Talk:Che Guevara/All-1to5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personality cult

That quote is [i]not[/i] from the book, it is a basic summary.

In modern day Cuba, where president Castro has outlawed the use of his own image for public display, the Gutierrez portrait is the center of the nation's revolutionary personality cult.

This was removed. Why? Is it wrong? Isn't it neutral? -- Error 05:25 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- Fidel Castro's image is displayed ubiquitously in Cuba, and most of the images of him are put up by the propaganda branches of the government or the PCC [Cuban Communist Party]. During the early years of the Revolution, Fidel supposedly discouraged portraits of himself in governmental offices but this prohibition has long since been forgotten and now his portraits are in fact de rigeur in all such locations and virtually everywhere else.

Concerning the matter of the personality cult, it seemed to me that some clarification is needed to explain the existence of two distinct personality cults in Cuba, that devoted to Fidel and the one to Che's memory, or more correctly, Fidel's interpretation of Che's life and work. I don't know how much detail about this aspect needs to be included on this page?

Something like:
Che's memory, in the interpretation of the Cuban Communist Party, is the subject of a personality cult in Cuba. This is apparent in events like ... and places like...
The cult of Castro is not very relevant here.
-- Error

-- I think that approach would be a good one ... It is a troubling subject, since any kind of personality cult was anathema to Che. [Will you be adding this to that section?]

No, I don't know about the inner situation of Cuba so I couldn't fill the "..." -- Error

-- Ah, well ... I will think about trying to do it then, but am afraid I will have a perhaps insurmountable NPOV problem.

Dr.

The very 1st word says "Dr.", what was Guevara one of? --Menchi 05:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Following his graduation from the University of Buenos Aires medical school in 1953,... - Hephaestos

I believe he was a doctor of medicine, specializing in leprosy. There is a film about his early life called "The Motorcycle Diaries," it also illustrates his early life a little bit. (anon 30 April 2005)

Yes, he was a medical doctor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any records proving he graduated as a doctor?

Guevara entered medical school at the University of Buenos Aires in 1947 and passed exams and became a medical doctor in March 1953. He returned to Argentina at that time. 71.28.252.57 19:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Yes, it was his travels as a doctor helping the injured in battle that led to him becoming a revolutionary. I'm not sure if there are any records proving it, just like there are not any records proving that old english kings were kings. They've been lost through time, but we still accept them as history because no one has proof otherwise.

If you watch the movie again, you will realise that he wasnt qualified whilst on his travels.

Evita?

This article needs to be careful about the meaning of "Che." In contrast to what it says at the beginning, "che" is a generic term for someone from Argentina, like "kiwi" for a New Zealander. Also the comment at the end about "Evita" is way off. The narrator character in Evita, who assumes many different roles at different parts of the play, is named Che. However the narrator is named "che" precisely because it is a generic name, and the character is an everyman...

I agree that the character in Evita has nothing to do with Ernesto Guevara, however the consensus seems to be that he is based on the "Che" persona, using a famous man to narrate and guide the audience through the story, much like Virgil in Dante's Inferno. My father is Argentine and I've spoken Castillian my whole life. "Che" means "Hey you!". Theanthrope 17:17, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to add to this. "Che" is a common address among friends in Argentina, however, in other south american countries people from argentina are known as "che" because they say it all the time, not unlike medieval French calling the English "les goddams" after the common exclamation uttered by the English. Theanthrope 01:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Can I conlude then that the passage should be removed? It stands out as a curiosity and then turns out to be - wrong.(sorry, forgot to put name Bastel )
I don't think so: the upshot seems to be that the character is supposed to be a highly fictionalized Che Guevara. The play is famous enough that I'd say that deserves mention. "Che" is indeed a common nickname for an Argentine, but this is probably intended as at least a reference to Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I did some more research on the topic. In the original stage musical, "Che" is dressed up to be Che Guevara indeed. The "Guevara" doesn't appear in the script, though. The official line of Rice (the writer) seems to be Thanthrope's Vergil interpretation - loosely based on. In the Evita movie, the Che character played by Banderas is not Guevara, though. Director Alan Parker explained that "what works on stage, doesn't work on the screen", so "Che" is indeed the Argentine everyman. I guess that means the passage can be left as is, though "based on" instead of "depicted as" would be more accurate. bastel


Guevara's only interaction with Eva Peron was to write her a facetious letter in his youth, asking for a Camaro.

where this came from ? The camaro was released on the 60s while guevara was already a revolutionary and evita wasn t anything at all.--Zero00 14:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It came from his biography. I added that bit originally. He actually asked her for a Jeep, but somebody must have changed it to a Camaro. I have no idea why. I'll change it back Theanthrope 23:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

neutrality of article

Can someone add captions to the pictures? On my browser, my screen size conspires with the font size and word wrapping to, unfortunately, write below the big photo, "Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista."

Whoever this anonymous person who write about the La Cabana Fortress is, I want to ask you to link not to a commercial site for us to buy a book but a neutral website describing Guevara's tenure at the Fortress. It is commonly known that Cuba executed counter-revolutionary prisoners directly after the revolution, but what is not common knowledge is that Guevara was at the head of the firing squads. Your estimates of 15,000-17,000 seem exagerated, and the demeanor in which you write, both anonymously and extremely subjectively, leads me to read your edits as vandilism. Please explain yourself, and provide a non-commercial link to an article about the La Cabana Fortress. Thank you. Punkche 22:30 1-1-2004.

Link to a book ehhhh..........

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554198/104-7881084-3009501?v=glance This is the same link that is on the page. Its a book by Cuban poet Armando Valladares, and it details what he saw and went through while in La Cabana. He was jailed for what the new Cuban government deemed as counter revolutionary poetry.

http://www.canoe.ca/Travel/Caribbean/Cuba/2003/11/02/244609.html This is a travel site where they go into detail on how a tourist can tour La Cabana and see Che's office as well as the bullet holes in the walls from the firing squads.


