific neutrality issue, beyond the fact that the tag encourages discussion, I'm going to have to remove it. Bladestorm 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing my opossition I figuerd that the problem present is more of grammatical in nature rather than a matter of Point of View, the only remaining matter is the addition of the "killings" wich happened and should be mentioned regardless of the ammount of people murdered. I would attend some of these personally if I had the time, if it extends a few days more I can probably cooperate but at the moment my time here is very limited as a result of several real life issues. -凶 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing it will help at all. You can belittle all the debate here as useless discussion brought on by the tag's existence, but maybe it is really a sign of a serious lack of consensus. This lack will remain regardless of what you do with the tag and will show itself in some other way shortly... I just re-read the intro a few times and came away feeling the solution is one additional sentence at the end of the current first paragraph. This sentence doesn't need to label Guevara a mass-murderer, bloodthirsty or anything else. But it should express the strong passions from several points on the political spectrum regarding both the man's actions and what he was perceived to stand for, being careful not to leave out the views of those who loathed/loathe him, if for no other reason than that they were/are very numerous. JDG 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG, I don't know if I should even address that. I think that discussion with DDF is generating positive progress. However, the plain and obvious fact that you've neglected to address is a specific POV dispute, which still has yet to be explained.

There's no way to 'resolve' a dispute where one side is apparently unwilling to explain that side.

If you have a specific problem, then bring it up. If it still isn't addressed, then there will be a dispute. Since DDF believes it's primarily a grammatical issue, I'm going to remove the tag now. BTW, DDF, how do you feel about just putting in 'hundreds' for now, and then augmenting it with, "if not thousands" after that reference is found? That way, the fact that there were killings can be addressed without having to wait for that last reference. Bladestorm 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very unsatisfactory. The original objections probably had more to do with the intro than the body. You want to make a minor change in the body and call it a day... I won't "tag war", but something tells me this is very temporary. JDG 03:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I thought we were discussing that sentence for the introduction? Because it doesn't mention the killings? Bladestorm 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about the body... This sentence seems too specific for the intro. The best comment, I feel, in all of this was made by Yomogami (sp?) above. If you review that and build a sentence for the intro accordingly, I think that would at least justify removal of the tag. JDG 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You mean, about saying that he had his opposition killed? Can you suggest a specific phrasing? (We can try constructing both versions, and see which people like best) Bladestorm 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well sorted, another POV issue

Firstly, the added sentence in the lead looks good, and in my opinion is fully appropriate and covers the point properly. Having had a look at Britannica (2004 DVD), its article doesn't mention these killings at all, let alone lead with them, but this mention is appropriate for this much more detailed and informative article.
However, looking through the article, there does seem to be a NPOV issue with the descriptions of the "Batista regime" and the "government of Fulgencio Batista". My small encylopedias/biographical dictionaries (Chambers and Collins) all describe Batista as a dictator. Britannica gives more detail, saying in its lead that in 1952 Batista returned "as a dictator, jailing his opponents, using terrorist methods, and making fortunes for himself and his associates." The detail describes him as returning "as a brutal dictator, controlling the university, the press and the Congress, and he embezzled huge sums from the soaring economy." The article on Che describes him as joining an "attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista". In my opinion that is a much more appropriate description, and "Batista dictatorship" should replace "Batista regime" in the lead. Similarly, the first paragraph of the Cuba section should change from "overthrow the government of Fulgencio Batista" to "overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista". The fact that Castro's regime was a dictatorship should not obscure the point that it replaced a dictatorship. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My only reservation is that a dictatorship infers only the dictator themself (i.e. Batista) or the small immediate cadre. The term regime covers all those who co-operated, supported and benefited from the dictatorship. Since the contested figures for those executed then it is obviously members of the regime that were involved, and not the individual and immediate political colleagues. LessHeard vanU 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)\

Good point. My concern is that there should be some indication in the lead for those who don't already know that they were overturning a dictatorship: my suggestion would be to change from "Guevara joined Fidel Castro's... Movement, which seized power in Cuba in 1959. ... executions of... officials of the deposed Batista regime." to something on the lines of "Guevara joined Fidel Castro's... Movement, which seized power from the dictator Batista in Cuba in 1959. ... executions of... officials of the deposed regime." The recommendation for the Cuba section remains as above. Hope something on these lines can be agreed. .. dave souza, talk 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the rewording as proposed. Since only we two are talking about it do you want to wait for further comment, or do you propose being bold? LessHeard vanU 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, have done so after waiting for the page to stabilise a bit. .. dave souza, talk 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make some changes to the intro, at the moment its laughably flowery and needs to mention persecution and imprisonment of certain groups considered undesirable. I'll be finding sources and modifying it, feel free to make your own additions. Also, it seems the article relies a lot on sources that prefer to glamourize than accurately report so I'll be trying to balance that as well. Gtadoc 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the phrasing used in this version, though I'd prefer to see a citation for each of those claims. Bladestorm 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like it as 1)it tries to imply that those on trial actually did things wrong, which it seems some did but many didn't 2) its uses a lot of pov langauge to try to justify the trial 3) it doesn't mention anything about people not connected with the previous government. 4) its all unsourced and tries to put a positive spin on things. I also want to see something about the prison/labor system that was set up for political adversaries or groups of people that they just didn't like or approve of. Gtadoc 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(just to check, you do know that I'm talking about the reversion that you set it to, right? Because I'm not seeing where they imply the guilt or innocence of those killed) Bladestorm 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no, I just saw the other one in the link; yeah, I like mine too :) and i'll be trying to add sources to my statements as well, I was refering to my problem with the previous edit. Gtadoc 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The reference in the lead to the dictator Batista had been removed in adding his military title, so I've restored it to now refer to "the dictator General Fulgencio Batista's regime". For references if needed, [25] or [26] should be suitable. .. dave souza, talk 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What che was not...

Che wasn't a medic... he's even said he never cared for medicine...what the hell type of article is this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassman600 (talk • contribs) 23:20, July 11, 2007

OK - how about President of the Central Bank, then ? Economist ? (Che - economist - I thought you said communist !) -- Beardo 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "medic" description was simply to indicate what he was educated as; I agree that for the most part his life followed a different path than medicine. I suppose in the end what he was comes down to be what he was to you as an individual, for some he was a hero and a revolutionary, for others he was a mass murderer. Gtadoc 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did practice medicine for some time even during the revolution, he tended to the sick. The fact is, he was a doctor. Not mentioning this, rather than mentioning it, would be problematic. Irrer 10:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara practiced medicine in some capacity from entering medical college to his death. It is mentioned throughout the article. Though completing medical studies - allowing him to practice medicine - he didn't gain the formal field work required to be identified as "a doctor" in the way we understand it. Hence there was no Dr Ernesto Guevara. When the first paragraph describes him as a doctor, some soul comes along once every few weeks and disputes this, others are so confused they deny that Guevara even studied medicine etc. Better to leave as "as a young man studying medicine..." and have the diploma & details sourced in the article. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He did study medicine, and did practice as a medic; he was not, however, a doctor, even in the connotation of those times. I do agree "as a young man studying medicine" is a good description...although I'm going to put back in sources that indicate what his diploma really was, as the current ones try to give a false impression. Gtadoc 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So your basically telling me that im wrong and that im a disturbed soul. well, see, since wikipedia is based off "professional sources" i cant just put a video up here of people who fought next to "el che". these people claim that he never even cared for medecine. you are more ignorant than you think, since when does a "doctor" go and kill so many people and still be remembered as a "doctor". you just like the man because he was "the almighty rebel!"

ignorance still murders user:bassman600

Re;

"...when does a "doctor" go and kill so many people and still be remembered as a "doctor"..."

I would refer you to Josef Mengele, and Harold Shipman. The article mentions Guevara took medical studies. It is an indication of his intellectual and educational capabilities, and also gives an insight to his social and economic background. LessHeard vanU 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I do think it should be noted that he left his studies early in order to pursue what he thought to be a different future. Gtadoc 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop Icon

Should the fact that he's become some sort of cultural/pop icon really be attributed to him? I think rather, this facet of his fame is something that is quite antithetical to all that he believed in. Shouldn't this be discussed in another, perhaps, minor section at the end, rather than at the beginning, of the article? Irrer 10:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara became a cultural/pop icon whether he was antithetical or not. It is mentioned frequently in the article and there are links to a whole spin off article which discusses this.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but i am editing now wearing a Che Guevera shirt. The shirt was made in Asia. I bought it in Europe and i am wearing it in Africa. Che lived most of life in the Americas. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh. Irrer is a sock of User:Mariam83? OMG! What a small world! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

His name was Ernesto Guevara

Someone has requested a citation for changing the lead and infobox to state that his name was "Ernesto Rafael Guevara". Presumably such a citation will never be found since his name was not "Ernesto Rafael Guevara" but "Ernesto Guevara". His father's name was Ernesto Rafael, which may perhaps be the source of the continuing confusion on this issue which we have visited and re-visited here on the Talk page numerous times. The definitive source for establishing the fact that his name was "Ernesto Guevara" is his birth certificate, a copy of which anyone who wishes to see it can view in one of the archives of this Talk page by clicking on the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_6#Acta_de_Nacimiento_de_Ernesto_Guevara_de_la_Serna_.28Birth_Certificate.29 -- Polaris999 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...Declaró además. Nothing follows. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Porque no declaró más nada.

I.e., nothing follows because it's a form and his father, who was filling it out, left those lines (following "Declaró además") blank because he didn't have anything more to declare in that particular section. -- Polaris999 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my point. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Farce

I see a true statement which I added to the lead, sourced to Jon Lee Anderson but borne out by numerous scholarly sources has been reverted and replaced by a false statement sourced to Enrique Ros, former Florida shock-jock, long time anti-Castro campaigner who had Orlando Bosch write the opening to one of his books. The latest editor simply reverted the whole sourced note which best explained the post revolution era in La Cabana and added some nonsense about "social minorities". I presume this editor is getting confused with the mid-late 60s period of repression which had little to do with Guevara. This article is now disintegrating into farce, but that could have been predicted.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Replace your sourced statement, but keep the other one. That is how NPOV is served, since WP makes no claim as to which is true but only to that which is verifiable. LessHeard vanU 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What? NPOV isn't served by completely replacing a reliable well sourced statement from a neutral source with an unreliable/POV source which itself appears to have been misunderstood and badly represented. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say replace? I said keep them both. I suggest that neither you or I are the best judges of how reliable the other source is. Let the readership decide what it wants to read.LessHeard vanU

You're treading on dangerous ground if you believe that all sources are equally reliable. Wikipedia does have some policies about this. See WP:RS: "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." Silly rabbit 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No source is equally reliable, but we are talking politics (and other countries/societies politics at that) not scientific or academic themes. "Reliability" is itself open to bias when it comes to politics. Once that is accepted, then the discussion moves onto "how is this best presented" rather than "should this be presented". LessHeard vanU 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Little to do with Guevara" is the farce, in fact numerous sources attest that he helped set up a system that persecuted gays, land owners, political rivals, etc. Zleitzen keeps putting in pov statements that try to glamorize or justify Che's actions. I suppose how it is right now is a fair compromise, it mentions little of the injustices perpetrated by Che but does keep out the pov wording that tried to say he only went after people with bloody hands from the previous regime, which is utter nonsense. Gtadoc 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just atrocious. How dare you claim that I've added POV to this article when you've come along and added false sentences to a featured lead using citations from Florida radio commentator Enrique Ros. How dare you say that attempts to save this featured article by citing serious historical records - that can be borne out by years of detailed historical study - is "trying to glamorize or justify Che's actions." When did Guevara set up a system that persecuted gays etc? Presumably you mean the UMAP re-education camps set up in the mid 60s that had nothing to do with Guevara. You have yet to produce a single source for your statements beyond some vague unreliable Enrique Ros citation which you then turned to imply that Guevara was executing homosexuals in La Cabana. This is just crap. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So, put it back in. This reference says that, another reference says another. Just consider that those who think Guevara a hero possibly believe that your references are crude Commie bashing, just as you believe that theirs are romantic foolery. Let's have them both and let the reader decide which they want to click. Remember, Wikipedia is neutral.LessHeard vanU 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people who think Guevara is a hero and people who do not. This is about historical accuracy. I do not like Guevara. I think he was a ultimately an unwelcome and naive egotist. But there are not "two opinons" on the well documented historical facts here. The reference added by Gtadoc is not in any way related to Guevara's spell at La Cabana, and anyone with the most basic knowledge of the subject would dismiss it instantly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't see too many "Che is a hero" references. I think you may have misinterpreted WP:NPOV a bit. The neutral point of view must also be balanced against things like reliable sources. When a source is obviously biased (like the Enrique Ros reference), it should be handled with care. The article should not present all sides as if they carried equal weight (see WP:UNDUE). What we have here is one reference, the Jon Lee Anderson version, which is widely held to be a definitive scholarly biography, and another reference which is from a biased minority viewpoint. It's fine to give that viewpoint, but to represent it as if it were a factual majority view is ludicrous. It must be made clear that this is not a mainstream view, and not from a recognized authority. Silly rabbit 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to when a person is written about in a way to justify or glamourize actions that even viewed in context are clearly immoral, I wasn't saying it actually was as direct as you infer. Also, there are many, many first hand accounts, and texts that quote them; yet most in the current article don't. As far as I see the majority view includes that he was brutal, yet that is left out somehow by people claiming that its a biased minority viewpoint. So where is the bias then? In the selective way we're portraying him? Gtadoc 03:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the selected Ros reference is biased, written by an outspoken critic of the Cuban government. The Anderson reference is widely recognized as authoritative. We need to be careful when using controversial references such as Ros, since for every blatantly anti-CG reference, there is going to be a blatantly pro-CG reference. If we go down this route, then the page will spiral out of control unless a real compromise can be reached.

My impression is that the article does represent the view that he was brutal. Of course, it can't say "He was a bloodthirsty, brutal, savage barbarian who drank the blood of his victims," now can it? Nor can every line of the article be steeped in the "he was brutal" sort of language. His brutality is documented in the appropriate sections, isn't it? In short, the page does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the guy. You obviously think he was horrible and brutal. But then you should ask yourself, aren't you viewing the page through a definite "Point Of View"? Silly rabbit 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how wanting to have a SINGLE WORD in the intro is any way comparable to saying "He was a bloodthirsty, brutal, savage barbarian who drank the blood of his victims." Besides, my issue was more with the additions to the intro trying to justify his brutality by claiming all the victims of it deserved what he had coming (as in a previous edition byZleitzen that tried to claim all of his victims were political thugs or criminals from the past regime, when many weren't even "officials" at all. I was happy to simply remove that paragraph and have a word in place that indicated it was more than just officials from the previous government that suffered. The current version, for example, calls them war criminals...thats exactly what I've been talking about, and its not appropriate anywhere in the article much less in the intro.Gtadoc 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also added back the npov tag as the origional argument over it seems to have just been ignored; and due to the blatant attempts to include pov language in the intro. I offered a compromise that some editors seemed to like but it was simply reverted w/o discussion. Gtadoc 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You were trying to push a POV reference into the lede. If you somehow feel that Enrique Ros is less biased than Jon Lee Anderson, please provide an indication as to why. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on in this dispute. When you have a serious reference supporting your POV, then you can make your case for a content dispute. Otherwise, you are just making noise and being generally disruptive. Silly rabbit 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading this talk page for quite a while now, ever since Jimmy Wales slapped a POV tag on the article and subsequently opened a can of warms. To me it seems unfair and unconstructive to accuse people like Zleitzen of POV-pushing. Isn't it a better idea to come up with a list of references you think adequately describe the fact that the individuals executed by Guevarra were not only suspected war criminals? The current source only mentions "war criminals", any other interpretation is just that; interpretation. You say you've inputted a lot of reference material regarding this, but due to the high number of reverts and deletions it's unclear which references you mean. Could you (Gtadoc) post a list here, so that other editors can examine the material, reach consensus over inclusion and then change the intro accordingly if necessary? mensch • t 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will as soon as I have time; to start I've briefly looked at the 4 other notable biographies, none of which assert that he tried and executed only war criminals; I had used other sources as well earlier but they were deleted. Also, I'm sure if I included sources that rely on first hand accoounts like Alvaro Vargas Llosa I'd still be blamed for pov pushing. There is no dispute that Anderson idolized Guevara, and while he also brings up negative points in it he tries to justify Che's actions. I'm thinking of rewriting that sentence to mention Anderson's contention while also mentioning others like Llosa, who quotes an eye witness and participant that "I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge. Nor did Fidel, whom I visited. I became so traumatized that at the end of May 1959 I was ordered to leave the parish of Casa Blanca, where La Cabaña was located and where I had held Mass for three years. I went to Mexico for treatment. The day I left, Che told me we had both tried to bring one another to each other’s side and had failed. His last words were: “When we take our masks off, we will be enemies.”" In multiple works he goes on to discuss how many innocent people died, many without trial while the Che was quote "having a lot of fun'. Also, already cited in the article and giving contrary renditions: "Executions at La Cabaña fortress under Ernesto "Ché" Guevara". Document written by José Vilasuso (in which he says witnessed the events and that they were told everyone was already guilty before the "trials" even began, the trials a rubber stamp to execute anyone even suspected of being against Fidel and Guevara), and Courtois, Stephanie et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. Even per the source Anderson more contends that the people were accused of being criminals, spies, etc. rather than saying they actually were. I was happy to compromise and say "political officails and opponents" but others would have none of it. Gtadoc 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also though I haven't checked in detail "Armando M. Lago, Ph.D., Cuba. The Human Cost of Social Revolutions" citing many were killed (giving names even) w/o process of law or concern for guilt or innocence. Also Armando Valladares, who survived torture and imprisonment, his contention that many were political prisoners and/or prisoners of conscience and that Guevara took particular interest in incarcerating idiological opponents. It seems theres enough other sources to warrant the contention that calling them (as if a fact) all war criminals is not appropriate. Gtadoc 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And in case one wants a "Che supporting" source in New Politics Magazine Samuel Farber states "it cannot be ruled out that there were innocent people whose execution could have been avoided had Che been a revolutionary with different politics. It is also possible that some Batistianos may have suffered punishments quite disproportionate to the offenses with which they were properly charged." and "Perhaps arguments could be made to justify, or at least to provide extenuating circumstances, for his behavior at La Cabaña. No legitimate arguments can be made to defend Che's principal role in setting up Cuba's first labor camp in the Guanahacabibes region in western Cuba in 1960-1961, to confine people who had committed no crime punishable by law, revolutionary or otherwise. Che defended that initiative with his usual frankness:

[We] only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail. I believe that people who should go to jail should go to jail anyway. Whether long-standing militants or whatever, they should go to jail. We send to Guanahacabibes those people who should not go to jail, people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals, to a greater or lesser degree, along with simultaneous sanctions like being deprived of their posts, and in other cases not those sanctions, but rather to be reeducated through labor. It is hard labor, not brute labor, rather the working conditions are harsh but they are not brutal...(p.178)

Clearly, Che Guevara played a key role in inaugurating a tradition of arbitrary administrative, non-judicial detentions, later used in the UMAP camps for the confinement of dissidents and social "deviants": homosexuals, Jehovahs Witnesses, practitioners of secret Afro-Cuban religions such as Abakua, and non-political rebels. In the 80s and 90s this non-judicial, forced confinement was also applied to AIDS victims. " Gtadoc 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"I've briefly looked at the 4 other notable biographies, none of which assert that he tried and executed only war criminals". That is a ridiculous statement. All serious historical accounts of the La Cabana trials - which occurred under Guevara's appointed supervision Jan 1959-July 1959 (reluctantly I might add, Guevara didn't want the job) - discuss that they were for suspected war crimes. Do I need to wheel this clip out again for educational purposes? Later, after Guevara had left the role, and Castro had gained more power, Castro ordered various dubious executions for "counter-revolutionary" activity over the decade. Many, many, more dubious imprisonments occurred during that time of major upheaval and ongoing civil war. In the mid 60s, as the Soviet grip tightened, Cuba experimented with a Soviet style labour camp scheme for "social deviants" that was modified 3 years later after an outcry from just about everyone. Guevara was half way round the world by then and had nothing to do with it. And none of this has anything to do with Cuba's forced hospices for AIDS sufferers in the late 1980s which were abandoned in 1991 but played an important part in keeping Cuba's AIDS epidemic the lowest in the Western Hemisphere. It would take some kind of imagination to link this to Che Guervara and all of this has been either deliberately or unwittingly mixed up to give a wholly false impression.

Your various cited views, the anti-Communists Farber and Alvaro Vargas Llosa, are radical opinion pieces and largely without any historical merit. In stark contrast to Anderson (of whom your characterisation is pathetic), Thomas, Castenada and so on who form the basis of academic understanding of this subject and this article. However, your points are already in the article in some form. I know because I edited them into the article. However, as they are so radical, they are in the legacy/criticism section and briefly covered where they belong. To add this kind of stuff to the lead is like highlighting David Irving in the Holocaust article. But it seems that is the way this article, which had been highly rated by consensus and from off site experts on the matter, has been heading since Jimbo's interjection. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is considered a "serious" historical account is only the ones you've approved of? Actually, in the biographies I looked at 2 were cited by Anderson, 1 was written almost right after the event, and 1 was more recent but what you would probably call "radical" (read, concervative). Anderson himself says that he had an infatuation with Che and described it as being common to biographers. I suppose his own opinion is "pathetic" as well. If you can't make your arguement w/o personal attacks on editors then that should clue you in to something...in any event, several sources I listed are already cited in the article, others document first hand accounts. Further, I find it interesting that you call Llosa a radical (though I knew you would) as he was firmly on the liberal side for a long while. I'm not sure why you're talking about AIDS (other than it was part of a larger quote) as it seems the persecution from the time of Guevara and after mostly focused on homosexuals and idiological opponents, though I suppose you'd like to deny that as well. In any event, there are numerous sources that state that more than just war criminals were executed, including innocent people, and many more that state that people were often charged as such w/o any serious consideration for a fair trial. And, if my points are already in the article in some form, why do you insist on contradicting them in the intro with your own radical version? (oh, and to note, the points are also in the "Cuba" section, where they rightfully belong as well, but somehoe left out and contradicted in the intro). It seems to me that the article can only be credible if it pushes your pov, and others, including first hand accounts, are not worthy of inclusion...? I've offered a compromise in the wording, which you consistently refuse to even consider; its clear that your claim that the people were war criminals is controversial at best and has no business in the intro. Gtadoc 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Being somewhat new I'm not sure what the big tado is about, a small change of a few words that seem to make the wording less imflammitory? The current version by John seems reasonable. Fmehdi 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We are witnessing a pov war between two intractable opposing view supporters. Neither wants the others contribution in the lead and only their own. My suggestions that there should be language which reflects both contentions (and that NPOV allows two - or more - different viewpoints rather than just neutral text) is being generally ignored. It may be my fault, I might be typing too fast. LessHeard vanU 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually LessHeard vanU I'd happily accept if you wanted to reword it to include both, and I apologize if I missed your sugesstion that we do so. I suggest something similar earlier but was told "There are not two opinions" so I was focusing on not leaving out what I felt was by far the more neutral one. Gtadoc 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology happily accepted; I believe there will always be more than one opinion even between people who agree. I wish you luck in finding a good mediator/third party. LessHeard vanU 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC) User:Dave souza was the third party I referred to. He was very able a few sections above. User:Bladestorm seems capable, too. LessHeard vanU 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I am not understanding, despite having read through the arguments above, why the NPOV tag should be on the article. Since Jimbo originally placed it there but has not provided WP:V and WP:RS sources supporting the tag, cannot others who support his position come up with the properly sourced references to support Jimbo's contentions? This dispute is wasting an enormous amount of editors' time when the dispute can be resolved through the proper citations methods that are Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
* * * * *

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 imprisonment 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)

I believe it would be sound policy to make non-judgmental statements like: " Guevara was assigned [by whom?] the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions, not always with due process, of (approximate number, according to -source-) people, of which (number, source) were associated with the previous regime as (capacity, source)." I understand this is a bit complicated and requires some research, but it may be worth the trouble... There is little doubt in my mind that the current text is a political statement, not a historian's dispassionate rendering. I therefore believe it should be amended.

ThufirHawat 14:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor" as understood under Revolutionary Theory, overseeing the trials and executions of people suspected by the new Cuban Government to be complicit with the previous regime, criminals and anti-revolutionaries.

Probably a bit wordy, but seems sufficiently neutral, indicating the possible innocence of some of those executed and giving an indication to the morals under which Guevara felt he was acting.

Duryodana 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have references? Also "was assigned" is weasel wording. Who assigned him? And all quotations need specific citations. --Mattisse 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd like to note the one thing you're all missing: the gross understatement of the sentence in saying "hundreds" of people when it has been recorded to be at least in the thousands, and it insinuates only people who supported the previous regime were arrested, when soon after that thousands were arrested and killed for anything that was against the new gov. in any way. I will not offer any sources for this, because I myself am Cuban and had family members who did not support either Batista or Castro killed by Che Guevara and am not a true member of Wikipedia and therefore would not have equal say in the first place, and I am ashamed of the fact that sources are requested for any anti-Che stance but not to defend any pro-Che stance, and how other "sources" listed already have authors who are biased, whether liberal and ignoring his atrocities or conservative and ignoring any positives. What I'm trying to promote is a balanced look at Che, not making him out to be a 20th century messiah, but certainly not making him look as bad as Hitler, that'll let people choose their own stance, not promote the favorite ideas of Che, good or bad. Of course, the fact that so many more ignorant people support Che than Hitler does make it a bit more likely to have some unfairly sympathetic bias. Please just don't sugar coat or mud sling this twisted yet influential individual any more than has already been done by idiots wearing shirts with his face on it and not knowing who he is or pundits yelling how he was a drug addled homicidal maniac. Please be an actual example of "fair and balanced"? For the children?65.12.233.213 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

General Discussion

It is most interesting to look at the icon status that Ernesto Guevara has received. Even in these discussions he is affectionatley called by his nickname Che, and not as Guevara. If you truly want this to be an encyclopedia entry, you must get beyond your hate or love for him as a symbol and look a the facts of his life and assemble all of them that properly portray him. This is difficult to do fairly since so much of his "media life" is about the hype of promoting socialism,violent overthrow and ruthless behavior that is supposed to be better for all. He is truly a student of Machivelli, but only selectively, dismissing Discorsi and other civil process in favor of dictatorial rule. His tactics are clearly of suppression thru fear, in fact it is a great travesty that the article does not destribe him in the most true terms. "Ernesto Guevara is the most popular terrorist of all time, he combined his tactics with media appeal and justification in the "ends" for the means he chose" In your desire to remain neutral, the introduction clearly portrays Ernesto Guevara not as the man he was but the image he wished to foster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.58.124 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--I think that in the looking over both the great and possibly horrible things that Che has done that we need to remember the environment that these events took place in. All of this happened right after a revolution and neither sided was innocent. whether the executed were murderers and rapists or innocent bystanders, we need to look at what other leaders have done in the past. The United states charged blatantly and violently into Vietnam and Iraq and twisted the stories to fit their needs. Group mentality is a powerful thing. And it has driven "proud" american soldiers to murder innocents as well. Fogar399 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED ON THIS PAGE. It is right wing drivel. Would you include holocaust denial material on a page about the Holocaust ? How about thoughts from the "Flat Earth Society" on the page about the World ? I have read every single book in print in reference to Che Guevara (Including Fontova's) and his book is pure unadulterated unfounded crap.

• 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 understand this viewpoint. But in reflecting on this a bit, I now think that in the interest of having more information about his beliefs and actions included in the article, any group of people that was targeted should be mentioned, whether it be capitalists, homosexuals, or any other group (provided that all such statements are properly sourced). Knowing who Che Guevara executed helps shed insight on his beliefs, which I think should be one of the aims of this article. --DavidGC 08:07, 11 October 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)

Che Guevara is dead. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.82.126 (talk) 17:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

--I do not fully understand how wikipedia editing works, but this discussion seems to overall be about innacuracies in the article. I found this source and thought it sounded most unreliable- "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" It would be nice if someone who better understood wikipedia would look into this source for its reliability and delete the information associated with it if so needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

--CORRECTION Under Capture and Execution, the text reads "Felix Rodriguez, the CIA asset, ordered.." ASSET should be changed to agent Garigolf 13.01 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.85.19 (talk)

--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 [[27]] 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 [[28]] 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.[29] 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)

I was under the impression that Che Guevara was not captured but killed in an attack with his comrades. Regards, 'The Economist Reader' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.214.5 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 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 think such consideration does have some value in these discussions, because, unless I am mistaken, Che did use being a Mestizo in his propaganda.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.89.125 (talk) 19:59, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Where did that come from? -Sandahl 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Basque are not caucasian, they were in Europe since the old stone age.(30,000 years ago).162.84.158.245 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Basques are Celtic, and Celts (Irish, Lusitanian, Gaulic, etc.) are white, which is all I was implying by Caucasion--and I only address race as an issue as relevant as it's expressed politically.

Authenticity of overall content

I have carefully reviewed the article and read all the comments prior to this one, and a very small fraction of concerns are legitimate. In general, they seem to focus on changing key words to broaden or narrow the scope of the violence that surrounded Che's life depending on their personal preference for capitalism or marxism.

The events that transpired were undeniably horible and no impartial observers were there to author an account. The precise truth may never be known, so the point is moot.

What does matter is the quality of the overall content of this article. I reviewed it thoroughly, along with my wife, who holds degrees in Political Science and International Relations with emphasis on Latin America. We concur that this article is concise, accurate, and indeed the most thorough encyclopedia article we have seen on this subject.

It is inevitable that many will want to put their 2 cents in about such a polarizing figure. So I vote to remove the "Neutrality Dispute" tag, but to leave the edit protection in place to preserve the current high quality of this article.--Bodybagger 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BodybaggerChico 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is much better than a year ago, when it was controlled by someone named "Polaris999" who prevented any criticism or skepticism about Che's action. This page needs to be monitored by many people to prevent it becoming entirely biased to one side or the other again. DonPMitchell 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is much better now. It does seem to, in my opinion, still make an effort to make it look unfair that Che' was executed without the benefit of a trial, and that his death was staged to look as if it had occured in combat. Since Che' himself ordered summary executions of hundreds of people, there are hardly any grounds to cast the Bolivians in a bad light for following his own policy toward dangerous prisoners. The motive behind the staging of his death was a clear attempt to head off what has in fact happened - the manufacturing of a international martyr for Communism. Many of the college students today that wear the Che' memorabilia seemed shocked upon discovering just how many people he had a direct hand in killing. They seem to have a view of him as some sort of peaceful revolutionary and an almost Christ-like figure.

Jewish?

Accordding to the Russian newagency NTV, Che Guevara is jewish because his mother is a relative of Ariel Sharon's Mother. Now there is a comment in here saying what i have said. Can some one confirm what i have just said please? also I'm a giant retard—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.116.122 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether Che was or was not jewish by blood is completely irrelevent. Therefore I suggest that it not even be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaboration of rumors and assumptions.

55 soldiers killed in Bolivia

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/che_s40th;_ylt=Arh9h7Ys8XJnzo4oVifs1Ei3IxIF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.201.35 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

??? Nil Einne 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution

In the execution section, it's clear that an attempt was made to make it seem he was killed during fighting not executed. There is brief mention of how rumours surrounding the circumstances of his death began to spread and how the executioner showed of what he stole. However it's not clear when or how the truth about his execution was revealed Nil Einne 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of murder

I have heard some claim that Che murdered a pregnant woman because her family opposed him. Is there any truth to this claim? If not where does the myth come from? If so, shouldn't it be included in the article? --Jayson Virissimo 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me at all. He was a commi and that's the worst kind of scum there is.

Norum 07:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a terrorist, he killed people in the name of an ideology, as much as like today terrorists.

Anonnymous Sat Dec 22 10:56:19 UTC 2007

These responses are insanely uninformed. "he was a commi [sic] and thats the worst kind of scum there is." I am a radical leftist, I have never in my life been called scum before. Also, a terrorist is not someone that kills someone in the name of ideology, if that were true, every person that volunteered for the US army because they thought it was right would be a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who brings fear in the civilian population. They do not need a reason. As to the pregnant woman thing, I would assume it is false, there are plenty of absurd stories people have created about people they do not like throughout the years. I have never heard of this before, and I have never seen any evidence of it. At Wikipedia, we are to only provide proven information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Che and Rodriguez

A question to those who CAN edit the page. There was a photo of Che and Rodriguez yesterday. Today it's excluded both from the article about Che and fron the article about Rodriguez. Why? you say no source? here's a source: http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/_borders/Che_with_Rodriguez_before_death.jpg please put it back on both articles

Are you sure that's Che and Rodriguez? I recognize Rodriguez easily enough, but I think the one that's supposed to be Che might actually be Jeter after a two-week bender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.30.136 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An new documentary film by Wilfried Huismann, shown on german tv Oct 2007, reveals that this photo has been faked, by Rodriguez himself. http://www.taz.de/1/leben/medien/artikel/1/der-falsche-freund/?src=SE&cHash=1c2b86d954 Doceddi 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Consequences that Che was not aware of the illuminati conspiracy

1962: Che and Fidel shared their suspicions of the Soviet Union. But there were other influences on Fidel, particularly his brother Raúl who was close to the Communists.

For Che it was clear that an escape from sugar dependency was the indispensable precondition for political independence from the Soviet bloc, towards which his attitude was becoming increasingly critical. 'Against Bureaucratism' (February 1963) was a thinly veiled attack on the new bureaucracy which had grown up under the patronage of the increasingly influential Soviet economic advisers.

The debate about the economy that erupted in mid-1963 was a consequence of Che Guevara understanding that the Soviet Union leaders should not be trusted. He had recognised at an early stage that Cuba could not escape dependency without diversifying the economy, an escape from sugar dependency was the indispensable precondition for political independence from the Soviet bloc.

The argument took place against a background of deepening economic integration with the Eastern bloc and a consequent shift in the political balance within Cuba itself. And this was one of the major sources of the growing rift between Che and Fidel.

By mid-1965 Che Guevara had resigned all his government posts and left Cuba. Che's articles and speeches return again and again to his recognition that the revolution could only survive if Cuba could break out of its economic straitjacket. His initial hope that the Eastern bloc would assist Cuba in the enterprise turned quickly to disillusionment as it became clear that it would not play that role. Che's last speech, in Algiers in February 1965, was an explicit and frontal attack on the Soviet Union for its lack of internationalism and its cynical manipulation of the Cuban Revolution - but it was only the last in a series of increasingly angry discussions of the same issue. Fidel Castro for his part had clearly accepted that relationship without conditions - he had become an instrument of that manipulation. Che's letter of resignation, written in 1964, was not made public until 1967.

Today we know that the illuminati agents had infiltrated the Soviet Union government to the point where, after the murder of JFK, the US and the Soviet Union were in fact ruling the world together, under the cover of the "cold war".

These are the key facts required to understand the death of Che in Bolivia, betrayed by Fidel, who by then was another member of the illuminati conspiracy.

Lottery0101 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Aristocratic" family

Can this be explained more fully (but briefly)? The mere listing of ancestors doesn't give an explanation. Precisely how was Guevara's family "aristocratic"?67.142.130.31 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even dedicated Marxists will not deny that he was born into a middle class family (see here[[30]]. Saying he was born into an "aristocratic" family seems like a gross overstatement to me. This site [[31]] mentions that some of his ancestors include intellectuals such as Benito Lynch (1882-1951) and Adolfo Bioy Casares (1914-1999) and Chilean rear admiral Patricio Lynch Zaldívar (1824-1886). His grandfather on his mothers side is also said to have been an Argentine consulate official in Los Angeles. Still, I'm not sure this truly makes his family "aristocratic". I can see where the idea would come from though, and I don't know how to explain it briefly. --KobaVanDerLubbe 11:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

About the translation from spanish to english

I was wondering if this translation is really correct( comandante as major in the english language). In my point of view they are different things.

--Hyperdome 04:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

citation for quote in lead

The reference quotation is the following.

"Throughout January, suspected war criminals were being captured and brought to La Cabana daily. For the most part, these were not the top henchmen of the ancien régime; most had escaped before the rebels assumed control of the city and halted outgoing air and sea traffic, or remained holed up in embassies. Most of those left behind were deputies, or rank and file chivatos and police torturers. The trials began at eight or nine in the evening, and, more often than not, a verdict was reached by two or three in the morning. Duque de Estrada, whose job it was to gather evidence, take testimonies, and prepare the trials, also sat with Che, the "supreme prosecutor," on the appellate bench, where Che made the final decision on the men's fate." Source: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, pp. 386-387.

Since the quotations are used in the reference citation also, it is not clear who is being quoted in the reference. The author of the reference source cited, (Source: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, pp. 386-387) needs to clarify the source of any quotations he uses. It does not serve as a reference source for a quote such as "supreme prosector" if the source is also an unsourced quote. --Mattisse 12:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista a dictator?

Why is it necessary to call Batista a dictator? Does that add anything of value to the article? That the only offered source for this is an encyclopedia, why don't we just skip the POV judgment. We don't call Che a terrorist, for example.PStrait 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista is commonly referred to as a Dictator. Che is usually referred to as Revolutionary. I think it is as simple as that. : Albion moonlight 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not against calling Batista a dictator as much as I am against citing an ENCYCLOPEDIA as proof of anything.PStrait 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that while the term 'dictator' is used frequently, when the question of whether Batista was in fact a dictator or something else is considered, scholars often argue he was something else, like a constitutional president. (http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=122). PStrait 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista a dictator or not is up for many disscusions Cuba was a econimic force under his rule you can not say the same for Fidel Castro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.37.241 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

eh, this isn't a great argument, although its facially accurate. Economic prosperity however is not a function of whether or not the leader is a dictator. I believe, and I have presented evidence, that Batista followed the Constitution and his title was "president," so it would be appropriate to call him that. The only reference for him being a dictator is an encyclopedia article, which is irrelevant since an encyclopedia only has authority based on the authority it cites. The only detailed discussions I can find on the question of whether or not Batista was a dictator indicate he was not in fact a dictator. Many people flippantly refer to him as a dictator, but the analysis seems to go one direction. PStrait 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

the key issue here is people are, excuse my french, confusing asshole with dictator. Batista may have been a corrupt asshole, with the hands of american corporations in his pockets, to the detriment of his own people, but he wasnt a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.60.178 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that I only see these arguments against calling people dictators when the dictators hated communists (Franco for example) Let me make this simple, If Batista says he wants someone in prison, they are sent to prison. If he says someone should be shot, they are shot. It is that simple. That is how dictators work. One does not argue that Hitler was not a dictator because he had advisers. Might I add something on the calling of Mr. Guevara De La Serna a terrorist as well. Che Guevara writes in his book, Guerrilla Warfare that the civilians are not the target of military attacks, for his army was made of civilians. A terrorist uses terror on the civilian population to force the people to submit to their cause. Che fought the ARMY not the civilians. We do not call Che a terrorist because he was NOT ONE. We call Batista a dictator be cause he WAS ONE.