In the article his name is "Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna" - how comes that i cannot find anything about the "Rafael" in his name. If I search for his whole name as wikipedia tells me, i can find only wikipedian articles. Has anybody a source where I can find the true name? 80.142.243.150 16:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:4kIZV2_6NSgJ:cheguevara.info/+ernesto+rafael+guevara&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
  • thank you, Theanthrope, but even in this text the only rafael mentioned ist his father, to quote: "son of Ernesto Rafael Guevara Lynch" 217.255.176.234 20:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to Cuban refugee and CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, (who himself lost many family members in the Cuban revolution) who was present at Guevara's capture, as soldiers approach Guevara, he shouted, "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."

Seriously what is this stuff worth ?

I think it add more detail to the death of Guevara. If you dont like it too bad. It still falls well within Wikipedia's posting guidelines. TDC

Ericd 21:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people, especially idealistic American youth from the 1960s, revered Che as a sort of working-class hero. (I think they were either self-deceived or short-sighted, and that Communist "freedom fighters" created worse problems than they solved, but hey I'm a brainwashed Moonie cultist so what do I know? ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, seriously what is a CIA agent testimony worth ? And what brings the fact that he lost family member's except that it's emotionnal ? And even if it's true what does it means ? What is Christ himself supposed to have said on the cross ? Ericd 21:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, "Father, forgive them; they know what what they do"? --Uncle Ed 21:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, Guevara was no Messiah it would be better to emphasize on the sillyness of his theories.
I'm unable to quote the Bible in English but in French it's "Père éloigne ce calice de moi !", it's generally interpreted as showing that Jesus had the sense of self preservation and thus was human...
Ericd 21:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am still disturbed by the edits of 66.170.162.***. Whoever this is keeps reverting changes back to a non-neutral POV, and because the person logs in anonymously, we cannot discuss it with 66.170.162.***. Who ever you are, please either register or keep your edits neutral. I am ready to report this entry as being vandalized. Punkche 16:20 6 Feb. 2004 (MST)

Felix Rodriquez was not present at Guevara's capture. No US agents or soldiers were. He never said that he was at the capture, though Guevara's quote of "I'm worth more alive to you than dead" is widely reported. We must call into question Rodriguez's honesty, for he claims he killed Guevara. It is commonly agreed that he was lying, trying to make himself look better in the eyes of opponents of the Cuban Revolution. I will make edits where appropriate. Punkche 17:20 7 Feb 2004 (MST)

As you can see from the photo, Rodriquez was present at the capture and execution of Guevara. And, he did say he was present. When Che was captured it was Rodriguez who interrogated him. After his execution he took Che's Rolex watch as a souvenir (he still wears it today). TDC
That picture is of Che and Rodriguez at the La Higuera schoolhouse. Rodriguez arrived there the day after Guevara was captured. According to Rodriguez, he heard of Guevara's capture while rigging government aircraft on October 8th, and relayed the message to the CIA and left for La Higuera. This is according to the Author of "Shadow Warrior," John Weisman's, interview with Rodriguez on June 16, 1995. Punkche
This article is turning into crap !

Ericd 21:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And why is this article turning into crap? Is it because some of us dont buy into your version of comrade Che as some kind of communist Jesus Christ superstar and have evidence to back it up? TDC
It is turning into crap because it's seems t~hat NPOV isn't in the project of some contributors.

Ericd 22:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Try all contributors. TDC
If we quit bickering and try to stop inserting POV entries into the article, this article will stay good. I think we have some issues because people for and against Che have a lot of passion about the issue, but that should not neutralize the NPOV objectives of the Wikipedia.
In my own research for the article, I've used both Che's own writings and, in regards to his death, the most neutral book I've found on Che, "The Fall of Che Guevara" by Henry Butterfield Ryan. A lot of the information posted recently has contradicted first hand accounts of Che's death and this book in particular. If we say "some people say _______ and some say ______" that will end up NPOV, as opposed to "Che was a coward and died like one," or "Che was the best revolutionary in history."
I strongly disagree with TDC about all contributers being POV. The issues that have been brought up by the nearly vandelous anonymous posts have been addressed. Che's tenure at the La Higuera Fortress and the executions there have been added, though without the extremely inflated 5,000-10,000 numbers that cannot be corraborated. Is this a worthy edit, or do you consider it POV, TDC?
punkche 19:45, 13 Feb, 2004 (MST)

Somewhere along the way, in the contentious editing of the material on Rodriguez's account of the execution, the following phrase was removed by TDC: "and that, as he was about to be shot, despite the wounds to his legs Che stood up to take the bullets." TDC, was this removed (apparently without comment) because you believe there is no evidence that Rodriguez said that (which may be true, but merits discussion here)? Or because you thought it unimportant (which seems an odd decision)? Or just were you just quietly removing material that isn't politically to your liking (which seems out of line if the material is decently sourced and germane)? -- Jmabel 21:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I want to add that I do not believe Rodriguez is a good source of information, and he is the one who relates this information. If that information is added back into the article, I think we must explain Rodriguez's motivations for claiming he killed Guevara, and how propping Guevara up as a hero played into Rodriguez's account. Punkche Punkche 08:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me, it's just odd that when the anecdote about the watch was added, this was removed. I agree that Rodriguez is, at best, a compromised witness, but there really aren't any entirely trusted and neutral witnesses to Che's last days, are there? It's probably with recounting the material, with appropriate qualifications, but I was just concerned that if we are going to quote Rodriguez it's particularly inappropriate to leave out those statements in his account that redound to Che's credit. -- Jmabel 09:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here's a link to the famous 1965 letter : http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org/Che/Chee07.html How can you infer something about "nuclear first strike". Ericd 19:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because that is his April 1st farewell letter, not his letter to Castro commenting on the Cuban missile crisis. TDC 01:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Give a source for the letter commenting on the Cuban missile crisis please. Ericd 07:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John Gerassi, The Speeches and Writings of Ernesto Che Guevara TDC 13:54, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Can we please get the sources of this obviously controversial material into the article, or else this is just going to flare up into a fight every 2 months. -- Jmabel 17:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In many countries of the world what is the normal penalty for traitors during a war ? Ericd 20:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, from my knowledge, which I would almost guarantee is greater than yours on the UMCOJ, there is a general court martial, a trial, and sentence. That sentence can range from imprisonment to death. They dont just take suspected traitors out in the street and shoot them. TDC 20:23, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