True legacy...

His legacy lives on through shirts worn by long haired, Birkenstock wearing college dropouts who smoke pot and live in their parent's basements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.9.24 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the complexity is that the large majority of civilians who wanted to overthrow Batista wanted true democracy, and supported Castro's actions without really knowing what he was truly about. Remember, Castro, outside of railing against Batista, never let his true intentions out in public. His public announcement to Communism happened after he was firmly in power. Many of the people executed by Castro via Che were NOT Batista sympathizers as much as people who saw where Castro/Che were leading. Forgotten here is that through the lens of Castro/Che, Batista supporters were not the only enemies, but those wanting democratic reforms were also enemies. JF(64.183.207.46 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

JF, i think you posted this in the wrong section, though this one deserves no response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sherman Reference as Firefly in picture is wrong

The Firefly is a 17lb (88mm) armed Sherman. The Shermans provided to Cuba according to http://www.tankhistory.com/ were 7 standard M4A3 76mm Shermans. Suggest you remove the term "Firefly" from the picture caption. Tom Harris 135.245.8.36 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that this looks loke a firefly http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Cuba/Cub-ShermanRebels.jpg Geni 14:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy elsewhere in Latin America

The section called ‘the “Cult of Che” ’ contains a substantial paragraph which looks at how Guevara is seen in Latin American states other than Cuba, including by elected leaders such as Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. Interesting stuff, but is ‘the “Cult of Che” ’ the right heading for it?

I suggest it deserves a separate section, immediately under the sections about how Che is viewed by Cubans. The new section could have the heading ‘Legacy elsewhere in Latin America’.

Kalidasa 777 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED ON THIS PAGE. It is right wing drivel. Would you include holocaust denial material on a page about the Holocaust ? How about thoughts from the "Flat Earth Society" on the page about the World ? I have read every single book in print in reference to Che Guevara (Including Fontova's) and his book is pure unadulterated unfounded crap.

Broken Links

Two of the PDF links seem to be broken

67.168.79.248 07:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

removal or replacement of image

This image is cofusing my eyes. Its impossible to read the text without risking serious eye damage :). It also destroys the formatting of the section in my browser). Can it be removed or at least replaced with another one ? -- Stan _talk 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some contributor already removed this image about three weeks ago. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured photo

The top section of the article refers to the Korda photo and says "(shown)" but the photo shown is not Korda's. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Korda for that photo.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.127.106 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion. The photo, while good, is NOT the famous one associated with revolutionary movements. This should be corrected. But of course, the article is "protected" so only certain people can correct it. And I'm not one of them.

[sigh]  :-(

24.6.66.193 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the other one much better too. The article is only semi protected. The reason I do not put it back myself is because I am not sure why the other one was replaced. : Albion moonlight 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the photo File:Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg was deleted from Wikipedia, most likely because of copyright infringement. User:Raul654 may know the reason it was deleted. In any event, the photo is no longer available on Wikipedia. --Mattisse 11:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

THe article does not have any mention of India as one of the countries he visited, while he visited India sometime in the 1960s. I have no reference as such, but I remember seeing a photo of his visit in the Indian Statistical Institute Museum.Ntveem (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already mentioned in article. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He visited India 10 - 12 July 1959 during his first international tour. That trip is not covered in detail in this article because of Wikipedia's guidelines re the preferred length of articles. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken links

Someone entered an unreliable source for "cigarettes" (footnote 110 if you look at the reference note list) and broke all the footnotes from that point on. --Mattisse 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the problem with that source note -- hope it is all right now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation of name

could the pronunciation of his names be added? lots of articles now do it with the IP standards 99.224.220.52 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. Use IPA if you are doing so. - Jmabel | Talk 08:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg

Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday actually one month earlier; May 14

There are sources, including published biographies, that list his birthday as May 14.

His mother changed the date on his birth certificate, to avoid scandal at having been pregnant when she married Che's father.

Aye, I believe I remember seeing this in My Friend Che as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugby playing

Can someone put in more about Che's interest in rugby, which was more than passing (pun intended)? Amongst other things, he set up a rugby magazine, and did a Marxist analysis of the game. An interesting sideline.

Some resources here - http://search.live.com/results.aspx?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=rugby+%22che+guevara%22

--MacRusgail (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Lee Anderson

For his part Jon Lee Anderson author of the 800 + page biography 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life' [22] has stated that: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason, rape, torture, or murder." [23] Anderson's biography has been criticized by Conservative Cuban exile and author Humberto Fontova however, who points out that Anderson wrote his biography of Che partially while living in Cuba and makes the accusation that he cited ministers of the Cuban government as his primary sources.

Isn't using Jon Lee Anderson as a reference in this article NPOV by defenition? This sentence also seems, i dunno, weasely - the "800 + page" self-promoting snippet for example, or that JLA views are extremely left of origin is not mentioned, but Humberto Fontova has to be branded as a "Conservative" and "Cuban Exile" so that we know that he is biased? I know there have been many discussions about the "legitimacy" of Che's violent side, but this just comes off as a whitewash. Leave the whole paragraph out imo, or rework it. (edit:forgot to sign in) --Popoi (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of Jon Lee Anderson referring to Che Detractors as "useful idiots" or anything similar. He is a reporter and scholar and does not revert to sophmorish partisan insults or extreme hyperbole. Also yes it matters that he wrote the definitive 800 page biography ... which is a far cry from a short 200 pg Cuban exile rant with very little sourcing - which is what Fontova's drivel is. Redthoreau (talk --TR 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Fontova even mentioned in the article at all then? Anyone can make a driveling rant against Che Guevara, but why is this guy important? Also, It seems a little trivial to measure success by page length only, I mean, aren't there any other redeeming qualities about JLA's biography other than being "800 +" pages? -- Mein Kampf is 600+ pages, but that doesn't mean it's a great resource for racial equality. --Popoi (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice red herring and use of quasi Reductio ad Hitlerum ... but to answer your questions. (1)The only reason that Humberto Fontova is included in the article is because the poster CJ Griffin has placed him in it. And if I delete Fontova's non sense then he will revert it and begin a revert war solving nothing. I don't view Fontova as a credible source (and his ideas seem to contradict 95 % of anything that has ever been written about Che, sort of like "Flat Earth" theory or Holocaust denial) but CJ Griffin does ... hence what to do ? (2) The length is semi relevant in the extent that it shows his breadth of research. Try handing in a 20 page Doctoral thesis or writing a summary of the Bible in 1 page and then talk to me about length. The length and breadth of research that Jon Lee Anderson conducted is what makes his book the definitive biography on the man and yes gives it a long length - hell his footnotes and sources exceed everything that Humberto Fontova has ever written on the topic or made up off the top of his head. Redthoreau (talk--TR 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually here's my real beef with the paragraph: The statement by JLA is his opinion not fact! As pointed out elsewhere, the facts will never be known. I propose we leave it at "Che Guevara was in charge of executing members of the overthrown government". Why do executions need to be qualified? Executions are executions anyway you look at it. Is Wikipedia the place where we differentiate between "legitimate" executions and those that are not? --Popoi (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no Jon Lee Anderson is an investigative journalist and biographer and it is his professional assessment that Che didn't oversee any executions of innocent people. Yes it is the doctors opinion you have a cold but he also uses his experience to make such an assessment/hypothesis. Who better than Anderson who spent years researching Che talking to supporters and detractors to make such an assessment ? Also the fact that he lived in Cuba is ridiculous … where was he supposed to live while writing the portion of his book on Che’s experience in Cuba ? Greenland ? Should we blame the governors of US States for all the executions that take place in those states because they don't commute the sentences? Could we then declare these men "Executioners" ? Should Truman be seen as an executioner for the Nuremberg Trials and can we lie all those deaths at his feet ? Are military victors allowed to execute the enemy who themselves raped, murdered, and tortured people and not be seen as "Cold blooded Killers" ? It is Jon Lee Anderson's assessment that all of the people executed under Che's watch at La Cabana were the goons, killer, and henchmen of the former dictator Batista. Thus yes people were killed ... but to Anderson they weren't innocent and you could make a case they deserved it (if you believe in the death penalty as punishment for such things). Redthoreau (talk--TR 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless I removed the "800 + page" reference. Redthoreau (talkTR 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Guevara's self published works" -- this section title appears inaccurate

Could someone please clarify or revise it? -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I switched it to "authored" works. if you think this is wrong please correct it. Redthoreau (talk --TR 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Redthoreau, for that modification. -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris thank you for cleaning up my Spanish translations which were I guess a little rusty. :o) Redthoreau (talk --TR 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Redthoreau, always glad to be able to help out a bit. You certainly have compiled a superb collection of external links and I am especially enjoying watching the videos, so would like to say "thank you" for all of your hard work on that section as well. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
* * * * *

Pic captions

"Che" on horseback? "Che" touring Red Square? This is a bit buddy-buddy for an encyclopedia isn't it? Gatoclass (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a more in depth way to describe such pictures then by all means provide it. Maybe we could provide what breed the horse is or who designed his clothing ? (sarcasm). Do you feel there are more in depth ways to describe such photos ? --TR 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redthoreau (talk

Would you caption a picture of George W Bush as "George does this" or "Dubya does that"? Or of Ronald Reagan as "Ron does x"?

Public figures are not normally referred to by their first names in news or information pieces. Referring to such a figure by their first name or a nickname gives the impression that the person in question has the endorsement of the writer. For that reason I don't think "Che" is a suitable caption for images in an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

duly noted and thus I added "Guevara" to all captions. If you are still unsatisfied let me know how you would like it to read and I will happily change it. Redthoreau (talk--TR 06:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The following excerpts from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) provide some guidance on this subject:

Subsequent uses of names After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For example: Fred Smith was a cubist painter in the 15th century. He moved to Genoa, where he met John Doe. Smith later commented: "D'oh!" The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince/ss John/Jane," or "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. Similarly, if someone has been knighted s/he may be referred to as, eg. "Sir Stephen" (for Sir Stephen Redgrave) or "Dame Judi" (for Dame Judi Dench) - but never as "Sir Redgrave" or "Dame Dench". For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant. ( ... ) People who are best known by a pseudonym shall be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is to be used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (i.e. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname. For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them, with surnames used only. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth".

-- Polaris999 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

controversy section

Why isn't there one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.167.87 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against one ... but it may end up being longer than the actual entry. ;o) Also what are some of the controversial aspects that you believe are not addressed in the present article ? If you feel there are controversial aspects being left out of the article by all means you are free to provide a reference and include them. Redthoreau (talk--TR 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Humberto Fontova and Che not needing proof to execute

The statement by C.J.Griffin

However, in his book Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, author Humberto Fontova takes issue with Anderson's statement, and points out that Che himself boasted of "manufactured evidence" and stated flat out "I don't need proof to execute a man, I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him." "Certainly we execute," boasted Che at the UN General Assembly in 1964, "and we will continue executing as long as it is necessary."[62]

was removed because the stated source was

Humberto Fontova. Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him Sentinel HC, 2007. p. xi

and I have that book in front of me (which I have read)... and there is no mention of anything like that on that page.

Also the only source that Fontova provides when he does make even a smiliar accuastion is on page 2 where he states that Che made the statement to the general assembly of the United Nations - and as his stated source he provides the Pedro Corzo, tape of Guevara Speech in documentary Guevara:Anatomia de un Mito, Miami, Caiman Productions.

However all transcripts from his speech to the United Nations do not mention this fact ??? can someone provide an actual transcript where this is stated ? ... because my research leads me to the conclusion that Humberto Fontova simply pulled this from where ever his head must be stuck. --TR 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)--User:Redthoreau (talk)

You can see it for yourselves right here:

[32] click on "from Front Matter"--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The online edition must be different because in the hard copy which I am holding in my hand the page you are using is actually xxiii not the one you state in reference. Also the source given by Fontova is pg 179 of Luis Ortega's Yo Soy El Che ! 1970. I will try to find a copy of this to see where he gets it from because I can not find such a reference anywhere in transcripted speeches before the U.N. Can you ? All of the transcripts of his speeches to the UN do not mention this ... and Fontova references that the lines were met with roaring applause ???? Redthoreau (talk--TR 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The infamous parroted sentence that is EVERYWHERE with no source: it reads

Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book Yo Soy El Che! ---- this is literally everywhere on the internet, on right wing blogs, and in Humberto Fontova articles. Here is the problem though ... I can't find the book "Yo Soy El Che !" ANYWHERE as even existing that Luis Ortega supposedly wrote where he provides the source for where he got it. Fontova claims this occured before the UN and to a roaring crowd of nations. Yet no UN Transcript that I can find anywhere mentions it or Che's speech to the UN ????? Shouldn't it be easy to track down where Che supposedly told all the nations of the World that proof wasn't necessary to execute ? And why isn't it ? Redthoreau (talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have in my personal library the book "Che: Selected Works of Ernesto Guevara, edited and with an introduction by Rolando E. Bonachea and Nelson P. Valdés". This book contains, on pages 334 through 349, what the authors assert is a complete transcript of Guevara's speech to the UN General Assembly on 11 December 1964. I have no reason to doubt either the accuracy or completeness of their text, and it does not include any statement such as "Certainly we execute, and we will continue executing as long as it is necessary." -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris ... if a verifiable source can not be located ... then don't you think it would be best to pull such a quote until one can be found ? for the record from my research I don't think the incident ever took place whatsoever, but I am open to it happening if I can be shown any documented source. --TR 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Redthoreau (talk

I agree with you on both points, i.e. that since no verifiable source has been provided for the statement in question, it should be removed from the article; and that this removal could be reversed if a verifiable source -- meaning one that meets the standards of WP:V -- is provided by those who wish to include it. -- Polaris999 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris, you will have to take out the above text because if I do so ... then I am sure that CJ Griffin will accuse me of partisan bias. I spent about an hour this morning trying to locate this quote anywhere on the internet with it's source and was unable to do so - that is not to say it doesn't exist ... but if it does ... I surely can't find its origin. Which should be fairly easy since according to Fontova he made it before the UN. Redthoreau (talk —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Extremist sources Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Perhaps a poll should be set up here to reach a consensus as to whether or not Fontova falls within that category? -- Polaris999 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Although how would you prevent one side from "stacking" the poll ? IMHO I would contend that a man who writes a book referring to anyone who doesn't agree with his assessment of Che as a "Useful Idiot" to me would classify as extreme and unscholarly. Can you imagine if Jon Lee Anderson titled his biography: "Why Che is a Hero and why those that don't like him are dumbasses." Yeah that seems real credible. (eyeroll). Also I have read nearly all of Fontovas writing and he has never written without extreme hyperbole and insult of the opposing side and in fact has never to his credit said one good thing about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro that I can find --- simply painting it as all black without any gray. He also provides very little sourcing (if any) and presents nearly everything out of its historical or present context. Just my take for what its worth (may not be much) - but I am interested in others opinions on the matter. Redthoreau (talk--TR 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Today I went ahead and completed the removal of Humberto Fontova from the article that Fennessy (talk began yesterday after he agreed on him being an "extremist" source. If there is agreement amongst the community that he is a credible source on the topic despite his overt sophomoric insults/rhetoric - then I feel he could be allowed as a source once again. There are credible scholars/authors who are detractors of Che Guevara, but yet present the evidence in its full context = however in mine and others opinions, Humberto Fontova is not one of them. Polaris as a highly valued member of the community and author of this article through the ages, I would like to know your take on the situation ? and will ultimately cede to your decision. Redthoreau (talkTR 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Redthoreau. Thank you very much for your kind words. It happens that my ideas on this matter coincide completely with what you expressed in the last two paragraphs above. I do not believe that an individual who writes in a bombastic tone such as Fontova does, and who chooses so puerile a title for his book as Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, expects to be taken seriously. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that he describes himself as "incorrigibly incorrect" on his own website. I therefore consider that it is a travesty that he would be cited as an authoritative source in any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. My recommendation would be that if someone finds something in one of Fontova's books that he wants to include in the CG article, instead of citing Fontova he should, if possible, find an adquately sourced work that contains the same information and cite it instead.

Concerning the statement attributed to Che Guevara whose veracity we have been attempting to ascertain, I believe that I have located it here. It is not part of the speech that CG delivered before the UN General Assembly, but rather a statement he made in response to criticisms other UN representatives had addressed to him later in the day:

El señor representante de Venezuela también empleó un tono moderado, aunque enfático. Manifestó que son infames las acusaciones de genocidio y que realmente era increíble que el Gobierno cubano se ocupara de estas cosas de Venezuela existiendo tal represión contra su pueblo. Nosotros tenemos que decir aquí lo que es una verdad conocida, que la hemos expresado siempre ante el mundo: fusilamientos, sí, hemos fusilado; fusilamos y seguiremos fusilando mientras sea necesario. Nuestra lucha es una lucha a muerte. Nosotros sabemos cuál sería el resultado de una batalla perdida y también tienen que saber los gusanos cuál es el resultado de la batalla perdida hoy en Cuba. En esas condiciones nosotros vivimos por la imposición del imperialismo norteamericano. Pero, eso sí: asesinatos no cometemos, como está cometiendo ahora en estos momentos, la policía venezolana que creo recibe el nombre de Digepol, si no estoy mal informado. Esa policía ha cometido una serie de actos de barbarie, de fusilamientos, es decir, asesinatos y después ha tirado los cadáveres en algunos lugares. Esto ha ocurrido contra la persona, por ejemplo, de estudiantes, etcétera.

-- Polaris999 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Polaris ... now I can see why you have that Che medal on your page. I 100 % agree with your statement on Fontova and believe that certain fair criticisms can still be lobbed against Che Guevara without framing them in a childish and overtly partisan manner. Furthermore, almost all of the biographies on Che Guevara cited in the article have been peer reviewed in academic journals by scholars in the field, while Fontova's work has not. (I wouldn't imagine scholars would be that interested in a historian who refers to millions of people as "Idiots" in his title, but nonetheless.) Moreover, I find it troubling that Humberto Fontova seems to have fabricated the entire false story of Che Speaking before the United Nations assembly speaking of executions (even going as far as to describe his rolling of his “R’s” to international applause) --- and think that therefore one could call his other assertions and accounts into question. Redthoreau (talkTR 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too many images!