That's cool. How's your knowledge of the UCMJ?
I do not follow? TDC 02:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

And what kind of trial had Guevara ? Ericd 21:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How the fuck should I know? Guevara was a foreign fighter stirring up a hornets nest. Anyways, it is not relavent, so go find a zippo and torch your little straw man. TDC 23:23, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier remark: can we please get the sources of this obviously controversial material into the article. A large piece of this article is turning into a collection of unattributed claims. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a diatribe. And I was worried that I might have been a bit polemical in Hunger Circus? Also, the talk page is supposed to be a discussion and a forum for a difficult collaboration, not a place to insult each other. And, by the way, the word is spelled "relevant." -- Jmabel 00:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well la-tee-da college boy. I already gave the source.
John Gerassi, The Speeches and Writings of Ernesto Che Guevara TDC 00:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Can you please quote the speech ?
Ericd 03:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
TDC is it your source ?http://noleaders.net/anok/reports/chewasastalinistfuck.htm]
Source on what area? I did not use that website if that is what you are implying. TDC 04:58, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
I should conclude that you use both the same sources ? But which one.
Ericd 05:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
According to this site http://www.cubaliberal.org/english/040308-killerchic.htm Guevara is supposet to have wrote in his diary :

"I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal. He gasped for a little while and was dead. Upon proceeding to remove his belongings I couldn¹t get off the watch tied by a chain to his belt, and then he told me in a steady voice farther away than fear: "Yank it off, boy, what does it matterŠ" I did so and his possessions were now mine." It seems to be reported in the "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 652." The problem is that I can't find this in Guevara diary see http://chehasta.narod.ru/traitor.htm I'd like to know if you have a good primary source ? Ericd 05:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In La Cabana Fortress all the person sentenced to death had a lawyer an could form an appeal, thus I revert.
Ericd 17:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As laughable as the idea of a Cuban kangaroo court is, I was not refering to the "Trials" at La Caban, but rather Che's judge jury and executioner approach during the revolution. Thus I revert. Booyah. TDC 18:04, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Your text is unclear please rewrite. BTW, how many executions during the revolution reported in Guevara's diary ? Do you have other sources ?
Ericd 18:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

abominable

i think the most recent version of the che guevara page is an offence to his memory. i find it hard to believe that such disregard for neutrality has been allowed to pervade on this site for so long. the article is poorly written, inaccurate and takes infomation from sources that are clearly biased towards an american style world view, as does the author.

now im not saying che guevara was perfect but an entry of this nature does need to at least cover all aspects of his life - birth to death - this article however focuses on on the latter half of his life and furthermore distorts the relationship that che guevara had with fidel castro once the revoloution had been carried out.

in short im going to ask for the page to be deleted and started from scratch - to be written by a group of people that can come up with a less biased entry than this insult.

You're wasting your time, the article isn't going to get deleted. Discuss what you think is wrong with it here, on the talkpage. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 05:03, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Quotations

We've been accumulating an awful lot of quotes lately. Cut down to three or less, move the rest to WikiQuote & link there? -- Jmabel 18:17, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also, that section on ideology is a mess, just a bunch of muddled quotes. -- Viajero 18:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I started rewriting/reorganizing the article on my MS Word browser, hoping to integrate more of a stress on ideology with a chronologically organized biography. As of this edit, the work is incomplete. If some of the text got scattered around in the process, please go ahead and revert my changes. 172 11:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still need to work on a number of rough patches, but I'm getting too tired now. 172
Outstanding job, 172. One comment: it has been said that Che made a tactical error in Bolivia; that he would have found far more support among the highly unionized and radicalized miners in the altiplano than he found among the campesinos in the lowlands of Santa Cruz. I don't know however whether this is too speculative to be added, and if not, where it would be appropriate to mention it. -- Viajero 21:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In with some certainly good recent edits...

"...he completed his medical studies while intensifying his study of Marxism," became "he completed his medical studies as quickly as he could to enable him to continue his adventures travelling around South America." I don't know the facts here, so I'm just flagging it. -- Jmabel 02:35, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)


This is featured article candidate

This article is currently nominated for featured status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates). It wasn't a self-nomination and there were a few objections, I am taking it upon myself to try to resolve the objections so we can get this very good article featured. The most visible change is that I am going to remove the infobox. It is not standard for biographical articles, and the data it adds is (or at least should be in the lead section) anyway. If you think this is wrong, it would be helpful if you could reply at the candidates pages as well as here. (i.e. don't just kill the messenger :-)). Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Info box removed.

Another objection on that page is that there are too many quotes, and that some or all should be removed to wikiquote, and an external link added. Do you agree? If so, which, if any, are the most significant quotes that should be kept? Pcb21| Pete 18:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I nominated it, I figured I could do something vaguely useful. I have reduced the number of quotes to five, based on those that appealed to me than any kind of historical significance, and added link to a very comprehensive page at Wikiquote. Palnu 21:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Iconic Image

This image appears to be copyrighted: see Image_talk:Cheicon.jpg. I don't see any fair use argument for using it here. I suggest that we remove the image from here, and incorporate a text reference to Che Guevara (photo), where its use is justifiable under fair use. Markalexander100 09:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That picture is everywhere. Who has it copyrighted? --Tothebarricades.tk 12:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Read Che Guevara (photo). BTWI'm the one who noticed that this picture wasn't public domain. I think we are not in contradiction with Korda but Markalexander100 & 172 seems to see thing differently. However I wonder if Korda's heirs can claim copyright on Fitzpatrick's work and if Fitzpatrick can claim copyright on Andy Warhol's work ?

Ericd 16:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made some minor adjustments. The only significant change was deleting "As a consequence" from the Congo section- his success in the Cuban fighting implies that he wasn't totally incompetent, and there are other reasons for failure in the Congo mentioned in the article. Markalexander100 06:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great improvement Guys ! We have byzantine discussion about the use of the Korda's photo that isn't fully public domain, and we replace it with a famous photo taken by René Burri (I think) which isn't at all public domain. Ericd 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Korda's photo that isn't fully public domain Like my slightly pregnant girlfriend. Anyway, we now have a nice PD version. Which is the Burri pic? Markalexander100 11:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This one File:Che guevara black and white bust photograph.jpg.
My two cents that this one was on the same roll http://www.museodellafotografia.it/Mostre/mostre%20di%20attualita/attualita/Che%20Guevara%20-%20di%20Ren%E8%20Burri/Ren%E8%20Burri%20-%20Magnum%20Photos%20-%20Che%20Guevara.html
Ericd 21:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added that to the page info. I think a portrait is fair use, anyway. Markalexander100 04:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replaced image with Image:Che.png, which seems to be PD. Listed the old image for IfD -- Chris 73 Talk 15:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lynch

I notice that "Lynch" was recently edited in, then back out, of Guevara's name. I know I have seen him referred to as "Che Guevara Lynch" and Google shows 314 hits for this. Does anyone know exactly what the story is, and might it merit at least an aside or even and a.k.a. in the article? -- Jmabel 18:16, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Che's full name is Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. His father's name is Ernesto Guevara Lynch; a reference to some Irish heritage in the family. To use Lynch in this article would be incorrect. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 12:21, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Bolivia Dates

Can someone expound on the dating of events in the section on Bolivia. Not a single year is mentioned throughout that section. The last previous date is 1965, the year he went missing. And there's not even a year of death given; one has to glean that from the headers at the beginning of the article. This all leaves the reader knowing month/day dates, but left wondering which years between 1965 and 1967 all of it really took place. Thanks --patton1138 20:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He died between the 8th and the 10th of october 1967

I've added dates to The Bolivian Diary section and reworded it slightly:
"Also removed was Guevara's diary, which documented events in the guerrilla war being fought in Bolivia. The first entry is on 7th November 1966 shorty after Guevara's arrival at a farm in the Bolivian jungle and the last entry is on 7th October 1967 just before his capture. The diary tells how the guerillas are forced to begin operations due to discovery by the Bolivian Army, the eventual split of the group, and their general failure."--Garsanllean 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Motorcycle Diaries...

I just saw the film The Motorcycle Diaries yesterday, and there were some inconsistancies between the story told here and the film's version. I do not mean to suggest this article is incorrect, only that the discrepancies deserve investigation:

  • Alberto Granado Was a biochemist, and not a doctor.
  • Did Ernesto ever complete his medical degree? According to the film version, he leaves his university with a term incomplete.
  • What happened after his tour with Alberto? We know he went on to help lead a revolution, however what occured between these events?
  • The ages 23 and 29 are reversed in the movie. And the dictation of the diary is performed not by Che, but my Ernesto.

--Salimfadhley 02:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guevera completed his medical degree after his travel around South America. Ericd

A biochemist is (I think) a doctor who focuses on pharmilogicals. As for your third point, I think Che wrote a book about it, but I can't be sure. Jonked Nov. 20, 2004

dealing sanely with incendiary material

The passage beginning, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary..." needs more of a citation than "Guevara would later write...". These are incendiary words. I have no idea whether he wrote them or not, and if so I have no idea in what context, nor does "Guevara would later write..." give me any way to verify or falsify the claim. I'm not going to edit it right now, but if no one provides a citation in the next few days, I will probably feel free simply to delete it as an unverifiable claim. -- Jmabel 19:06, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just see above~discussion these kind of quotes without source aren't acceptable IMO. Ericd 19:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have found a source, but what kind of source are we looking for? My source is an article with a quote attributed to Guevara, but I will look for a prime source if you want. Realistically though, how many people would honestly be surprised if this turns out to be a verifiable quote? TDC 19:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if it's real, nor will I be surprised if it's not. A primary source would, of course, be best. Second best is something which, in turn, has a clear citation of a primary source. Otherwise, it should not be "Guevara would later write..." but "according to [whatever], "Guevara later wrote..." -- Jmabel 19:52, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's been 4 more days, and all we have is TDC's assertion that he's seen an unspecified article that attributes the quote to Guevara. I am pulling the paragraph from the article to be restored when it has a citation. -- Jmabel 20:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Guevara would later write: "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of The Wall!"


Date of birth

There are two different dates of birth given by different sources: 14 June 1928 and 14 May 1928.

—AlanBarrett 10:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The changes started again. Could this be solved once for ever with relevant reference? Quick googling shown different dates. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Seconded. Does someone know what's going on here? Probably if a false date of birth is widely circulated that deserves a note in the article. In any case, it appears that a citation is in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • The story goes that he was born a few months before the official date of June 14th, but their parents tryed to hide the fact that she was pregnant when they married. this german site gives May 14th as the real date and June 14th as the official one. I suggest we put the official date in the heading, and then a comment on the uncertanty of another real date, suggesting May 14th as the most possible or accepted.
Here's also another good, very detailed biografy in spanish. --Marianocecowski 07:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both Che guevara nació and Che Guevara born only give 14 June so I have just reverted the revert back to that, and the bit saying his true date of birth was another dqay has been removed as unsourced. i see no evidence that he was born other than on June 14, --SqueakBox 02:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of the controversy about the date of birth at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/anderson-guevara.html where the assertion is made that the actual date of birth was a month earlier. His mother apprently reported later in life that she had the date changed on the birth certificate to avoid a scandal in the Roman Catholic society where she lived. The accurate date of birth seems likely to be May 14 rather than June 14, 1928, if the report of the mother's correction is accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.17.201 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005.