Ok I understand that most of these images are free but there is a ridiculous overcrowding there, most of these images are of doubtable encyclopedic value and are messing with the entire format, can we somehow choose wich images are to be kept? because as it stands this is hardly what you would expect to be Wikipedia's best. 24.138.193.63 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed most of the images beside the index which was space that was blank and not being used. Thus how is it crowding a page when it is simply occupying space that was blank with nothing. Also which pictures would you contend are worthless to the article or of no value ? Also do you have an example you can provide of a page that is in your mind an example of "Wikipedias" best ? Redthoreau (talk--TR 14:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the article is definitely overloaded with photographs at this point. Many of them should be removed from the article and combined into a "photo gallery", to which a link can be provided. In addition, I have concerns about the accuracy of several of the captions (and have already corrected a serious error in one of them). The photos that remain in the article should be placed adjacent to the text they illustrate. In particular, the helter-skelter jumbling of images at the beginning of the article greatly detracts from its over-all appearance and requires immediate rectification. -- Polaris999 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are too many images. I think it's pretty hard to have too many images on a web page. Maybe one of the "Guevara as a child/teenager" photos could go but most of the rest add context and attractiveness IMO. It seems to me like a good use of space to surround the "Contents" list with photos, better than just having a blank space there. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:MOS - Images. -- Polaris999 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reformatted and resized all of the pictures and moved a few around for less clutter. I believe this will alleviate all concerns that were voiced ... but if not please add further concerns here and I will do my best to address them. Thanks Redthoreau (talk--TR 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an improvement, although I still think some of the remaining ones are superfluous/repetitive. What is very important right now, however, is the fact that it is a very well-established and documented practice that in a WP biography, the lead section should contain only one photo, the one inside the infobox. Therefore, the other two that are still in the CG article need to be moved from that section. Could you please do this? Or should I? -- Thank you, -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris I think the layout looks excellent now that you put the index below the square box - nice work. Also I now think that the picture total is now a compliment and not a detriment with how they are placed. Redthoreau (talkTR 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re the killing of Che Guevara

Is it correct to say, as the lead section of this article does, that Guevara was "summarily executed"? Might there not be a better way to describe the manner in which he met his death?

Although I chose the words "summarily executed" myself when writing that sentence several years ago — because I was unable to come up with a better alternative — I have had increasing doubts as to their appropriateness. I have noticed, for example, that one never hears it said that the prisoners whose lives were taken while they were being held in Abu Gharib prison were "summarily executed"; their deaths are always referred to as "murder". Does anyone know what terminology the Geneva Convention would use to describe what was done to Guevara? -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that either "murdered" or "Executed" would be the most appropriate term of description. “Summarily” implies that there was some sort of judicial decision that was taken into account, when in reality he was killed to prevent an actual trial on the world stage. Redthoreau (talkTR 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Executed is the logical choice. Describing his death as murder would be both a lie and an insult against all the innocents he killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.207.20 (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting? So in your mind ... guilty people can be killed without it being murder ? Oddly enough that was the same thing Che believed while overseeing the revolutionary tribunal process at la Cabana. Could we thus therefore deduce that to call the execution of one of Batista's henchmen (who killed innocents) "Murder" and thus by inference Che a "Murderer = " would be an insult to those killed by the aforementioned henchmen? Redthoreau (talk TR 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe 'executed' would be the better choice, not that I don't believe Che Guevara was murdered. 'Execution' and 'murder' are almost synonymous, the only difference I deduce in my personal understanding of the words is the difference in legality. As the executioners in this case were above the law, I would choose to leave the word 'murder' out. DanTheShrew (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I would never had questioned that it was in fact a summary execution. Does this really imply a judicial decision? DanTheShrew (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To the North American legal mind, murder implies a finding by a judicial system that the elements of the crime of murder are present. Is that the case here? Or is this understanding of the word irrelevant to the article? Mattisse 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

External Imaging

Polaris it is just my humble suggestion that the use of an external image link is not very aesthetically pleasing in regards to the overall article layout. In addition the caption could be misinterpreted as referring to his post execution photo below. Moreover, I doubt the accuracy of the photo in question as to me it doesn't closely resemble the murdered Guevara in the famous post death image on the same day. However great work on some of your recent alterations to the article … it really is turning out nicely. Redthoreau (talkTR 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Redthoreau. Thank you for your comments. Since Clarín is one of the leading newspapers in Argentina, I do not think that they would have published this photo if they had any doubts about its authenticity which I assume they investigated thoroughly beforehand. I don't quite follow what you say about the photo not resembling the post mortem image. The nuns who prepared the body described it at the time and again later as being clothed exactly as he is seen in the Clarín photograph; they explained that they had cut off the jacket in order to wash his body. It doesn't matter to me at all whether the "external image" template is used or not, but I would like to have a link to this photo in the article because I think it provides important information. (Please take out the template right now, if you wish.)

BTW could you please tell me how the "Family heritage and early life" section shows up in your browser? I don't know whether I should keep working on it, or whether it is acceptable "as is" -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris - the family heritage section looks good and always has. Even when you found there to be spaces, for me there really wasn't. It may be related to what screen resolution or viewing type you use for Wikipedia. I use the default viewing style and it looks fine on that one. As for the external image, I didn't mean to imply that the authenticity was more my main issue, however my main concern was the location above the other photo and the look of how large the font is for external imaging etc. I think such a photo is important for inclusion, and believe that the photo itself could probably be used under a certain stipulation. I will remove the external link for now and do my best to track down a justification for implanting the actual image into the article. Redthoreau (talk 65.13.71.158 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Redthoreau, for the information re the appearance of the "Family heritage and early life" section. I found the extra white space appearing when I would increase the width of the window in my browser; if I were writing regular HTML I would not expect that to happen under any circumstances. The problem seems to have been principally caused by a tug-of-war between the Table of Contents and the images in that section. I have therefore removed one of the two images of CG as a teenager and everything seems to be working properly now. Also, I read the Bolivian copyright law and unfortunately it does not place photographs taken by a government employee during the performance of his duties in the public domain as occurs, for example, in the USA. I hope that you will succeed in finding some justification for including the "final image" in the CG article, but in the meantime I have modified the "external images" template to address your objections and hope that you will find my solution satisfactory. -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Added neutrality tag

This article on Che, in my opinion, is starting to look more like some Che fan site than an actual legitimate wikipedia entry. This is all thanks to the prolific revisions by one poster (RedThoreau). He's done this before, but his edits were usually reversed. There are just too many flattering images and the charges of Che being a ruthless executioner have either been removed or are now blunted by the baseless OPINIONS of a left-wing journalist and Che sympathizer by the name of Jon Lee Anderson. I've tried adding some balance to his OPINIONS by providing dissenting views by Che's detractors, but apparently they're considered too "extremist." Sorry, but I call BS on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.J. Griffin (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure you would like to delete the entire article & replace it with "Che Guevara was the devil", but there is no basis for that. And yes a book that accuses anyone who admires Che in any way of being a "useful idiot" is extremist. By the way this is a featured article, it is common practice to discuss any issues you have with it extensively before tagging a FA. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Or... how about people meet in the middle here. He did kill innocents - there's nothing wrong with stating the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.207.20 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that he killed innocents ... that is not a fact - and anyway "innocent" is a subjective term. Does a governor of a state who refuses to commute the death sentence of a murderer "kill an innocent" ? Could we go through all of the U.S. President wikipedia pages and guess that somehow somewhere their actions caused the death of at least a few "innocents" (if not a few thousand/million) ... and therefore proclaim them a "killer of innocents" ? Not to mention is anyone truly "innocent" (whatever that means) ? Jon Lee Anderson which spent 5 years researching the cases of those killed, came to the conclusion that no "innocent" men were killed under Che's orders. Now you can disagree with that .... but what evidence do you have to contradict it ... other than internet hatchet job pieces written by people with very little credibility on the subject or 5th-person hearsay from uncles brothers friends sisters who saw Che kill someone “innocent”. No one would argue that Che didn’t kill people (strangely that is a trait found in most revolutionaries) ... having that argument would be ridiculous. However the culpability of those executed under the revolutionary tribunals he oversaw is another matter that people disagree on. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(My response to CJ's accusations - forgive the length)

CJ Griffin, I am sorry to add some actual reality to your unbridled propaganda session that has been taking place recently before I came along, in where you were allowed to run rampant with unsourced WorldNetDaily quotes and accusations from an editorialist with very little credibility who labels anyone who disagrees with him an “Useful Idiot” – not to mention he even misattributes the phrase to Stalin which is false – but hey when a guy already has factual errors in the title of his book, you know you are in for an interesting “fictional” read.

I rely on facts and as a Ph.D. recipient have experience producing actual peer reviewed academic papers, = if you notice most if not all of the Che biographies used as sources in the article have been peer reviewed by academic Ph.D.’s in the field, while Fontova’s drivel is usually peer reviewed by “preaching before the proverbial choir” to internet message board scholars, with very little knowledge on the actual topic at hand, but a strong desire that everything categorized as “Leftist”, “Communist” etc is the incarnation of Satan himself. What you and Fontova would have us believe is that there is some shadowy conspiracy amongst 95 % of all professors, print media, researchers, publications, printing companies, "book readers", librarians, news media, etc etc who somehow all collaborate to fabricate the life and influence of Che Guevara, while little old Fontova stands as a beacon of truth battling the tide on Sean Hannity’s and Glenn Beck’s radio show, with ideas or opinions that he usually cooks up in his head.

Fontova would have you believe (and I read his comedic book) that the Castro regime is the most evil one ever conceived (he utilizes extreme laughable hyperbole and even compares him to Hitler and the Holocaust – conveniently only relying on Hitler’s first 6 years in office before WWII and the "Final Solution"), that somehow Che and Fidel possessed an unwavering bloodlust (although yes to his credit he doesn't contend they drank the blood of puppies ... afterall he's saving that for the inevitable sequel: "Che & Fidel have intercourse with Satan and Drink the Blood of Puppies, and the Useful Dipshits who don't Believe It") to kill anyone for no reason whatsoever ... and that somehow ... they detained his own father ... and yet let him go free ... Interesting ?

This is an encyclopedia entry, not a message board on MoonBattery.com where Fontova conveniently refers to all those on the left as “Moonbats” ... quite the mature scholar that guy. If you would like to take the time to craft Humberto Fontova’s wikipedia page into a shrine of homage to “useful idiocy” (pun intended) then by all means have at it and no one will probably stop you, since 95 % of the public rightly views him as a bad parody between Joseph McCarthy and those guys with the blow horns on soap boxes predicting the Apocalypse.

Also my edits were usually REVERSED by YOU ... as no one else was watching and thus you were allowed to play quasi-moderator of all information appearing in the article. Interesting that a person who provides this link on their wiki page CJ Griffin’s Amazon Page would be entrusted to judge all facts in relation to Che Guevara. You even went so far as to cross his face out ... (luckily you didn’t include home photos of your dart board with Che’s face on it). Moreover, read most users’ wikipedia pages for people you loathe (which could be anyone to the left of Genghis Khan), and I am sure you will incorrectly define them as resembling a “fan page”. That is because many people through the course of their life that make an impact attract scores of people who have opinions on them and sometimes the majority of others opinions are positive (which unfortunately for you happens to be the case with Che Guevara). Nothing I have posted about Che in a positive fashion has been non-sourced or non-attributed. If you take issue with others opinions or views on Che, then take it up with them (Imagines CJ Griffin outside of Nelson Mandela’s house with a sandwich board smeared in blood).

There are countless unfavorable attributes about Che Guevara that an obvious obsessed detractor such as yourself could point to, that derive from credible sources and refer to legitimate and appropriately contextually placed actions. Sadly, you usually opt to ignore 95 % of anything that a publisher has ever deemed legitimate and truthful, and go right for the abyss of random (anyone-with-a-computer-scholarship --- hence Fontova’s sources usually exist somewhere on the internet that can’t be located by others) because I am sure in your mind : Time Magazine, CNN, the Economist, NY Times, BBC, are all secretly communist shills for Castro – being paid off in hand rolled Cuban cigars and useless Cuban pesos. (It’s interesting that your history shows you don’t possess the same level of vitriol for U.S. backed right-wing dictators Pinochet, Suharto, Marcos, and Somoza or Reagan supplied Contra death squads who caused the deaths of 70,000 in El Salvador, 100,000 in Guatemala, and 30,000 in Nicaragua, but I digress.)

Maybe you should start your own webpage where you can rant against Communism and how evil it and Che are ... Oops already beat me to it, here we have CJ Griffins very own aol page entitled RED HOLOCAUST ! that he also provides a link to on his wiki page. CJ Griffin. I mean who in their "right" mind would not want an obviously “objective minded” source being the final say on all information related to Che Guevara ... (eye roll with internal laughter). = This page doesn’t need any tag for neutrality ... however maybe all of your future entries do. --- Oh yeah and by the way ... I like how you have stopped even labeling your changes on the history page ... as an obvious attempt to hide your alterations from objective review. Not to worry ... I start off each day with a refreshing (sometimes comical) nice cup of “How did CJ Griffin attempt to vandalize the Che page last night?” Redthoreau (talk TR 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the Korda photograph appear twice in the CG article?

I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of other editors about this ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the second image to avoid redundancy. RedthoreauTR 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have done so, and I think that removing it was the right way to go. The "lead photo" we currently have of CG is certainly not of the best quality, and I am hoping that during one of your "voyages of discovery" you may come across a better image with the appropriate licensing that we can use in its place ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it and added a better photo of much higher quality. Redthoreau (talk TR 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A major improvement!! Thank you so much. -- Polaris999 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should know that photo has now been tagged for deletion over at its Commons description page. --jonny-mt 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with one providing additional rationale (I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the spirit of attempted vandalism or an automated bot objects to it' use ... but there is sufficient and ample legal rationale for its inclusion. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I removed the links non-English pages per WP:EL as an easy way reduce the size of this list. I think another, but perhaps more controversial, way to reduce this list would be to remove all links (other than those to other media formats) that fail WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, links to redundant, trivial, or outdated information should be removed. Organizing the links by content rather than source would make it easier to identify such links, as well as make it easier for readers to find information about Guevara. Wherever possible, publication dates should be given with the links. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will try and polish up some of these links. I have thought of the issue of limiting to actual publications but I am sure some would object (especially Che detractors who would be upset at the lack of critical pieces which usually take place on personal group websites or lesser known partisan sources.) For the time being I will at least try to organize the formatting and make it uniform and attempt to judge the redundancy of the links. However I would also add that at present I don't necessarily think there is an over abundance of links when one considers how much has been written about the subject in question. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized them into sub-sections which I think more accurately describes their contents and makes them more accessible. Any suggestions/thoughts etc are welcome. Thanks Redthoreau (talk TR 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Unless someone can come up with good reasoning and create consensus to go against the policies and guidelines, all the external links in the Videography and Additional materials sections should be removed other than references, per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. Also, a strong case can be made to remove any of the entries in these sections that do not have their own Wikipedia article per WP:LIST, unless we can find an alternate inclusion criteria and come to consensus on it. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. However, this article has been a battle ground ideologically, and the extensive external links may serve, in the case, preserve the integrity of the article itself. Mattisse 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the external links are trivial and repeat information already referenced in the article with another reference from the same source, e.g. BBC article that Che is shot. Some go to sites that list books etc for sale. The bunch of articles from the Militant don't seem to add anything in my opinion. I looked to see if any were duplications of references. This is my view. I removed a wikipedia mirror site and now I will watch what happens. Mattisse 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"preserve the integrity of the article itself" I think you're right, which is why I started discussing the problem here, rather than making the edits first. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the people who are working on the article now, User:Polaris999 and User:Redthoreau would agree with you and no one wants to rock the boat. The former was greatly responsible for getting FAC status for the article. But then a very rocky period occurred. Mattisse 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz I still intend to address these issues which we already spoke about and appreciate your input. Give me and Polaris a week or two to continue to raise the standards and depth of the article (and trim the extra material/links), and then lets see where things stand. ;o) Also some of the extra links are better understood under the full context of the articles history and those that have attempted to attack it's neutrality/legitimacy. With such a controversial, (revered/despised), and influential figure you are bound to have differing opinion, analysis, and out of context vitriol. However to an extent one man’s drivel is another man’s gospel and some of those external links exist to accommodate a plethora of opinion and depth on the man. RedthoreauTR 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Stand alone lists

I wonder if some of those lists could be made into formal lists. Then there would be See List of Che Guevara's authored works for example, or See List of Che Guevara documentaries etc. Also, WP:MoS layout is supposed to be:

• Quotations (deprecated)
• See also
• Notes
• References (or combined with Notes into Notes and references)
• Bibliography (or Books or Further reading)
• External links

A lot of those lists are under Further reading' so should come after the Notes and References. Mattisse 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mattisse. I have been wondering about the possibility of converting those sections into Wikipedia lists also. Having no experience with Wikipedia lists, and not finding answers to my questions on the WP:LISTS page, I was uncertain about whether this would be feasible -- but your statement above clarifies the matter. I think that this would be an outstanding solution because many of the links are of value, especially if one wishes to do further research on a given topic, and it would be good to have them available. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an example given in MoS: Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges, Robert A. Heinlein bibliography from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). There is Wikipedia:Lists which I have not examined yet. Also Wikipedia:Featured lists must have criteria somewhere. Mattisse 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Mattisse. These two lists may be considered slightly different from the one(s) that might be created from the large number of links appended to the CG article in that they consist primarily of works by the author in question, rather than about him. However, even if a Wikipedia list consisting of a bibliography of works about a given person has not yet been created, I would imagine that we can follow the oft-repeated WP guideline of "be bold" and become the first to create one, don't you think? ... I look forward to hearing Redthoreau's ideas about this option. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Mattisse 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Mattisse 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Featured list criteria! (I believe you are a perfectionist.) Plus Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists Working on a list will be refreshing from my point of view -- a good break from the usual wars (I hope). Fewer people care about lists, so maybe we can work on lists in peace. Mattisse 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article length

This page is 203 kilobytes long. FAC recommends roughly 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. I am just wondering what the overall plan is regarding the page length. This page should be written in summary style. Any ideas for spinoffs? (I am concerned that at some point its FAC status may be questioned.) Regards, Mattisse 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Article size, the "rule of thumb" is that any article over 100 kb should be split up. Regards, Mattisse 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that all editors of the CG article carefully read Wikipedia:Article size and take its admonitions to heart. Previous editors of this article (I among them) worked hard to keep its size below 100kb. There is no question that any one of us could write endless paragraphs detailing Guevara's activities on "day X", "day Y", "day Z", and so ad infinitum, thereby increasing the KB in the article to some astronomical figure. In the end, we might have succeeded in writing an encyclopedia about Che Guevara, but would have failed miserably if our objective was to write an article for an encyclopedia about him, such as we are supposedly attempting to do here in Wikipedia. -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at what's been discussed already about these issues or why the article is the way it is, so caveat emptor:

• The lead section appears far too long and doesn't summarize the article as well as it could per WP:LEAD.
• It looks like the article could be broken up into sub-articles which would help with the length. The Legacy section could easily be made into an article. The other sections would be more difficult.
• The Further reading, Videography, and Additional materials sections need to be trimmed down or made into their own articles.

--Ronz (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This weekend I intend to condense and trim the article and move some materials to other Che articles. Also a few questions: (1) Do pictures count in the size total ? Because if so you could get a deceptive size total based on their size/resolution. (2) How can you check the overall size of an article ? (3) Is there a way to see how the size of an article breaks down by section etc ? Thanks Redthoreau (talk TR 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Article size and associated articles for the rationale for size limits as well as ways of calculating size. Also, at this point, I think any drastic changes should be through consensus. Look at the example of this article in its heyday:[33] Now the article is almost double in size. In my opinion, we must be very careful now, as it is out-of-control. Perhaps we should start with the lead, per WP:LEAD. As Ronz indicates, the article does not flow from the lead, or visa versa any more. I guess I would suggest that everyone stop and take a deep breath. Those of us who care about the article need to make some rational decisions as a group. It is very unusual to get an article about a controversial topic to FAC status as this article so painstakingly was. I would hate to see that status endangered. I would urge those working on the article to be familiar with Wikipedia:Featured article criteria To keep that status, this page should be written in summary style. Regards, Mattisse 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the provided link I see that "What is and is not included as "readable prose". "Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as: Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc) Diagrams and images, Tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, Formatting and mark-up. A more exact list, and a means of calculating readable prose, is given in the notes. Thus the only thing we should factor in when considering the size is everything before the further reading, which to me wouldn't make this article much longer than normal ones. Especially when you consider that more than half of the article is non-prose. Redthoreau TR 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good source re length: WP Longpages. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Humm. That list puts this article at #24 of the top 500 longest articles on Wikipedia. Mattisse 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And almost all of the 23 entries that are longer than the CG article are lists rather than normal articles! -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So this is the longest article of all on Wikipedia! -- Mattisse 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has now "grown" to 209 kilobytes. Mattisse 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the "contextually related books" and "journal articles" until a future list is made. Also I am going to remove the already authored books by Che from the further reading list to avoid them being listed twice. Furthermore I am going to work on the external links and try to remove duplicate links, ones to individual’s websites instead of established sources, and ones that directly sell products. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also there is no way that the article has doubled in length .... and you have to be calculating the size taking into account the pictures, post prose - which should not be considered when weighing the articles size. Where is a link to the supposed size of the article. For my part I feel there is an irrational panic taking place with reference to the article's size that I feel is unnecessary. If anything the total time it takes to scroll down through the article has been DECREASED not increased (try it for yourself). Redthoreau (talk TR 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ronz has also expressed concern about the lead. Polaris999 is concerned in general about the ballooning of the article, and I think (although we need to hear from him) that he might agree to reversion to an earlier version. Both I and User:C.J. Griffin have consented to consider that. Please do not continue to make unilateral decisions. Regards, Mattisse 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall size is not the issue; readable prose is. According to Dr pda's prose size script, this article currently has 69KB prose (relative to the 50KB guideline at WP:SIZE). It is not the longest FA, but it has now moved into the top ten (old data here). A FAR on this article could be warranted on any number of counts, but the question wrt size is whether there are places where better use of summary style could be made. I doubt that reverting to earlier versions will solve the issues here that could be visited at FAR, because there have been questions here for many many months and I'm not sure there is a good version to revert to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with moving to Feature Article Review. I think the experience would be helpful for all concerned. As you say, the summary style is the most problematic. Who should nominate it? Regards, Mattisse 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy - exactly my point. The prose is only 69 KB so editors need to take a deep breath on the "sky is falling" with relation to size. I am open for any edits to the prose and will be flexible. I trust Polaris personally to have a final call on controversial issues with regard to content. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I, too, think that FAR is the right way to go. Time to get some "new eyes" looking at the situation, and I await their comments and recommendations eagerly ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• It has been nominated: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara and SandyGeorgia has made some helpful additional comments. Mattisse 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism ?

Well everyone’s Che-despising friend CJ Griffin is back and attempting to use the overtly bias "Black Book of Communism" in the article. I would contend that such a source is unacceptable as I am sure Griffin would accuse the "Black Book of Capitalism" of being, if we cited that source as well. I am interested in the other editors thoughts on the matter before allowing it to be included ? Redthoreau (talk TR 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The BBoC, written by a team of leftist French scholars and published by a prestigious University, has been used as a reliable source in many wikipedia articles. If it is good enough for the others, then why not this one? Perhaps because you wish to have any criticism of your hero muted?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor and English translator of the "Black Book of Communism" admitted misplacement of decimal points in the chapter on China by Jean-Louis Margolin. Those misplaced decimals caused deaths in the Great Leap movement led by Mao to be overestimated by a minimum of a factor of 10 ! Not to mention well over 50 % of the deaths attributed to Communism in the book derive from Famine. So would it be legitimate to add up all the starvation deaths daily in Capitalist countries throughout the world and add them into a tally of the "Scourge of Capitalism"? Also are you aware of any peer reviewed academic journals that have ever reviewed the "Black Book of Communism" ? If so I would be interested in reading their take. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And your source for this is...let me guess... the Maoist Internationalist Movement, right? I've seen this rubbish before: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/blackbook/blackb3.html Just the fact that you'd take at face value blatant propaganda from a Maoist organization shows just what a radical you are. You try to paint yourself as an "objective" editor but in reality you lean so far left you're practically horizontal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also where are some of these wikipedia articles where the "Black Book of Communism" is viewed as a reliable source ? Redthoreau (talk TR 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Terror comes to mind. And no, I didn't add this as a source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha I ask for an article and you give me "Red Terror" ... (that you edited and put in on Dec of 07) ... and coincidentally your personal website that you link to on your wiki page is entitled what .... That's right ... "Red Holocaust". So to you scholarship is adding something on one article ... and then citing it as proof of its validity in another article ... ok Chief (thumbs up). Also just because a Maoist organization found errors in the Black Book doesn't make those errors any less true, and no I didn't get my info from them as that information is fairly prevalent throughout the internet. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky also offers what I would deem to be a credible critique of the methodology/premise of the "Black Book of Communism" ---> Counting the Bodies - Noam Chomsky. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well big surprise that a radical leftist such as yourself would consider a critique of the BBoC by another radical leftist to be credible. First the MIM and then Noam Chomsky, talk about "overtly bias." If this is the best you can do to discredit the BBoC then I'm restoring my edits. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Others have not weighed in yet ... thus your edits will be reverted until they do so. Don’t worry there still may be time for you to make the article resemble something from Rush Limbaugh's blog ... but not yet. Also where are these articles that you stated rely on the Black Book for reference ? I am still waiting? Also where are the peer reviewed journals that have judged its credibility. (talk TR 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind? I already provided one. There are others so stop being lazy and look them up if you are so concerned. And your comment about Rush Limbaugh's blog was really...cute. But whatever. If it were up to you this article would resemble something from Pravda or the Daily Worker. See, two can play at that game.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What a liar. You provided that link after I asked for it recently ... not before. And the only others I will find are ones that you added and put in yourself most likely, just like the one you previously gave me. If the only article that trusts the Black Book is RED TERROR ! than I feel justified in making sure it is not included in this FA. Also you have yet to answer if the book has ever been peer-reviewed by any academic journals? Par for the course for most books and almost all of the Che Biographies included in this article. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Suspected War Criminals" = Correct term

It does not imply guilt, but that is what those individuals executed at La Cabana were considered by the regime in power. They were not executing people of a certain ethnic group, religion, etc - the revolutionary tribunals were centered around people that the new government deemed as "Suspected War Criminals" - even anti Castro sources admit to this fact (although they would contend they were innocent.) Also CJ Griffin you can't cherry pick the instances when you find Jon Lee Anderson credible and when you don't. The comment immediately preceding the war criminal comment ... you are relying on Anderson for the fact that "people were being brought to La Cabana daily" ... but then for some reason you desire to cherry pick and use another anti-Castro source to switch Anderson's wording of "Suspected War Criminals" to "members of the former government." Redthoreau (talk TR 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't even add JLA as a source there. I left it in in an attempt to be fair, unlike you, who deletes sources you don't like. And yes, "suspected war criminals" is POV because it implies they were all guilty of heinous crimes. There is no corroborating evidence for this but JLA's opinion. Indeed many, including José Vilasuso, believe some were innocent and were simply executed for being members of the former regime. Numerous dictatorships that have come to power through revolutions or coups demonize members of the former regime in an attempt to justify persecuting and killing them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is laughable that you think it is significant that more than one died screaming "I am innocent." Clearly this would be the first time in world history that an executed criminal would claim their innocence till the very end. Can you imagine a wikipedia article about George W. Bush for instance claiming that during his term as Governor, more than one man was executed without receiving clemency - "some even dying claiming their innocence." It would be ridiculous in it's accusation and inference. Sometimes people convicted of war crimes claim to be innocent till the very last moment. Also how come the Vilasuso piece is only found on personal websites without much credibility or authority? All part of the Castro cover up ? (rhetorical) Redthoreau (talk TR 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Review

Perhaps this article needs to go to Feature Article Review. It was featured on the main page on June 18, 2006 (approximate version then [34]). Since then the article has deteriorated drastically. Many of the changes/revisions/additions have occurred without any attempt at consensus. The current revert war is like fiddling while Rome burns, in my opinion. Consensus needs to be achieved before further changes are made to the article. A Feature Article Review will draw attention to the article's obvious faults like the doubling in its length, the completely unacceptable lead section, and the loss of its summary style in its descent into inappropriate detail. These are my feelings as it is painful to see what has happened to the article over time. Regards, Mattisse 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative, perhaps we could revert to an acceptable version e.g. [35] or some similar version before the ballooning occurred. That might be easier than trying to reconstruct an acceptable article from what we have now. The serious ballooning appears to have begun in January 2008, as on January 1, 2008, the article was still 126,292 bytes. Are there other opinions? Regards, --Mattisse 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of restoring it to that version.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course CJ Griffin would, because at that point the article was incomplete, and laced with his WorldNetDaily/Moonbattery.com nonsense. I am having a hard time understanding this "panic" over the articles size. It will be shortened and trimmed and I find it unnecessary to revert all of the recent contributions over length when that material can be moved into new articles. As an aside I find it a sad commentary when historical individual’s lives now have to be shortened into 100 KB because of our ADHD society. Furthermore, reverting to that point I would contend would remove the "meat" that has made the article an actual reference point for people interested in Che Guevara, when before it read like a USA Today "Summary" with very little detail and bibliographical information. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason this move is being considered in the first place is because of your prolific and controversial edits. And not once is WorldNetDaily cited in the version Mattisse provided that I agree is ten times better than the rubbish we have now, chock-full of silly images and unsubstantiated opinions from sympathetic Che biographers.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me, to you any picture that doesn't show Che biting the head of a puppy is "silly". I know it just kills you that there aren't photos of Che standing over dead bodies, because your salivation would ruin your keyboard. What exactly is silly about the Che photos that are included? Also if you disagree with their opinions take it up with them as I have stated ... they are not my opinions, they are theirs. Just as you rely on the opinions of a few French academics that Communism ie (famine) killed 100 million people in the 20th century or in crackpot Humberto Fontova (at the scholarly Moonbattery.com) that Fidel and Che were more deadly than Hitler (haha). Redthoreau (talk TR 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Matisse to you the lead section is "completely unacceptable". Why is that ? In comparison to the one you cite as a possible revert it is not much longer. What do you feel is missing?, should be added?, should be taken out ? We all may agree with your assessment. Rome is not burning ... take a deep breath ;o) Redthoreau (talk TR 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please seek consensus before editing article further

User:Redthoreau, please do not continue to edit the article without discussing it with other editors. Everyone interested in the article needs to be included. There is some concensus currently for reverting to a previous version before the article balloooned. You are not the only editor concerned about content. The long lists are the least of the problem, in my opinion, because they can be removed easily. Much more problematic is the lead and some huge sections that have been added recently with consensus. Regards, Mattisse 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only things that I am trimming are lists, post-prose, and things I MYSELF added. I am not going to edit the prose portion and will leave that up to concensus. I understand that I am not the only editor and am only trimming things of my own recent posting, or the one instance with CJ Griffin until there is "concensus" as you say, on the credibility of his source. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Trimming of Article

I figured this would be a good place for editors to update us all on what they trim from the article. As for myself thus far I have worked on the post-prose and consolidated information, prevented double listing, taken off "contextually related" books for a future list, and removed the "Additional materials" to other Che articles (CD's travelogues etc). I also agree with the edits thus far that Matisse has made in reference to the introductory section and trust his along with Polaris' objectivity to make further edits. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What is everyones opinion on inclusion of the "Timeline" ? Redthoreau (talk TR 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I created that timeline while the CG article was undergoing evaluation as a FAC in Spring 2006. At the time, having a timeline in an article was considered a "plus" when it was being considered for FA status. According to what I read yesterday, timelines are included when calculating the total length of the article, but are not included when calculating the "readable prose". The code for this timeline can be viewed at Template:cgtimeline. My own preference re its inclusion/exclusion is ... none! May the consensus decide. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the timeline. Why not remove everything under where SandyGeorgia put the tag for link cleanup? Also, WP:LEAD, WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS, Wikipedia:WIAFA, specifically Critera 2, improper format of footnotes are all mentionted by SandyGeorgia. None of these issues have to do with the timeline. Mattisse 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC) ⋅

Do you mean, delete all external links ? (news articles, opinion, etc) Redthoreau (talk TR 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is my opinion. But please read carefully anything SandyGeorgia has to say. Please read Wikipedia:EL plus Wikipedia:WIAFA and Wikipedia:NOT#LINK, in fact all of WP:NOT. Please take seriously any tags people put on the article, especially SandyGeorga, but anyone as we are seeking help here. Going to FAR is an admission that we can no longer handle this problem ourselves and that we need help. Read what the link cleanup tag says. Read WP:MOS. There are article rules with which we must comply. I know that, in general, external links on Featured Articles are discouraged. What purpose are all those links serving? Mattisse 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... please feel free to thus delete all of the external links if you so wish and I will not object. However it is probably better if you do it, because if I do, I will be accused of bias most likely by CJ Griffin or accused of "not discussing it here" beforehand. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"ACTUAL" Article Size ?

I also believe that we need some clarification on the article's true size in reference to "Prose". Sandy has pointed out that it was in the 60's and that was before recent trimming (not 200 + as has previosuly been stated). Remember only the prose (not pictures, reference material, post prose, links etc) should be taken into account when judging an articles size. If someone can continually update us as to the articles "true" size I would appreciate it. Thanks Redthoreau (talk TR 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have Dr pda's script, so I can regularly update that data on the FAR page. However, I doubt that the page size will turn out to be the biggest issue here, and suggest a refocus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy although I don't find it to be the biggest issue here (I never found it an issue to begin with) - others did, especially if you look through past comments and concerns on the articles size, which I feel were inaccurate and unwarranted. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia posted the following on the FAR page:

Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:

File size: 143 kB

Prose size (HTML): 61 kB

References (HTML): 24 kB

Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)

References (text only): 7 kB

Images: 122 kB

Current version (Feb 23)

File size: 385 kB

Prose size (HTML): 113 kB

References (HTML): 108 kB

Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)

References (text only): 42 kB

Images: 348 kB

The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in.

(I have copied the above comments here.) Mattisse 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Matisse is that size current to the second or when today started? Because considerable trimming has been done to the post prose that I believe may not be reflected. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. The time date on that particular comment by SandyGeorgia is 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC) --Mattisse 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote further from SandyGeorgia:

The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed.[13] to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives.

(copied from the FAR page with a time date of 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)) Mattisse 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert to nonstandard TOC

SandyGeorgia corrected the TOC as it does not comply with MoS. Please do not revert any help she gives us. We need all the help we can get. Mattisse 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that she changed it when I reverted it. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You should not be reverting anyway. Do you know about the WP:3RR rule? You are violating it. If you continue to do do, I will report you. Reverting is to be used for vandalism only. Discuss any changes you want to make, including reverting anyone, on the talk page first. Mattisse 20:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't technically "revert" her ... having noticed that the TOC moved to the opposing side of the page, I moved it back before seeing that she had moved it under her complaint. This was done around the same period of time and I didn't notice her objection to the placement, and instead assumed she had accidentally moved it through her editing. Also I don't understand your hostile tone inherent in your message, but I guess you feel it is justified. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Making any change is considered a revert, whether you meant to or not. Changing anything another editor has done is considered a revert if you do so without discussion and consensus first. Please read WP:3RR. I am trying to get you to stop. No one can fix the articles until you stop. The fact that you reverted SandyGeorgia indicates to me that you may be out of control. It is unconscionable to change the TOC just because you want it that way under the circumstances we are under now. Mattisse 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not understanding that I didn't even realize she specifically changed it until after I changed it. There were 4-5 edits within a span of minutes and I noticed that the TOC moved to the other side of the page. Thus I moved it back before seeing that she moved it under the basis she did - which is acceptable and thus why I haven't moved it since reading that. I am unsure why all of the sudden you have entered into a “panic” mode on the issue of the article, when the only clear objections you have made have been in reference to the lead (which I recommended you then edit), the external links (which you have not clarified if you desire deleting them all in reference to my question to you), and article size which you later said was not the main issue. Your discombobulated stances are leaving me puzzled as to your intention, not to mention your “out of nowhere” hostile stance towards me, when all I have ever stated about you personally thus far , was that I trusted your judgment to make edits and encouraged you to do so. I would appreciate it if you would display the same courtesy in return ... that I have given you. Redthoreau (talk 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You ought not to be editing at that rate on this article. That is the whole point. The reason for the 3RR rule is to prevent exactly the behaviour you are engaging in. It does not matter what you realized. In this case, she clearly gave her reason in her edit summary, so it it obvious you are not bothering to even read them. Anyone looking at the history of this article, a controversial article, and seeing the number of edits you have made is going to see that number as a problem. This article was locked down last summer for several months to prevent any editing whatsoever to prevent POV warring. You have to give others a chance now and back down. That is my advice to you. Mattisse 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is the original TOC of the article that was a Feature Article:

• Early life
• Guatemata
• Cuba
• Disappearance from Cuba
• Congo
• Bolivia
  • Insurgent
  • Capture and execution
  • The Bolivian Diary
• Legacy
  • Popular culture
• Criticism
• Timeline
• List of works
• See also
• Source notes
• Content notes
• References
• Further reading
• External links

SandyGeorgia has already said there are problems with the section headings and the article organization. I am wondering if we could get back to the original organization? Also, we should keep in mind that FA criteria are considerably tougher now than they were two years ago. So the article may have to be tighter than the 2006 article. Any ideas? Mattisse 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

---

My suggestion would be:

• Family heritage and early life
  • A motorcycle diary
• Guatemala
• Cuba
  • Guerrilla war
    • Building the new society
      • Disappearance from Cuba
• Congo
  • Expedition
    • Interlude
• Bolivia
  • Insurgent
    • Capture and execution
      • The Bolivian Diary
        • Literary author, political theorist, and poet
• Legacy
  • Legacy in Cuba
    • Legacy in Cuban-American Community
      • Legacy elsewhere in Latin America
        • A "Cult of Che?"
• Timeline
• Guevara's authored works
• Further reading
  • Novels
• Videography
  • Documentaries
    • Theatrical films
      • Archival footage
• See also
• Content notes
• Source notes / References

I find the original structure, far too "cookie cutter" and simplistic, and actually find the article incomplete in context and lacking and biographical suggestion for those interested in learning more about him. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest consideration of the option of transferring recently added material in the recently created "A Motorcycle Diary" subsection of the "Family heritage and early life" section to the existing WP article The Motorcycle Diaries which is currently a stub and in need of expansion. (N.B.: Necessary copyediting must be performed on the text in question to remove inappropriate italics, etc., before or immediately after such a transfer.) Then that subsection header could be removed from the CG article. How do others feel about this?