Why the box?

It dosen't seem to give any information that isn't equally readily available in the opening paragraph, and merely clutters up the page, nor have I seen boxes in widespread use for people across the wikipedia. I think it should be removed, unless some use can be found for it - say putting links to the article about the "Che Photo" or some fact that is not right there next to it in the introduction. (unsigned)


Valladares

> Has anybody a source for this statement ? In my opinion this is propaganda - Valladares is not a peaceful poet but was police officer during the Baptista era and was convicted for conducting terrorist bombings.

In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners.

Turrican

I wondered where you obtained your information that Armando Valladares was a Batista era police official, so I did a bit of digging. Seems as is your source was the Granma Internationale article written on the heels of a UN resolution condemning the human rights situation in Cuba [1]. Execelent source, but a few problems, Valladares was only 19 when Batista was sent packing. Highly unlikely that he was, as the Granma article suggested, a high ranking Police official.

Nothing more pathetic that someone who cant just take his lickings and leave. No wonder you love Taliban so much. TDC 15:49, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest, though, that what Granma claims is worth reporting, even if to follow with refutation, with citations on the Granma quote and on Valladares's age.

Turrican, it's "Batista", not "Baptista" (which wouldn't be Spanish at all: "Bautista" is imaginable, but wrong, "Baptista" is just weird).

TDC, what's this crack about loving the Taliban? That's the kind of remark that gets people banned from Wikipedia, and I think appropriately so. -- Jmabel 17:38, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Loving the Taliban is reference to a longstanding dispute that Turrican and I have had over the US Invasion of Afghanistan article and this cute reference [2]. But I suppose I should keep the tit for tat to a bare minnimum.
But at any rate, I question the inclusion of the Granma article because if we allow it would we allow by extension the inclusion of any source information on any topic? Should there be a line at which we do not cross when including references? Is the information included in some reference so ridiculous, such as a 19 year old high ranking police official, so shaky that is does no deserve note?
I would like ot hear your thoughts on this. TDC 17:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ207.html

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ105.html

http://www.cubasocialista.com/orgeng4.htm#Armando

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=172

http://www.cubasolidarity.net/rights.html - The "Poet " Cops

I get a 404 when trying the Granma-Url. None of my sources wrote about him being a high police offical, just a police officer. What they all write is that he was indicted for terrorism and that he it seems that some claims about him - for example his not being able to walk seem to be quite untrue. Also, somehow his output as a poet seems to have rather stopped since he left prison. Considering this, I question the validity of his claims about Che Guevara.

Jmabel : TDC and I have agreed on a truce and will at least try to be civil to each other. Besides I do not really feel offended by it, since it is so obviously untrue.

Turrican

Where to begin. Valladares is not the only source for Che’s activates while head of La Cabana. Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, states quite clearly in the book that Guevara ordered and over saw the execution of hundreds political prisoners. Many of these were fellow revolutionaries, but did not support the new Communist government. He also details in the book Guevara’s personal hand in the interrogation of former Batista big wigs. Anderson’s book, it must be noted, is extremely sympathetic to Guevara.

There are many who survived La Cabana who also confirm this.

Dr. Emilio-Adolfo Rivero Caro, another Anti-Batista dissident, was sentenced to 30 years at La Cabana after publicaly denouncing the new Castro regime in 1961. He has stated quite clearly that he and nearly every other prisoner he had contact with were tortured and forced to sign confessions and were summarily executed. Caro also claims that Guevara was present at least one of his interrogations, where he was beaten until he passed out. Caro "confessed" to heroine smuggling, and sat in La Cabana until 1980.

As for the allegations made against Valladares, I think your sources may be a shade biased. I dug into the NYT’s archives and found an article detailing his arrival in Paris. It is a UPI release and describes and emaciated Valladares needing the help of several people to leave the plane. It also details him embracing his wife, and then being taken via wheel chair to a nearby ambulance and then to a hospital (NYT October 23, 1982 pages 1 and 2). While technically true that he walked out of the plane, he did this with the assistance of several people. As for his being a Batista police, he makes no mention of this in his autobiography and denies the terrorism charges. He also never mentioned that he was paralyzed, just crippled from his abuse. TDC 22:09, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, when you say hundreds in that book by Jon Lee Anderson, I think you mean 55. PunkChe 10/20/2004

Great theoretician

"...many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician and tactician of asymmetric warfare." This is wrong : most people think that Guevara theories about Guerilla proved their inefficiency. Ericd 08:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that "many supporters of" and "most people" are mutually exclusive. e.g. "Most people think Guevara's theories about guerilla warfare proved their inefficiency but many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician" is a plausible statement. I don't know whether it is true (this is not my field) but it is not contradictory. --Jll 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence in the article is confused - "While his critics regard him as totalitarian Communist, many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician and tactician of asymmetric warfare." is talking about two separate things - i.e. being a totalitarian communist would not presumably in itself prevent him from being a great theoretician. --Jll 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, but Guevara is not considered as a great strategist, or a great tactician or a great theorician of guerilla warfare (even by marxists). His failure in Bolivia was the result of many mistakes. Guevara his respected by many -even if they aren't "supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements"- for his sincerity. Many even think that he was both a totalitarian Communist and really sincere man. Ericd 19:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Ericd here. This is part of the same mess I refer to in the next section. -- Jmabel 22:32, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

recent changes

Could someone look through the recent changes? It seems to me like some utter crap keeps getting cut and restored (along with some worthwhile material). E.g. it is certainly not only Che's opponents who consider him a Communist; conversely, his initial problem with the U.S. was not just that it was unfriendly toward revolutionary Communist governments in Latin America, but toward anything seriously populist... -- Jmabel 22:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with "populist" because a lot of times it's a term used by people who did not want to admit that specific governments were inclined toward communism. The U.S. was primarily hostile toward countries more inclined toward the Second World than the First. For example, Omar Torrijos of Panama is said to have led a "military socialist," populist-style dictatorship in his wikipedia article and the U.S. never raised serious objections because he never moved toward the Soviet bloc. Contrast that with Cuba, which Eisenhower feared was going to welcome Soviet influence (the no-compensation nationalizations hurt dominant U.S. economic interests, but they could also be taken as a sign that Castro was Communist-inclined. And we know he resented the U.S. for its previous indifference toward Batista's actions within Cuba, so embracing the USSR could be a logical step from that. We also know that Che was always a committed Marxist, not a left-wing populist, and that he played a prime role in the new government.) There's also other examples, such as Duarte in El Salvador, who nationalized some industries but remained pro-American. Of course it was initially Carter's idea to welcome the coup in 1979, but the Reagan admin. gave him support in '84. Trey Stone 03:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record ; The US was and is not only unfriendly towards "populist" governments but to any governments which either wanted to stay neutral in the cold war or which are even slighty critical of the concept of being an imperial possession of the US and the therefrom resulting economical exploitation. Just look at Venezuela if you want to see another case of a democratic government under attack by the US. Turrican

Well, I'd say that Hugo Chavez is, precisely, populist, but in any case I don't disagree. The thing is that the article has been modified, for example, from "...Jacobo Arbenz Guzman headed a populist government..." to "...Jacobo Arbenz Guzman headed a socialist government..." and from "...the United States would always oppose governments that attempted to address the dire social inequities in Latin America and in other developing countries of the world." to "the United States would always staunchly oppose leftist or Marxist governments in Latin America and the Third World, which he believed were necessary to remedy the extreme disparities of wealth present in such countries." I don't have a problem with the "he believed" part in the latter, but my point is that this was not strictly about U.S. opposition to Marxism, but to any Latin American government that put its own people before U.S. economic interests. -- Jmabel 04:09, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not gonna dispute UFC's heavy influence in Guatemala, but important facts about Arbenz go unmentioned, such as that he won an election in which his primary opponent Francisco Araña was killed, his ties with the Guatemalan Communist Party (more than just "he legalized it,") and that he purged the Supreme Court when it wouldn't accept his land reform proposal. Now there is a perfectly legitimate case that he could do all this and be better for the country than the generals who followed him, but they should be pointed out. As for the U.S.'s "economic hegemony," again I'm not saying our foreign policy is selfless (just that it's not as selfish as a lot of lefties like to believe) but it should be presented in an NPOV way -- ie, from Che's perspective. Trey Stone 02:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this is the case the original content should be restored. Such articles as this are prime targets of the US History Rewriting & War Crimes Whitewashing Squad and therefore need to be guarded carefully.

Turrican

Troll Linking

I just reverted an attempt by anon 200.148.89.89 to add two links to "the real che guevara" type articles, badly written rants on how Che was a godless commie that have no value to wikipedia. I've seen much better pages that make a case against Che Guevara, and I myself don't agree with everything he did, but that was just a classic case of internet evangelism. Any objections? --Che y Marijuana 17:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana ?

Clearly you are a Che simpathizer - just looking at your profile - How can you criticize the two non aligned articles posted? "..how Che was a godless commie that have no value to wikipedia" The Che-lives link have any value to Wikipedia ??? Just for simpathizers and marxists like you. Wikipedia must contain divergent views of the issues, not propaganda.

The two links are * The Real Che by Anthony Daniels and * The Real Che by Humberto Fontova

since you took the time to write out a response, I will discuss this and not revert. If you want me to find you good discussions against Che, I will, but those aren't them. I don't consider myself so much of a "sympathizer", this is just an internet name I took years ago that stuck. I'm now an Anarcho-Marxist, and Che was pretty much a Stalinist, so you can see why I'm not really a "sympathizer". Let me get into those links now:

Mike Tyson used to end fights with his arms upraised in triumph. Then he got a Che Guevara tattoo. Now he ends fights on the ground, a bloodied mess, battered and bowed, pounded almost beyond recognition...Tyson was jinxed by that Che tattoo. There's no other explanation. Somebody should have enlightened mighty Mike about the real Che Guevara.

Che was hell on smiting his enemies, all right – thousands of them – but only when they were bound, gagged and blindfolded. I'm afraid the Boxing Federation doesn't allow that. In anything like a fair fight Che was consistently routed, stomped and humiliated.

Self-explanatory I think, does this seem like a useful link to you?

The second one, actually, the Anthony Daniels, I don't have a problem with. I disagree with it, but it is well thought out, and maintains a semblence of professionalism, whereas the first one is a rant.

I ask that you label that it is an alternative view, put in brackets, and if possible move it down :P That one is actually useful. Good compromise?--Che y Marijuana 23:44, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


death order

"The CIA wanted to keep him alive for interrogation, but he was executed by the Bolivian army" was recently changed by User:Db pr, who has no other contributions to Wikipedia, to say, "And he was later killed by a bolivian soldier under CIA orders." No comment was made, no citation was provided, and I believe the change is factually wrong. I am reverting, but will happily yield if there is solid citation to back it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


(Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.)


But where is the evidence to support the assertion that the CIA "wanted to keep him alive for interrogation"?--Garsanllean 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Change in photo

The new lead photo added by User:SecretAgentMan00 has no information at all about provenance. I have no idea what the rights situation on it is. I also have no idea why it is to be preferred to the photo it replaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's been replaced -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The CIA is a bunch of philistines and should not have murdered or ordered the murder of a legendry superfighter

Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.

Is the subtitle reflecting the article?

I am not sure if this characterization reflects the contents of the article: "Pot-smokin' hippie and pseudo-intellectual/guerrilla extraordinaire"

Where are the hippie references, and why "pseudo-" before the intellectual ?

- left, unsigned by User:Sgouris, who has no other edits.