Also, I would appreciate information as to what the specific problems with the existing section headings are. Help, anyone? -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the transferring idea completely. In fact I suggested it in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. One obvious problem with the headings is they do not follow Wikipedia rules for headings. For example, there is one heading that is Literary author, political theorist, and poet. That violates all of the heading naming rules right there. Headings are to be as brief as possible, not contain commas, etc. One, two, three word headings are best with only an occasional variation if there is no other way. Mattisse 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the first section to status quo ante and changed the section heading to "Early life". I am now looking at Bolivia and see that the subsection "Literary author, political theorist, and poet" you mention above has been inserted into it. This makes no sense at all. It definitely needs to be moved or removed. Which?? And by whom?? -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about another section heading

The section entitled Building the new society does not seem to reflect the content of that section. Can you think of a better heading? Mattisse 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could! That was the best I could come up with. Perhaps someone else can think of a better one. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "The New Man" in reference to his essay: "Socialism and Man" where Guevara cites the need to cultivate a "new man". Redthoreau (talk TR 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary author, political theorist, and poet I think just needs to go. It is mostly detail inappropriate to this article plus long quotations, also inappropriate. Maybe there is another article it could fit in. Is Che basically known as an author and writer? Is that his primary identification these days? Mattisse 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Is that his primary identification these days? An argument could be made in that direction, and some have. I think that, after appropriate re-working to bring it up to WP:MOS standards, some of the information contained in Literary author, political theorist, and poet could, and perhaps should, be included in another article; but, in any case, that is not our issue here. I will delete that "sub-section" from Bolivia and then Redthoreau can decide whether to create a new article for that material, or how else to proceed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Building the new society -- it basically seems to describe his travelling around. What about calling it Travels? Remember, heading are supposed to be neutral and descriptive. Mattisse 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reservation I would have about Travels is that he was always travelling. In fact, those years in Cuba 1959-1965 were the most "settled" period of his adult life. Since I recently created both of those sub-sections (because it had seemed to me that the section was getting so bloated that it needed to be divided into sub-sections for readability reasons), I just opted for the radical solution and eliminated them both. They, or new sub-sections, can always be created if others feel they are necessary. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PerWP:EL all the video lists etc. have to go

Also newspaper articles etc. Do you want to make a list out of them, User:Redthoreau? Do as SandyGeorgia suggested and find a DMOZ link or so for some external links, if you feel necessary. If anyone wants all those newspaper articles, opinion pieces etc. they should either put them in an external list, or put them in a sandbox for reference. Mattisse 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to do it if no one else will deal with it. There is no question that they should not be there, even if we were not looking for FAR. Mattisse 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the archival video footage or the lists of documentaries? I was under the impression that a documentary list was allowed, is this not so? Also what would be the easiest way to make a list of News articles ? Moreover, although I don't necessarily agree with all of the edits, you both (Matisse, Polaris) are doing a nice job thus far. ;o) Redthoreau (talk TR 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Let's deal with the stuff below the cleanup tags that SandyGeorgia put on the article. I'm watching one of the videos now and it is interesting. Mattisse 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If no external links are allowed as you said Sandy stated ... then shouldn't all of them and the section itself be deleted ? If that is the case, then you should do so, and I will accept it and hopefully we can formulate a list of News articles etc. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We can always ask her. Lets deal with the stuff below her tag first. Maybe they can be put in a list also. As far as list go, there is are examples given in WP:MOS: Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges, Robert A. Heinlein bibliography from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). There is Wikipedia:Lists, which I have not examined yet, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. You would just choose a name, like Che Guevara bibliography, or Works by Che Guevara or whatever, and put the list in. Lists have requirements, like some should be alphabetized or listed in sequence by time. The name can always be changed later if you do not like the one you pick upon reflection. Mattisse 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at the DMOZ entries re Che Guevara [36] and do not see how all of the links that are being removed from here could easily be moved over there — but I may be missing something. Redthoreau, when the matter of the "link farm" was first raised on the Talk page a few days ago I copied the links sections that interested me over onto a page I created for that purpose within my User pages. I would suggest that you do the same. Then, at your leisure, you can look into the question of creating a list for them at WP:LISTS. I have decided not create such a list myself because the person who creates it is supposed to be responsible for it and I do not plan to be involved with it in the future, except to consult it. BTW, many thanks for your words of encouragement re the editorial "trimming" -- I think that I have mostly completed what I need to do in this area. I was wondering if you might be interested in preparing an alternative version of the lead section? I mean, just starting from scratch write in a sandbox a lead section for article as you would write it without taking into account what any of us has written in the past. When you have finished it, you could post a link to the sandbox where it is residing into this Talk page, so that we could all read it. I think that this could be very helpful when we turn to the task of figuring out what to do with that section. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

These are discouraged. Any that are already linked in the article need to be removed. The rest, either find a place to link them in the article or remove them. Please! Mattisse 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

External image

Polaris it would be my suggestion to delete the externally hosted image link you created. I have never been crazy about linking externally to an image and feel that aesthetically it is not very appealing. Also an external image may hurt the chances for FA as I have not seen where they are allowed in them, although I could be wrong. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They are sometimes allowed in them, for example War against Nabis. However, if other editors feel the same way you do, then I agree it should go. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Few suggestions for Matisse/Polaris

Matisse and Polaris, your trimming looks great thus far and the article is greatly improved in my opinion. A few suggestions I would recommend include: working on multiple duplicate references at the end of a sentence, removing all external links until we can form a list of them, figure out why at reference #27 they all clump together. Nice work thus far. :o) Redthoreau (talk TR 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief -- that reference disaster after #27 is incredible, unlike anything I have ever seen before. Thank you for pointing it out — I hope somebody can figure out what is going on! -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it. :o) Yeah that was crazy looking. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch!! -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That was just a missing /. Remember? That exact problem happened a few months ago and then too it was easy to fix. That kind of thing is very easy to trace down and is not a big calamity. Mattisse 16:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing /

There is a missing / in the references but for some reason, once an edit conflict, but now the page is frozen when I try to fix it. Mattisse 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stop now -- getting too frustrating! You guys can carry on. Mattisse 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation -- I'm done now so you guys can carry on now!

I think a lot has been accomplished and I am sure you can carry on in the future. Regards, Mattisse 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say ... excellent job and it is greatly appreciated. Also by watching you edit I feel I and others have gained a better understanding of the Wikipedia standards for which the article needs to aspire. I hope you come back soon and continue your efforts. I don't think the FA status will be an issue at all now, by 2 weeks end. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed external links

• I went ahead and trimmed the external links with the intention of removing non-neutral sources "What Should be Linked", editorial opinion, personal websites, and non-established media links. I feel that the remaining ones all derive from fairly credible and neutral sources and thus may be able to remain if others agree. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• The external link farm is still among the worst I've seen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed all 'News articles', let me know if you still find the minimal remaining links out of compliance. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lessened font size of Content Notes and References

I think it looks much more professional this way and takes up less space. Your opinions are welcome. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't reduce font size twice. First, it's not recommended by WP:MOS. Second, it makes the article hard to read for people who don't have perfect eyesight. Reflist already includes the small font option; by adding it again, you small twice, which I at least can't even read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy material

In looking at the original version, it is a summary style description of Che's life. Now there are huge sections on his legacy. How to handle this? Make a new article for his legacy and put most of it there? The lead and the article have to be congruent. Thoughts? Mattisse 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mattisse. I have always supported the idea, that has been put forward from time to time, that the "Legacy" section should be a separate article. Some editors (who are not at present active here) insisted on keeping it in the main article because, according to them, it "provided balance". I personally have always considered it a separate article and have never edited it except on rare occasions when it was necessary to undo serious vandalism, as you will have noticed. If it were to now be created as a separate article, in my opinion that would only be a recognition, albeit long overdue, of the existing situation. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, SandyGeorgia has suggested a revert to the original 2006 article as the only means of saving the article at all, never mind its FA status. The POV issues are massive. Even a separate legacy section will have to be more balanced, I believe. Mattisse 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with accuracy/source

Found in the "Cuba" section:

From July till August, Guevara also travelled as head of an official delegation to the United Arab Emirates ...

The problem here is that he made this trip in 1959 and at that time the United Arab Emirates did not even exist. Furthermore, I have a copy of his itinerary and, not surprisingly, the United Arab Emirates does not appear on it. This inaccuracy raises serious doubts in my mind concerning the source cited which, moreover, does not meet WP:V/WP:RS. I therefore have removed this paragraph. If others believe that further discussion of his "Bandung" trip is needed, it can be added using a source that does meet WP:V/WP:RS. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has stated on the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara that the only means of saving the article at all, regardless of its retention as a Featured Article, is to revert it to the original 2006 version. Mattisse 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not previously expressed an opinion on the matter because I was waiting to see how other editors felt about this option, I would now like to express my total agreement with SandyGeorgia's recommendation. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Who will have the honor of doing the "rollback"? -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe SandyGeorgia would do it. The sooner the better, as she has expressed that the older article needs a lot of work to bring it up to standards. We don't want to waste our energy on the hopeless cause of fixing this article. Mattisse 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad we have wasted so much T&E on it already! I'll await her decision ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think she would do it. However, this is what she just said:

Reverting that far back will necessitate other types of work, and a coordinated effort to first restore/update/fix what's there (in terms of links and templates that will go dead, etc.) before reviewing/adding/changing content. You may want to give it a few days to make sure everyone is on board and that you have solid consensus and a plan for how to proceed with the restoration that a revert will necessitate.

So the question is really for you (and some for me), are we willing to do the restore/update/fix etc. due to the revert? I am willing to try. I am no longer willing to waste time on this article, as it will soon be labelled POV and perhaps even proposed for deletion. Please read what she is writing on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. The situation is very serious. This article will not be allowed to continue as is. Mattisse 18:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time I am willing to invest in updating the FA version is subject to constraints. I have invested so much time in this article over the years, only to see it dragged down to its current degraded state. I have no reason to believe that, even if we restore and update the FA version, it will "last" more than a few days. Perhaps it is just time to say "goodbye" to this article and let others start a new one "from scratch". -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about ? I believe the article is fine now and exceeds all wikipedia standards. I feel that there is on overreaction on the suggestion of one person (Sandy) and that deep breathes need to be taken before doing something as drastic as reverting to a 2 year old article (erasing all of the contributions of editors over the past 2 years). To me a 2 year old revert is unconscionable and extremely unnecessary and would constitute vandalism, for all intents and purposes. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is the one person whose opinion really counts here and who has the power to make or break the article. She is the Wikipedia expert on article quality. That is her acknowledged role on Wikipedia. At best, it will have a POV and CLEANUP tag put on it. Neither User:Polaris999 nor I are willing to work on the current version anymore. It is hopelessly out of compliance. Mattisse 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. As a delegate of the featured article director at WP:FAC, my "job" is to gauge consensus and promote or fail FACs relative to WP:WIAFA. While that means I have a lot of experience in FAs, it doesn't make me the sole or most important voice. What matters here is that Red isn't hearing what four different, experienced editors are saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you make a list of the things you believe are out of compliance if you deem it so, in order for others to use their efforts as well ? Also everyone knows that in a trial you have more than one "expert" evaluate a situation, as the presence of 2 experts in a room, usually means 2 differing opinions. I see a great deal of “sky is falling” but not much analysis on the objects which we should look out for. Also POV is a subjective matter, and I feel that some people who resent Guevara’s legacy, resent the fact that his legacy, and at present, his iconic status, is overwhelmingly a positive one. That is not opinion, but fact, as the overwhelming amount of evidence points out. Although he is not analogous to Gandhi in the latter’s noble stance of non-violence, can you imagine criticisms of Gandhi’s wikipedia page being that it does not equally present the “darker side of the man”. Requiring that all of his failures as a person, also be catalogued to the point where basically on paper everyone appears to be half-villain/half hero. Some people are not viewed as a 50/50 split, however, despite the fact that they may be very despised by a select group of the population. Should President Thomas Jefferson’s wikipedia page lead with the sentence: “A President to some, but a slave owning rapist to others” ... etc. The article in its current state I believe includes both the positive and negative legacy of the influential figure that Guevara was, and I feel that anyone with more than a ‘cliff-notes’ polarized view of the man, would view it as such. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Red's approach here is wrong. Four editors have already stated the article is POV and needs cleanup (Mattisse, Polaris, Ling.Nut and me). I'm not going to do the revert unless there is a clear indication that there will be a coordinated effort to clean up and restore the article. I'd say wait a few days to see who else weighs in, if others will help, and if there aren't enough people to help, tag the article. If Red doesn't respect consensus, that would need to be handled separately via dispute resolution. What a sad thing to see happen to Zleitzen's good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, Remember that a featured article review takes at least a month, often two; there is no rush to decide what to do here. If Red doesn't agree w/consensus in a few days, then you all can decide which way to go. Go out and enjoy your weekend, and wait for others to weigh in :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I hope Zleitzen is not watching. He and Polaris999 are the reasons I would try to restore a revert. Mattisse 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

The article now has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Redthoreau (talk TR 04:52, 25 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)

• Withdrawing Support for revert, see note in next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 28 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)

Withdraw support: to my surprise, I have only realized in the last hour that the target versions (March 2006 and June 2006) in fact do not reflect Zleitzen's work on the article. According to article stats, Zleitzen did not begin editing the article until August 2006, so in fact, reverting to the March 2006 will undo the work Zleitzen put into the article rather than reinstate it. I'm mystified that no one here pointed this out earlier, as it must have been apparent that I was working under the mistaken assumption that the March 2006 version would get us closer to the kind of sourcing preferred by Zleitzen, when in fact, that is apparently not correct. Certainly, the article has significantly deteriorated since Zleitzen stopped editing in July 2007, but I no longer believe that March 2006 is the best target date for a revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 28 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 ? _I think you are confusing "died in the arms of" with "died at the hands of". The wording is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.51.122 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

- 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)

And the work I have done on the images is at Talk:Che Guevara/Images for CG -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:42, 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.[37] 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)

Sorry to see you let the others down. As for me, you comments about my opinions are almost always critical anyway. The others would probably prefer you stay and I go, so I am willing to do that. Mattisse 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm cleanup revisited

I went ahead and did some very standard linkfarm cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:LIST. My previous discussions on this got nowhere, so I thought it might be best to be bold. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I commend you for doing that. Mattisse 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reading section

I started looking it over, and noticed there were entries added before their publication dates. Given that the section obviously hasn't been reviewed for such promotional material, and we've no inclusion criteria to keep the list manageable, I've moved it to Talk:Che_Guevara/Further_Reading for easy review and discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking back into the edit history, I see that Further reading contained only 6 entries 30 December 2007. I think that increasing it to 66 entries in two months is highly questionable. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article created

I just created the sub-article Legacy of Che Guevara and transferred the "Legacy" section from the main Che Guevara article into it. This removed 26,671 bytes from the Che Guevara article.

Number of references in CG main article before creation of "Legacy" sub-article = 174; number of references in CG main article after creation of "Legacy" sub-article = 118. --Polaris999 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, I think that's a fine decision. But I'd like to see if we could restore about 150-200 well-balanced words as a summary on the present page. Usually that's what we do when we carve out something like this. Che is enough of an icon among supporters, friendly and hostile critics, detractors, and even many for whom he is merely an icon, that it seems to me to merit some mention in this main article on him. - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The new article needs a WP:LEAD section, and this article needs a summary. They should be very similar, and one could be used as a start for the other. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jmabel, I totally agree that a small "Legacy" section is needed in the article. I have always steered clear of contributing to the "Legacy" section , and would not feel comfortable writing the summary you suggest, so I am hoping that some other editor(s) will step forward to undertake that challenge. -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do too. It just needs "mentions" of the general effect. So much of the legacy, t-shirts, mugs, has nothing to do with Che. The subarticle is freer to analysis the commercialization etc of Che and other angles. Also (personal opinion) as the Cuba situation resolves itself, perhaps much of the symbolization will lose relevance as it is still driven by the frenetic ideological war. Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added what I think constitutes a balanced summary of this former section. Feel free to edit. I have not checked the references myself, they are drawn from the recently moved material. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are no longer going to revert?

If that is the case, then we need to focus on the article structure and therefore the lead. If we are clear about the lead, then the article will flow from it. Is it O.K. to start working on the article again? Mattisse 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ran a text analyzer on the text of the current version of the CG article and it says that it contains 45,814 bytes. So, I think that we can proceed. Will you work on the lead? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. but with feedback from you. Perhaps there does need to be a separate section/article on Che as author since (to me) publishing details do not need to be in main body of article (later collected & published by such and such publishing house after his death). (Just my opinion -- no big deal.) Also, if Sandy objected to BBC News, then surely she would object to Time Magazine as a source of the details of his death, etc. Mattisse 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a summary section on him as author would be a good idea. Probably something similar to the "Legacy" section that we are hoping someone will create in the main CG article, and then another sub-article. Perhaps Redthoreau will want to work on the sub-article since CG's role as author, etc. seems to be of particular interest to him.

re sources for details of his death, I have The Fall of Che Guevara by Ryan and can find information for you there; also, you might want to take a look at Che Guevara in Bolivia by Selvage. -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great source that I have used often. However, I do not know specifics about Guevara's writings. Quotes from that source:

Frequent comparisons are made between Guevara's theories and

those expounded by Mao Tse Tung. Certainly, common to both are the tactics of fighting the enemy and the use ot the countryside as a base

of operations.

I have a whole book on the theme that Castro succeeded precisely because his revolution moved to the cities (not because of Castro though but through Frank Pais and others).

Although Che's prestige among third world countries reached

new heights as he became one of the world's primary spokesmen for

revolutionary change, his support in Cuba steadily diminished.

But it is Cuba's revolution that succeeded.

Che's unorthodox theories for conducting revolutions, his critical stance towards the Soviet's "peaceful coexistence" efforts, and his preference for China's foreign relations policies inevitably placed him in jeopardy of falling into disfavor.

This paper has a lot on Che's theories but gives only one publication in the bibliography. Nor does it discuss his writing style and other authorship qualities. Reading Che's theories, so different from the pragmatism of Castro, shows clearly (to me) why Castro could succeed and Che could not. He was rooted in past revolutionary styles. It almost makes him sound like a James Dean-like figure, or maybe he is Jim Morrison with an assault rifle. It says that Castro did not make attempts to indoctrinate his troops, while Che was all about indoctrination.

I don't know what to put in the lead, other than he wrote a lot about revolutionary theory. I know he influenced Castro on guerrilla tactics but that was in person in Mexico or through Raul. Any ideas? Or maybe you should write that paragraph. Mattisse 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take care of it with a few words. Please tell me what you think ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on lead - opinions

I replace first para in lead to a more concise version from a previous version.

Later I found this one had been approved by talk page (December 3, 2006):

Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (June 14, 1928 – October 9, 1967), commonly known as Che Guevara or el Che, was an Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary, political figure, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas. As a young man studying medicine, Guevara traveled rough throughout Latin America, bringing him into direct contact with the impoverished conditions in which many people lived. His experiences and observations during these trips led him to the conclusion that the region's socioeconomic inequalities could only be remedied by revolution, prompting him to intensify his study of Marxism and travel to Guatemala to learn about the reforms being implemented there by President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.

It is a little more wordy, unnecessarily so from my point of view, but still very much O.K. Do others have opinions? Mattisse 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the version above is more correct and I would suggest using it. Other than that, I like your more concise treatment of the subject matter and would prefer retaining it. (In any case, the segment about guerrillas needs to be changed because he did not lead only Cuban guerrillas ...) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I like it very much now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasons. I just have a dislike of deceptive links. When the reader hovers over them or clicks them they see the real name anyway, so unless there is a really good reason, I think that wikilink names should accurately reflect there content. Mattisse 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After I added the mention about his writings, it became possible to move the wikilink, so I think all is well now (?) -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. What do you want to tackle next? The footnotes are in bad condition and we need to settle on a format and fix them. Also, should I go back and try to reincorporate section you wrote that got distorted? Mattisse 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to make certain that most changes needed in the text have been made before we address the footnote issue because otherwise we may spend time working on footnotes that subsequently are not needed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which section you are referring to in relation to possible reincorporating. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What footnote format are we using?

There seem to be a variety in the article. I wanted to put an ISBN but I couldn't tell where to put it in the format. Mattisse 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Back when I was adding source notes to this article, WP policy was that you should have a notes section and a bibliography section and ISBNs only appeared in the bibliography section. At some point, rather recently, an editor wiped out the bibliography section of this article in order to give more prominence to external links, videos, etc. I have no idea where ISBNs are supposed to be located if the bibliography section is going to be integrated into the notes section. However, I would hazard a guess that they should go at the very end of the reference. I have looked at a few articles that recently received FA status and, so far, have found that all of them have both a notes section and a bibliography section. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, separate notes and "references" (not usually "bibliography") is still quite acceptable, and works well for articles that cite a lot of books. If we are doing that {{Harvnb}} in the notes and {{citation}} in the references works nicely: footnote has author, date, and page (plus anything else you want to append), and the author + date is a link to the appropriate entry in the references. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a version of the CG article where the "References" section was still included. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC); -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought the "References" from that version into the current article -- if it is not needed, please delete it. -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby cat

I have put Che down as an Argentine rugby player. This is not a troll, since he was actually a keen player and edited a fanzine in his time. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

There are three different places in the text where Guevara is described as being given a "nickname". Is there some reason for this propensity for being given nicknames? Are all of them important enough to warrant mention? I can see how "pig" and "Che" contribute to his characterization, but is the rugby nickname also important? Is its mention to establish that as a young man he was aggressive? Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the intention was to show his enthusiasm for the game (which was great) and, as you say, to mention that he played very aggressively. I will leave it to others to give opinions as to whether its inclusion is warranted. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala section

The Guatemala section has ballooned from the August, 2006 version.[38] Some of the additions may be valuable and those should remain. However, from my point of view, the section is filled with so much detail that it is difficult to follow. I also wonder about mentioning events in that section that have not happened yet such as the Granma. To a general reader who may not know the history, will this make much sense to them? (I know this statement was in the March 10, 2006 version, but still I question it's inclusion here.)

What do the rest of you think? Mattisse 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The bit about the Granma expeditionary was added by a problematic editor who is no longer active. I would suggest that you clean this section up and then some of us can read your text and recommend additions if we think that anything essential has been removed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that the editor in question is no longer active on WP because he has been blocked — one of the reasons being his habit of inserting text and then adamantly refusing to let others modify it, as was the case with the sentences you are referencing. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I notice that the article has just picked up a huge quantity of "Quotes", including some that have errors. I believe that it is WP policy that only a few quotes, if any, should be included in the article itself and that the others belong in Wikiquote (where a CG "quotes page" already exists and many of these can be found.) Does this policy remain in effect? -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Quotations I think you are right.-- Ѕandahl 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re the "Cuba" section

A statement has recently been added to this section which I do not believe is adequately sourced, i.e.:

(Guevara) taught on the medical faculty of the National University (UNAM)

The source note given links to a dead URL. I do not remember ever having heard before that he was a member of the medical faculty of UNAM. Can anybody help with this? -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have not been able to find any source to substantiate the statement above and I will therefore remove it. Of course, if someone can find such a source, the statement can be restored. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism warning

The "Capture and execution" sub-section contains the following sentence:

The autopsy cited eight bullet wounds, but none to the face that would soon be flashed across the globe.

Since this sentence is a verbatim copy of a sentence in the Los Angeles Times article, Che Guevara's legacy looms larger than ever in Latin America(to which it is sourced), I would suggest that it either be enclosed in quotes or, preferably, removed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just paraphrase it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Executing the innocent ?

Even though this sentence has a citation from Anderson on PBS I think it should go: "Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson has contended that through his five years of research that he was unable to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent."

My reason is that I don't know what "an innocent" means in war. Anderson says: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder." Are we to believe there were trials and such? Did not he execute people for the same reasons he was executed? We do have to reduce the POV of this article. I know there are references for the "Christ-like" pose and such, but is that not POV? Interjecting religion into an article about someone who was definately not religious and who is controversial. In fact, did not the lead at one time say he was controversial? The globalsecurity.org article says in the introduction that he was controversial.

Also, they makes it clear that their view is that Che was a failure in trying to implement his theory.

This is their introduction:

Ernesto "Che" Guevara ranks as one of the most significant

revolutionaries of the 20th century. After rising to power in Fidel Castro's revolutionary government, Che Guevara attained international status as a spokesman for radical social progress. His manual, Che Guevara on Guerrilla Warfare, introduced the foco theory of revolutions and remains one of the classic dissertations on guerrilla warfare. Che's attempt, however, to personally implement his foco theory in Bolivia during 1966-1967 failed completely

and resulted in his death.

Mattisse 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re the "innocents" question: I can think of many reasons why JLA might not have been able to find "a single credible source" that have nothing at all to do with whether the individuals executed were in fact innocent or not. (Which is not to say that I think they were innocent because I have absolutely no clue as to whether some, or all, of them were innocent or were not innocent.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remove the sentence because, even though Anderson said it, I don't think it applies to the situation and is needlessly pro-Guevara. I don't think we know one way or the other. And "innocents" in a revolutionary situation depends on what side you are on. Mattisse 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be removed as far as I am concerned ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Vallegrande photograph

1. Previous

Photographs at that time gave rise to legends such as those of San Ernesto de La Higuera. Local people came to refer to Guevara as a saint, "San Ernesto de La Higuera", whom they ask for favors. Others claim his ghost walks the area.

2. Current

His body was lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter and flown to neighboring Vallegrande where a photograph was taken showing a Christ-like figure lying on a concrete slab in the laundry room of the Nuestra Señora de Malta hospital. [75][76]

3. My proposed version

His body was lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter and flown to neighboring Vallegrande where photographs were taken of a figure described by some as "Christ-like" lying on a concrete slab in the laundry room of the Nuestra Señora de Malta hospital. [75][76]

Just my opinion. What do others think? -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to clarify that I was busy writing this message and therefore hadn't viewed Mattisse's message in which she mentions the same issue (above). If I had seen her message before posting this one, I would have posted it as a reply to hers instead of starting a new section ...

-- Polaris999 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bolivia

The section on Bolivia goes into all sorts of detail, but it never says Che failed, even though it goes on to say: "Guevara's plan for fomenting revolution in Bolivia appears to have been based upon a number of misconceptions:" and then lists misconceptions. It talks about training, about him helping wounded Brazilian soldiers, goes on about photographs etc. etc. but it never says what actually happened regarding the actual events of the planned revolution. It never explains that Guevara had a plan. In fact, it infers that Castro was behind it. "At Castro's behest...." This section does not make sense to me. It relates a list of semi-unrelated incidents regarding Che and then lists Che's misconceptions. Can this be clarified? Mattisse 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to clarify it? That would be great! -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a trap! I am beginning to think that this article misses the boat. Gloralsecurity.org's introduction says that Che's achievements were his theories on revolution and his failed attempts in Bolivia. This article does not explain what his theories are. It's great that he rode around on a motorcycle and today is equal to John Lennon or Jim Morrison with an assault rifle. But he probably is not as referred as Elvis so how much does that aspect count? We know what Elvis accomplished. In my opinion, this article does not justify Che's importance. We should be concentrating on his revolutionary theories much more and on his revolutionary activities, whether or not he took time out to treat wounded Brazilian soldiers, especially as his activities related to his theories. I know that he had a dramatic effect on the Cuban revolution by introducing Castro to guerrilla warfare. In truth, I do not know what else of importance he did. The fact is that Castro endured for over half a century and Che pretty much shot himself in the foot. How is he a martyr realistically and equated with Christ? I am asking this because I really do not know. Mattisse 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my comment above re the "Christ-like" ? Anyway, I believe that most of those who use this adjectival phrase are referring to the appearance of his body in the laundry room. A few have put forward the idea that he was a "modern-day Christ" and some of them have explained that they believe this because it is their opinion that, like Christ, he gave his life for the sake of others. My personal thinking about all of this is that it only serves to obfuscate the issue. I believe that the WP article should emphasize facts, not perceptions, opinions, fantasies, etc. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My brother used to say that Guevara was a Trotskite. Do you know what he meant by that? Is that true? Mattisse 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a very interesting question. Do you think it is necessary to explore that in the article? -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Just curious. However, it might help explain what he did think. How was he different from other Marxists? What was so classic about his manual on guerrilla tactics? Mattisse 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WP:RS/WP:V sources that could be cited to prove that he was or was not a follower of Trotsky — but that, nevertheless, the possibility that he was one should not be discarded. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done for now

I now realize what everyone was saying about the hopeless of the POV problems and how it will drain anyone who tries in this situation. The whole article still does not mention even once that Che was controversial. I see Time magazine is back in the lead. I am offically giving up as I will not engage in a POV revert war. That Time magazine thinks anything should not be in the lead in a Wikipedia article about anything important. Sorry, this article will never be up to standards I can tolerate. I am bowing out. Other editors were right, I concede, when they said the job was impossible. Regards, Mattisse 08:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mattisse, for all of your hard work on CG. Despite the fact that, as you point out, the article continues to have problems that are perhaps insurmountable, it seems — to me, at least — that it has been significantly improved as a result of your efforts. I hope that at some point you may decide to return ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think any work on the article now is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic before it hits the ice berg. The article is hopeless. It needs major surgery which I can see it is not going to get. Rearranging an few words here and there will not take care of the fact that it is more a Time Magazine article on a rock star than on a major political force of the twentieth century. Even the part on Bolivia sounds like Castro was enabling it. There is nothing in the article that describes anything of importance that Che did independent of Castro, except write a Guerrilla Warfare manual, the contents of which is never described. Even his role in Bolivia is muffled. Perhaps, if I get the energy, I will start a new article that concentrates on his thinking, his contributions to guerrilla warfare and the politics of the time rather than his three nicknames and other trivia which (quite naturally) trivializes him. Yesterday was fruitless and accomplished nothing of importance. The only good is that it show the FAR people we are still trying. This article will lose its star, which you pointed out is not important, and then it can go on forever in one crippled state or another with no one keeping an eye on it. Mattisse 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I may perk up and do major surgery, which of course you can revert. One last stab. I am sure you will disagree with what I want to do. But frankly, to me, the article is not readable as is. I have been through it many times, and each time it makes less sense. Mattisse 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove content notes or whittle down article further?

Which would you prefer? My browser still can barely handle it. Also, I am willing to spin Guevara's works into a list just to get rid of it. We could take care of the details of it later. Mattisse 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest stripping out the excess images so that it no longer has the appearance that SandyGeorgia described in FAR as a "picture book" — that should do more to speed up loading than anything else. Spinning Guevara's works into a list could be done, too. Why not do both and see what the result is? -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. You do the images, as you know their history and appropriateness. I will do the list. Remember, the list name, etc. can always be changed. Mattisse 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Common consensus on FAR that article began to deteriorate drastically after January 1

Redthoreau, please keep in mind that it was during the period after January 1 (actually beginning in December 2007) that the massive ballooning of the article began and the unacceptable POV edits increased significantly. The comments made on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara are uniform in this agreement, however much those editors disagree in other respects. If you want to make changes in the article, please join the working relationship on the talk page first, before entering your own personal point of view. This article is supposed to be NPOV. Please keep this in mind. Regards, Mattisse 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section added from August 6, 2006 version

This section was added because both SandyGeorgia and Polaris999 voiced approval of this version as the best version. SandyGeorgia later changed her mind and opted for an earlier version. Polaris999, who has been currently working on the article and interacting on the talk page, continued to express preference for this version.

If there is disagreement, let us discuss it here, rather than using a series of reverts without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. Anyone editing the article is requested to discuss the editing goals and processes on this page first. If an edit is made that others disagree with, then it can be removed.

And please, no POV edits. Any editing is to have the goal of making the article more neutral, as the "hagiographic tone" of the article is it's prime problem, now that the size has been reduced somewhat. Polaris999 has stated in the past that he was against the Legacy section. We all must decide how to handle this. Mattisse 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the shortened "Legacy" section, written a few days ago by Jmabel in summary style, is ideal. It includes a link to the sub-article "Legacy of Che Guevara". -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflct x 2}

O.K. Feel free to revert it. Redthoreau also added other wording changes throughout the article. You can evaluate those also and decide to keep. Mattisse 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if a "Criticism" section is going to be included in the main CG article, there also needs to be a "Praise" section to counter-balance it. I strongly oppose inclusion of both such sections and believe that these POV's are adequately covered in the existing "Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article.

I think that it is important to bear in mind that on 06 August 2006, the "Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article did not exist. (It was created only last week.) If it had existed, I feel quite certain that the "Criticism" section would have been transferred to it, rather than included in the main article. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... if the criticism section is not removed I will be creating a praise section to counter balance it, and then we will venture down the same road that created these problems in the first place. Also the current one is too long, inaccurate, advertises products, contains 3rd person hearsay, and mentions the Movie Motorcycle Diaries more than the man in question. It is a horrible embarrassment for justifiable criticism. It's inclusion on this article and not in legacy, I would constitute as vandalism. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is this attitude of yours: if the criticism is not removed I will be creating.... that is not collaborative and not working toward a consensus. This is against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Polaris999 and you are better able to work together, as you do not treat his work with such disrespect and lack of willingness to work toward agreement. As I said, I am dropping out because of this dictatorial position of yours. You and Polaris999 appear to be in agreement. Good luck. Regards, Mattisse(Talk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorial? You have to be kidding me. So basically the only two options at my disposal are to agree with you 100 % of the time ... or be branded a “dictator.” You have edited dozens and dozens of my things that I let go and agreed with and many that I disagreed with but let stand. However for some reason it strikes me that you don't handle any disagreement very well - for you it is your way - or no way. I did not say that you couldn't include the criticism section ... I was stating that if it stayed then I would be making a "Praise" section. I also found that section of the article to be below wiki standards, and not relevant to the subject in question. The same sort of judgment call you made as you edited the article 50 + times over the last week or so. It is already clear that Sandy left apparently citing you as her reason ... and now you have stated you are leaving ... so unfortunately the common denominator that doesn't seem to be working is you, not me. I don’t believe that I am the one that doesn’t understand collaboration.Redthoreau (talkTR 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that User: Redthoreau and I were only in agreement on that one particular point, i.e. re the "Criticism" section being unnecessary since the "Legacy of Che Guevara" article now exists. I had not even seen that User: Redthoreau was editing the "Criticism" section or read his threat when I posted my replies to you above. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that User: Redthoreau is any more respectful of my work than he is of anyone else's — please note in the "History" of the CG article his recent revert of my editing of the caption of the Sartre photo to remove a reference that does not meet WP:RS/WP:V standards and the comment he left for me there — and I am glad about that because I have done nothing to "deserve" deferential treatment from him. Personally, I regret the fact that you decided to leave the CG article very much. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware Polaris that you were the one that edited the caption out. If you believed that it did not belong all you had to do was let me know and I would have agreed with your judgment. I have stated repeatedly that I will cede to your decisions in regards to the article and believe that I have always respected your decisions. Can you think of an instance when I have not? I find your opinion neutral and knowledgeable and thus I am ok with allowing you the final say in order to insulate from the accusations of Che-detractors, that I am inserting “bias” into the article. Redthoreau (talk

If you read the above comment by Redhoreau, you see the conditions I am working under if I continue. I am taking this article off my watchlist as I am not willing to work under in this situation unprotected. Mattisse(Talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough ... the "woe is me" storyline I would contend is factually incorrect and unwarranted. I hope this is not another instance of “crying wolf”, as I think you have officially quit working on this article several times now. Nevertheless, your work and contributions are appreciated and best of luck to you. :o) Hopefully you can find other articles where you can 'collaborate' - i.e. make all the decisions, free of disagreement. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will step out now and no longer edit the article

I will stop for good. I do not see the article going in a direction with which I can agree so this is a good time for me to bow out.

The list has been spun off. If you want to do more to it, do so. The two of you can carry on. The list is List of Che Guevara's works (English translations) and from my view it is part of the article and needs to be maintained by article editors. If this is not agreeable, the list can be returned to the article. Regards, Mattisse 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Be weary of Agcala's vandalism

The user Agcala attempted to dramatically vandalize the article yesterday, thus editors should be on the lookout for his future mischief. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Work on photos

I have restored the post mortem photo of Che because of its significance and believe it to be more momentous than the externally hosted pre-death photo. Also I have restored the picture of Che on a mule as a Guerrilla over the less significant photo of him on a burro as a child. I also restored the walking in Moscow picture in place of the "meeting party" photo, which was set for deletion and I would argue of much poorer quality and relevance, than the Moscow photo in reference to his trips around the world. Since it was agreed that we would limit the number of photos, I find it crucial that we use the most relevant, noteworthy, and best quality ones available. Moreover, I have ensured that all of my hosted photos possess the proper Cuba tag and citation. Your thoughts are welcome. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the school house photo was of such poor quality that I believe it presented very little visual value if any = Basically a brown bloch. Thus I will search for a better quality photo on the day of his execution. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

References ?