Interesting that your comment shows up a full day after this brief vandalism was fixed. Having fun? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Che in Congo Changes

the version i edited said something about and "ill, humiliated" che, that doesnt align with his personality, i edited for a more NPOV approach to the real fact that it is unknown the REAL reason for Che's departure who was sad about the situation there but never mentioned being humliated or something like that, i hope peopl see my changes as something positive for the NPOV of the whole article --Gotten 21:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His recently released diaries are quite clear why he left the Congo. TDC 22:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


Still "humiliated" is not the right word, and i dont see the reason to delete "An intellectual and a thinker, Che believed in putting his theories into action." i ask you to discuss this with facts, and lets reach a concesus about how to put more neutrally Che Guevara's departure from Congo... --Gotten 23:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prison term

Why was the portion about his term at the prison removed? (unsigned, 24 Dec 2004)
* * * * *

Criticism

while the article isn't bad, i don't think there's enough about criticisms of Che, which certainly do exist (as well as criticisms of the pop culture Che-shirts worn by a lot of younger people.) this doesn't mean we have to include rants like Fontova's, but there certainly are people that believe that Che was ideologically rigid (in usual Communist fashion) and that he was willing to support great violent means for "the Revolution" (ends justify the means -- also remember the call for "many Vietnams," though I think that might already be in there.) i'm sure there are plenty of Cuban-Americans who don't think too highly of him as well. he certainly is an icon, and admired by a lot of people, but we shouldn't downplay legitimate criticism. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

  • I agree that more reasonable criticism from appropriate sources probably belongs here: Che is a controversial figure. The problem is that those who have been inclined to add criticism have mostly been inclined simply to add rants. In my experience, there's been a lot of this going around, especially with respect to right-wing criticism of figures on the left. It's not very interesting—and certainly not encyclopedic—to add that they are disliked by the Fontovas and Limbaughs of the world. -- Jmabel | Talk July 5, 2005 15:23 (UTC)
  • The "quality" of this article is in severe doubt. Writing an article about Che without discussing his mass-murder and despotism is like writing an article about Hitler without mentioning that he murdered millions of people. That such can happen suggests to me a kind of leftist lunacy.

Che = Communism = Evil = Hitler. This is a great contribution to the article :

Many right-wing criticism of Guevara by Wikipedian is worth nothing because it's only POV. As for the "quality" of this article, let's quote the article :

"Guevara took responsibility for the execution of informers, insubordinates, deserters and spies in the revolutionary army. He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32(7.65mm) caliber pistol."

"In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500). Poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."

"Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Guevara was part of a Cuban delegation to Moscow in early 1962 with Raúl Castro where he endorsed the planned placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Guevara believed that the placement of Soviet missiles would protect Cuba from any direct military action against it from the United States. Jon Lee Anderson reports that after the crisis Guevara told Sam Russell, a British correspondent for the socialist newspaper Daily Worker, that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them."

Do you have facts to add ? Ericd 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure if I understand the structure of this last post, but "POV" criticism is indeed necessary when dealing with a figure like Che, especially considering the vast majority of the pro-Che POV treats him like the Second Coming of Christ -- we need balance. like JM said, this does not mean we have to include anti-Castro rants like Fontova's. though, i suppose you might be right that we have enough stuff in already -- i need to check the article more closely. J. Parker Stone 03:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding facts to add, I suggest that the numerous documented facts of Guevara's murders, torture, and cruel behaviour should be added. See these articles:

http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12467 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1258340,00.html http://bureaucrash.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=40

I think that in an article several pages long on a man who murdered hundreds of people, his crimes against humanity deserve more mention. Quoting the idiot nutcase philosopher who called Guevara, "the most complete human being of our age", is absurd and unworthy of mention, and I don't think it's neutral. -- Dh003i
Concerning the links: Two of the articles are ideological rants - frontpagemag and bureaucrash are not very classy publications (next to the frontpage article is an add for a T-shirt: I neutered my cat, now he is a liberal ) and ideologically pretty far to the right (especially in a non-US context, and Wikipedia is international) The observer article is very classy British journalism, but deals almost exlusively with the iconofication of Che's image, I think there is quite a bit of that already in the article, but it'd definitely merit a link. The New Republic article (the tinyurl link) seems to be a decent peace of journalism, though one-sided not polemic an contains quite a bit of careful journalistic work. However, the main accusations against Che are his role in La Cabana, his personal execution of alleged informers and his sympathy for first Moscow/Stalin, later Mao. All of those are, as Ericd demonstrated, already in the article.
frontpagemag (have no clue about the other one) is certainly neoconservative, which may mean "far-right" to mainland Europe and elsewhere, but there seems to be somewhat of a double standard on this site with regards to staunch right and staunch left POV. just a general comment that if we're not gonna include ideologically-laced rants we should be consistent. anyhow, with that aside...
The only thing in the New Republic article that I think is really worth adding to the article, is Che's almost erotic fascination with violence, such as “Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty.” and more. Let me also say, if you want other people to take you seriously and argue fairly with your point, it might not be such a good idea to dimiss a nobel-prize winner (though not acceptor ;-) and widely influential philosopher as a "idiot nutcase". The quote, that should be included in the article for its famousness alone, demonstrates well the type of quasi-religious reverence that Che received and continues to receive from some of his admirers. bastel 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
i essentially agree with this post. che worshippers may like his end goals (just like certain leftists have tended to sympathize with extreme violence done in the name of social justice,) but the means he advocated -- and his political intolerance -- should be noted.
oh, and about that philosopher. i tend to think of certain intellectuals as intellectual idiots. for this guy specifically though, don't know enough about him to say that. J. Parker Stone 04:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand insistance to add facts that are already in the article. I just want to add that the execution of Eutimio Guerra was not a sign of "political intolerance", there's no doubt that the guy was a traitor. Ericd 21:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
...dude, i wasn't citing that specifically. J. Parker Stone 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