I don't see much value in having a reference section that just provides full book titles without page numbers. Right now there are the references in the article which cite a specific pg or web article, and the blanket references with just book names. I would contend that the reference section without specific page numbers is unnecessary and of little value. Others thoughts? Redthoreau (talk TR 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling the reference section is there because someone (or some people) who wrote large chunks of the article used those as references...wouldn't that necessitate a reference section? Listing references used is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia (or any academic writing for that matter). BuddingJournalist 05:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the reasoning behind a reference section ... but anyone who has written for academic sources will usually tell you that page numbers and specific footnotes are required as references. It does very little good to tell someone that a particular paragraph or statement was derived from “somewhere” in an entire 500 page book. Preciseness is key in research, and blanket sources are of very little relevance or assistance. For instance if I want to question the validity of a particular declaration, I should be able to go right to the particular page in question, from where the source is derived, not have to peruse through an entire book to discern where it is located. I am in favor of source notes … not blanket non-specific references … and that was the genesis of my original complaint and question. Redthoreau (talkTR 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but how does this support your argument for removing the References section? Certainly, a list of references, even without specific page notes, is better than nothing at all, no? You're arguing for more specific inline citations it seems, which is not mutually exclusive. Indeed, many fine FAs have both a generic References section and a Notes section. Think of the References section as a bibliography. In my opinion, the References section should be kept as is (although some of it needs some better formatting), and then the inline citations should just abbreviate the sources that are listed in the References section. I see no need to constantly state, for example, "Anderson, Jon Lee (1997), Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: Grove Press..." in the inline citations. The References section serves its purpose by providing the full information, and then the inline citations can just say "Anderson, p. xxx" (as it sometimes already does). BuddingJournalist 04:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article to here

I moved this from the article because it was out of sequence. Also, it seems trivial to have a whole paragraph about his personal life in the middle of the Cuban events. It makes his personal live seem more important than his political. Anyway, I put the paragraph here for someone to find a place for it.

Hilda Gadea had arrived from Guatemala and she and Guevara resumed their relationship. In the summer of 1955, she informed him that she was pregnant, and he immediately suggested that they marry. The wedding took place on August 18, 1955, and their daughter, whom they named Hilda Beatríz, was born on February 15, 1956.

Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article has little about what Guevara actually did

Very few examples. Just a lot of glowing prose. Specifically, what did he do besides ride around on a motorcycle, have affairs with women, fail at all his attempts at revolution? Surely there must be something more concrete. This whole article just rides on his icon status. Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were finished with this article per your own statement ? You "took your proverbial ball and went home" last week, after supposedly leaving the article for good a week or so before that ... etc. How serious should your suggestions or concerns be taken, when every so often you storm off and declare you’re "finished" with the article? Redthoreau (talk TR 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the specific complaint you raise ... your wording I would contend calls into question your objectivity on the issue. There are a plethora of specifics of his actions, speeches, influence, etc. Also more specifics could be added, but every time I added in depth details, you or someone else deleted it, under the basis of it being too insignificant. You can’t ‘have your cake and eat it too’. Do you want a long article with specifics (which it previously was before you began the push for trimming it) or would you like a quick summary of his actions and influence? In addition, the article dealing specifically with his involvement in the Cuban revolution could be merged with this one to allow more specifics, but then it would also increase length, and a few weeks back you expressed a “sky is falling” mentality with relation to the articles large size. I can expand any specifics you would like, if you let me know what aspect of his life you would like to see more of. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about his political actions, about why his revolutions failed, about what his revolutionary policies were, about why he really was not liked in Cuba. There is a lot about his personal life, but nothing about his complex relationship with Castro and why Castro succeeded in spades and Guevara is "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle". It's great to have icons, like Marilyn Monroe, but is that greatness? In fact, I would maintain that Monroe is a greater icon, because she appeals to a wider group of people then the Jim Morrison with an assault rifle type. Mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with the moniker David Horowitz gave him "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle"? If that is all you view Che Guevara as being, then maybe you will never be content with the article. There is a breakdown included of why his Bolivian attempt failed also tons of stuff on his political actions. Also he is revered in Cuba, it is the Cuban-American community that reviles him, but that is an issue for the article on his legacy - and mostly reverts back to his role as Supreme Prosecutor at La Cabana. Also your tangent on Marilyn Monroe is ridiculous and not deserving of a response. Would you like a specific description of each of the battles he was involved in ? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Please review the comment below from the FAR page on Che Guevara, as that editor is better at expressing what I want to say. Mattisse (Talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, "fail at all his attempts at revolution?" Sorry to interrupt, but have you ever heard of the Cuban Revolution? --Agüeybaná 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, remember we are talking about the article here, not personal opinions. Why don't you add to the article (with good reference sources) to make your point? General sentences, unreferenced are not helpful. It is not spelled out what he did in the Cuban Revolution in the article. Read the comments of the editor below this one.

*Drive-by comment about the Cuba section The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain! BuddingJournalist 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this from the FAR page. I agree with these complaints about article content. Perhaps you are not aware that this article is about to be demoted from its Featured Article status because of the mess it has become. Since you know the details missing from the article, why do you not add them and fix the article up with good references.

This is what I have gathered from the Jon Anderson book so far. Che originally educated Raul and Castro about guerrillas tactics. Che did fight ruthlessly in the Cuban Revolution, all though he missed much of the crucial action. He was the one on charge of executing people, until Castro made him stop because of the world-wide bad press.

Che inspire the revolution by his speeches and writing and to fight ruthlessly, executing a lot of people. He certainly was not responsible for it's success, even if he did play and important role early on. Che was pushing the peasant revolution while Castro and others realized that the urban guerrilla revolution was the way to go. Che was rigid ideologically, while Castro was pragmatic and this was an increasing source of friction betwwen them.

The Jon Anderson book says finally Che was given grand titles to get him out of the main stream - as the higher the title sounded, the less important the person was in the revolutionary structure. Che was stirring up unnecessary fuss with the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Castro also ordered him eventually to stop his summary executions as they were garnering bad press around the world. Anderson describes Che's increasing ideological rigidity and Castros's "realpolitik" meant that Castro needed eventually to ease Che out of the revolutionary structure and away from Cuba. The book also says that Castro sent Che traveling around the world, visiting world leaders, at least in part, to get him out of the way and eventually to get him out of Cuba. Che's subsequent attempts at revolution (Bolivia, the Congo) failed because his revolutionary ideas were flawed: Foco theory, Foco. None of the contrasting politic views and strategies between Castro and Ghe are described in the article. Nor is the complexity of their relationship described.

I would very much appreciate any references pointing to Che's revolutionary successes. The Cuban Revolution was not brought about by Che. In fact, he appears (according to Jon Anderson, Julia El Swieig, Anthony DePalma) to misunderstand the complexity of the Cuban situation by ignoring the importance of guerilla tactics in favor of a peasant revold.

Any additions or improvements you can add to the article would be welcome. However, personal opinions cannot be put in the article and do not supply reliable sources. Mattisse (Talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment pasted from FAR - this is a major problem in the article

• Drive-by comment about the Cuba section The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain! BuddingJournalist 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this from the FAR page. I agree with these complaints about article content. Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lumumba Contradiction?

Matisse I fail to see the contradiction at present. Yes Lumumba was killed in 1961, but Laurent-Désiré Kabila was leading forces still loyal to his memory. Thus when Guevara arrives in the Congo in 1965, there are still Lumumba supporters present who are aligned with Kabila.Redthoreau (talk TR 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary placement of article paragraph

As early as 1959, Guevara had helped organize revolutionary expeditions overseas, all of which were unsuccessful. The first attempt was made in Panama; another in the Dominican Republic (led by Henry Fuerte, also known as "El Argelino", and Enrique Jiménez Moya) took place on 14 June of that same year. Some sources state that Guevara persuaded Castro to back him in personally leading Cuba's first military action in Sub-Saharan Africa, while other sources maintain that Castro convinced Guevara to undertake the mission, arguing that conditions in the various Latin American countries that had been under consideration for the possible establishment of guerrilla focos theory were not yet optimal. Castro himself has said the latter is true. Guevara previously in August of 1964 laid out why he believed the Congo was a major battleground against imperialism, stating that the North American monopolies were installing themselves in a battle to "own the Congo", in order to control the copper, radioactive minerals, and strategic raw materials.

This needs to go in a section devoted to Chevara's revolutionary theory.

Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

I have temporarily restored the external links of images/archival footage until other editors can weigh in on their inclusion/exclusion. I myself believe they should be included in the main article, but am open to suggestions and reasoning. Redthoreau (talk TR 05:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Our tasks now

Name changes can be made easily at any time.Likewise, the External links issue can be addressed latter. If the FA people stop feeling the article is hopeless, they will start making specific suggesting. Remember the task as set before us now. (Read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). User:Marskell is an extremely well respected editor. This is what he suggests and therefore what we must do:

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• (1d) (POV) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.

• (1c) (referencing) Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (2) (formatting) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;

• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);

• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (4) (focus) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

I notice some POV has crept in overnight. Please go in the direction of removing POV. Also, do nothing that will make the article longer. Remove rather than add. Also, much of the article does not make sense. I am tempted to retrieve an earlier version for some sections. Mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Substantial rewording of lead for more clarity and specificity

Last night and this morning I spent a great deal of time rewording the lead as has been suggested to me before from Polaris. I painstakingly went through word by word and believe the finished product is a better place to continue editing from what was there before. I respect your opinion Matisse on the new version and am open to suggestions/criticisms. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article somewhere that covers the excuse that because other editor can edit badly, therefore I can too. There is no excuse that I can do it "just because others do it." Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Redthoreau, if you change the lead one more time within a 24 hour period, you will be guilty of a 3RR rule. Do not revert my edits without discussion. You have overlinked the lead and added POV. This is exactly what the article does not need. Please work toward following the guidelines.

Further, the lead is the least important right now as it MUST reflect proportionally the sections of the article. Since the article is a mess currently, it is difficult to write a proper lead.

Please do not add further POV to the article, as the POV is the article's main problem.

Also, I notice that you have not worked on the much more important issue of the Congo section despite my edit summaries & tags. I take this to mean that you do not know how to fix it. Therefore, I will try to work on it.

Please work on the more import issues in the article than focusing on the lead. Mattisse (Talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, it is my desire to work collaboratively and not combatively ... however a few things have me concerned and confused. When you alter my former writing it is assumed to be legitimate and beyond repute, but when I alter something you write, you aggressively view it as reverting you and an insult to you personally. Please ... I am trying to work in unison with you, but you make dozens of changes, and when I make one in conflict with yours you become upset and view me as breaking revert rules. What in my new lead is POV? I went through it very carefully and don't believe it to be represented of such. Can you discuss with me and point out what you believe is in violation and I will happily change it. Also "Over linking" ? There is now 2 links instead of 1, you consider that overlinking ? Where does it say that is such ? I don't believe a revert is necessary, as I believe the new lead to be heads above the old in quality of writing (and I have written for professional publications.) Redthoreau (talk TR 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I have looked at dozens of articles on similar figures to Che Guevara, and the current lead is very similar, and in fact has far fewer links and less POV issues. Where did the idea that 1 content note is ok in the lead and 2 is not come from ? Also none of the views in the lead are my own point of view ... and thus inclusion of the Maryland institutes view on his images is the same as Time Magazine's view of him the person. Both I believe to be legitimate representations of his influence and importance. Redthoreau (talkTR 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer you questions above, I again ask you to please read the section above on this talk page entitled Our tasks now. This is copied directly from the Wikipedia policy page. Also again I suggest that you read User:Marskell's comments on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara. Mattisse (Talk) 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, it is not my desire to have questions answered from him ... I am asking you specifically to validate your criticism. You claim that I have entered POV into the lead ... please point out where ? Without you doing so, it is impossible for me to understand where you believe POV to be present. Also how are 2 links in the lead egregious and 1 is not? Help me understand the basis for you casting this specific criticism. I believe that I am being very polite and collaborative on this and would just like you to be specific. I am flexible and willing to amend, but need you to be precise in your suggestions. As to his criticisms I am willing to work on those as well, but believed that you were and did not want to interfere and stop on your toes, as it usually results in the quarrel we are having now, which I do not want. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not have the time to hold your hand and point out every little thing. The changes you made to the lead were wrong. Study those. Read the relevant policies as I and others have recommended to you many times before. Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, come on I thought you were better that that and did not want to resort to insults. I am not asking you to "hold my hand". You said I injected POV, I asked where ? Now you claim you are too busy to tell me when asked for specifics. You are making it near impossible to work collaboratively together, as you speak in generalities, and become combative at any inclination of someone who may disagree with your assessment. It would take you 1 minute to describe why you think I have injected POV into the lead, and quite frankly if you can not, than I am left with no other choice than to assume you were speaking in hyperbole and that there isn't any present. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I read every policy pointed out to me, and find nothing that contradicts my alterations to the lead. If you believe there are some, then the burden of proof is for you to provide that information, is it not? Is it enough to just say "read wiki policy" in relation to every criticism ... and never be specific. Couldn't I counter back with the same "No you read Wiki policy" and we would get nowhere. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped editing the article for good

It is all yours. You are a grownup. You can figure these things out for yourself instead of demanding that others list mistakes and there rationale. Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your unfortunate decision and wish that you would have desired to be more collaborative. I am not sure whether to view this as a complete withdrawal - as you made the same declaration a few weeks ago - but if it is, then I wish you all the best and wish we could have worked in unison. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tag?

Matisse, I take it you are back editing again after a self imposed exile of 1 hour ? I only ask because it is confusing to watch you declare you are leaving only to have you resurface an hour later and ask for an explanation on content ... however I am happy to comply and deal with your concern specifically "as a grownup". I see that you have labeled him being internationally respected as a "dubious" statement. Would you like to explain your rationale for finding this statement "dubious". I find it to be common knowledge and if you desire I can ring off a plethora of articles, tributes, international monuments, books, etc that would make this statement accurate in scope. It is also just as accurate as declaring him “controversial” which you did. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed "Internationally" and hopefully this will take care of your concern of dubiousness. If it does not, please let me know. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a patently ridiculous statement. During his life he was not like the Pope or the President of the United States or any number of other people. He was no where near as famous and revered as Castro. Outside of the political, literary, intellectual left, (and people like my brother) he was not what would be called famous. When he died, it was not like the death of John Lennon. Even people who had heard of him knew little about him. Go up to some 21-year-olds today (say a sample of 20) and see how many can tell you much about Che's beliefs and achievements. Mattisse (Talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that the President of the U.S. at certain times can be one of the most hated people on the planet? Considering Bush's approval rating borders around 25 % in the U.S. ... what would you imagine it is throughout the Middle East, Europe, or Africa? Also are you referring to the statement still being "ridiculous" or previously being ridiculous? At present (which is how the statement now readsGuevara (whether deserved or not) is a respected figure throughout much of the world (even though yes many of them probably have very little understanding of his complexities, violent tendencies, and short falls.) Also when Guevara died there were protests throughout the entire world as reported on in Time Magazine (hardly a bastion of communist thought). Speaking of Time he was on the cover in 1960 and named to the TIME 100 (meaning that in their editorial opinion, he was one of the 100 most influential “heroes and icons” of the 20th century.) Could Fidel have bought off Time Magazine with useless peso’s and hand-rolled Cohibas? Possibly, but I doubt it. He is very well known worldwide, and you do not become the most famous photograph in the world, by no one knowing who you are (although yes some youth I am sure wear his image without knowledge of who he is.) Redthoreau (talk TR 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE REMEMBER NPOV - it does no good to rant. Mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead vs body of article

According to the article TOC the lead should contain

1. A smallish section on Guatemala
2. A huge section containing Cuba, After the revolution' and Disappearance from Cuba
3. A smallish section on Congo
4. A smaller section on Bolivia
5. A larger section on Capture and execution'
6. A very small section on Legacy

How do you want to proceed? Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

These sizes are constantly changing as we continue editing however. Thus why not wait till the rest of the article is complete and satisfactory for everyone, before we worry about proportional size of the lead? I think as of now that the lead is beyond satisfactory for the time being, until the rest of the article is edited. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed that many times. You do not seem to hear me. Leave the lead alone and work on the other problems. You are fiddling while Rome burns. Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAR

(copied from my talk page in reply to some of User:Redthoreau's postings there)

Name changes can be made easily at any time.Likewise, the External links issue can be addressed latter. If the FA people stop feeling the article is hopeless, they will start making specific suggesting. Remember the task as set before us now. (Read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). User:Marskell is an extremely well respected editor. This is what he suggests and therefore what we must do:

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• (1d) (POV) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.

• (1c) (referencing) Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (2) (formatting) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;

• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);

• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (4) (focus) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

I notice some POV has crept in overnight. Please go in the direction of removing POV. Also, do nothing that will make the article longer. Remove rather than add. Also, much of the article does not make sense. I am tempted to retrieve an earlier version for some sections. Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want an edit-war with you. Why won't you bring up your concerns in the lead to me so I can address your concerns and fix them, or give me a chance to explain my rationale for their inclusion. Actually you editing the lead would be the 3rd revert by you as well ... as it would be if I edited it, so that is an irrelevant point. Hell we have each edited wiring by each other countless times and that is not my concern. I want to be collaborative with you on this, but you are making things difficult with an overly aggressive tone and threats which are unnecessary. Wikipedia belongs to all of us, let's figure out a way to ensure everyone is able to use it how it was intended. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have brought them up repeatedly.

The lead must mirror the article closely. Nothing can be mentioned in the lead that is not gone into detail in the article. The proportion of words about a subject in the lead must reflect the proportion given than subject in the article. OVERLINKING IS DISCOURAGED.

You have been told many times to read:

• WP:LEAD
• WP:Summary style

Plus, please read what I wrote in my reply to you in the above section on this talk page.

Additionallly:

1. The whole article must be neutral - meaning avoiding words like "martyr" "Christ-like", "revered worldwide", etc. NEUTRAL.
2. The lead must be a summary of the article. The paragraphs in the lead mirroring the article material only, nothing else.
3. Over linking is discouraged. Greatly discourage.
4. The article needs to be decreased not added to
5. The article needs to explain what Che actually did, what his role in the Cuban revolution actually was
6. The footnotes are a mess and incorrectly formatted.
7. Much of the articles is not referenced.

I copied the reviewer's comments in the Reply above. Please read them. I am copying this to the article talk page. Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am taking this article off my watchlist - I am done

Please do not contact me on my talk page. I am done with this article and your tactics. Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok well for the 4th time in the past few weeks and suprisingly the 2ND time today ! I bid you farewell and thank you for your contributions on the article. Best of luck to you. Goodbye for good ... (till your next return) [over/under in Vegas is Friday by 4pm] ;o) jk - although you have to admit though that from the outside the "IM LEAVING FOR GOOD" repeatedly - does start to resemble the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". Nevertheless, thanks for your efforts. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This kind of conflict is only going to precipitate this article's de-featuring, wich is precisely the reason that I supported reverting to a past edition created by someone with a different POV than the current contributors. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Matisse

Our resident "disgruntled" editor who storms off the article for good twice a day, has now taken it upon himself to go back and try and remove his additions to the article, which affects those who have edited his contributions and tied them into the overall article in reference to their own additions. It is not surprising, when looking at his past behavior, but it will surely take time to repair all of the damage he is reeking upon the article in his current temper tantrum. Any help by responsible editors will be appreciated once he is finished. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with him, to no avail. He is bent on causing havoc and it appears there is nothing I can do to prevent his mayhem from continuing. I have pleaded with him for maturity, but it has fallen on deaf ears.Redthoreau (talkTR 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  
* * * * *