To quote the Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107100/), "Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims." If any other leader were to institute concentration camps, there would surely be comparisons to Hitler and Stalin. Why is there little to no mention of Che's atrocities. It seems that his cult status grants him immunity from these troubling facts.JianLi 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The quoted Slate article is extremely right-wing POV orientated and uses distorted historical facts to support the authors views. Unless someone can find documented evidence to the contrary, I believe it would be incorrect to describe his implemented Labor camps as "concerntration camps" seeing as most reliable evidence shows them to have been far more like a standard prison system rather than anything like the Nazi or even Soviet style systems of extermination you refer to.
Even if the article is biased, there is no doubt that Che presided over the firing squads, in which political dissidents were summarily executed, and for which "standard prison system" is a gross misrepresentation. Here is a quote from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/970518.18canbyt.html): "Later, after Batista was vanquished, Che was put in charge of the revolutionary firing squads."JianLi 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

where are facts supporting the claim to che's execution of 156 people and the claim that some were killed just due to ideological differences? i mean is citing a book someone wrote claiming something, a fact? [user: suki]

Leung Kwok-Hung

User:Centralman seems determined to add to the article this factoid that "The current Hong Kong Legislative Council member, Leung Kwok-Hung is an avid fan of Che Guevara." I have reverted him once, and would welcome a revert by someone else. I cannot readily imagine why that is encyclopedic, and even if true and for some reason notable (for example, if he is attempting to promote policies in Hong Kong modeled insome way on Latin American Marxist revolutionary traditions), it would seem to me to belong in an article on Leung Kwok-Hung, not one on Che Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Type of weapon

Under the Cuba section this text can be found: "He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32 caliber (7.65 mm, likely a Soviet-made Makarov) pistol."

Either it was a .32/7.65mm pistol or a Makarov. The Makarov uses the 9x18mm Makarov cartridge. Since I really can't say which is right, or what the weapon in question really was, I didn't want to edit the entry. (I've also just registered, although I have been using Wikipedia for a while. Besides, this is really nitpicking...)

Offhand, I'd guess the Makarov wasn't all too available at the time. Perhaps this was a Soviet Tokarev TT pistol (this used the same 7.62mm ammunition as the PPSh)? --Karl Gunnarsson 01:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid ! .32/7,65mm is a very common caliber and I believe that at that time Castro had no direct support from the USSR. Ericd 11:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While the caliber may be similar the ballistics of the rounds are far different and the Russian variant far more powerful. Given the weapons use in the Sierra Maestra the US .32 caliber is the most probable round, and weapon, used. BTW Eutimio Guerra is reported to have been a well known and popular "agrarian reformer" way before Castro reached those mountains, and as to Guerra being an informant we only have Castro's and the Che's words for it. El Jigüe 11/30/05

Some have speculated...

Cut from article:

Some have speculated however, that the hero worship of Che is precisely something he wouldn't have wanted - the T-shirts bearing his image have become fashion statements and are sometimes very expensive. The ideals that Che had fought are oftentimes opposite of today's crass consumerism indulged by young people.

True enough that some have speculated this, but POV speculation has no place in the article. If you can cite someone reasonably authoritative on what Che would and wouldn't have wanted, fine, but blind speculation? No. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


Recently added links, etc.

took out the nazis quote (to make the point that whatever link was nazi). The dispute is resolved, we can delete this shit. Hope nobody revert this edit!

Birthplace

I see this was recently anonymously changed from Rosario (I know where that is, it's a city, it's where I thought he was from) to Lancia. No citation (or even edit summary) was given. Does anyone have a citation either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rosario is correct according to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 and several other books I have.--Garsanllean 17:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Granma survivors

A recent anon edit changed the number of Granma survivors from 12 to 16 without citation. Since the old number wasn't cited either, I have no idea which was correct, but I presume someone has a citation on this; could you please present it? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Granma arrived on 25th November 1956. According to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 by the end of December "only 15 of the original 82 guerillas remained, the others being either dead, missing, or taken prisoner".--Garsanllean 17:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

ComradeChe.com

Well, i've just been banned at ernesto-guevara.com for the comments I posted above about the site, I'd just like to make clear that comradeche.com is just a redirect to the same site.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

INSERT Dunno whether the Che smoked dope. However, it was readily available from Crescencio Perez who grew the stuff for sale, and Castro said known to tolerate it because he needed Crescencio's help. In addition, the hills were full of the stuff, coffee plantation owners tried to get rid of it because of the effect on the workers. The Casquitos were said to smoke it to banish fear and fatigue as they climbed the hills, but I do not know for certain for I tried not to get so close that I could smell their breath. xe xe. El Jigüe 12/4/05

Yes, you were indeed banned but not simply for the comments you posted above about the site but the fact that you're trying to stump the growth of ComradeChe.com by

1) Removing links to ComradeChe site from Wikipedia articles. 2) Making unfounded slanders such as the site is ran by "Fascists". I run the site and I'm a pupil of Marx, Engels and Lenin, however, you continue to lie. What will this achieve?

P.S. Where did I ever express "Fascist" views? --Tarasi 12:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You have allowed your moderating team to be dominated by homophobic, sexist, racist supporters of Neo-Fascists such as the National Bolshevik party, and holocaust-deniers. I am also the second member to be banned specifically for discussing this at other sites and warning others about it. In other words, you are actively supporting this trend, going out of your way to ensure these people continue to dominate the discussion. I once considered you blissfully ignorant, but you are the only who can be held accountable for this sorry state of affairs, as you are the one who pays out of your own pocket for this site. Deal with this and fix the site, in the meantime it remains inappropriate for a small site of Neo-Fascists to be on the Che Guevara page.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that I never claimed the entire moderating team were fascists, I said it was dominated by fascists. Here's partial list of those on the moderating team who I would consider, Neo-Fascists, open supporters of Neo-Fascists, or indirect appologists for Neo-Fascists.
Admins
  • Sensitive, a third positionist who supports the NBP. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
  • Tarasai, who never posts except when there is trouble, and seems to operate on a definition of trouble that is limited to people opposing racism, sexism, homophobia. Hence, indirect appologist.
Moderators
  • thursday night, a third positionist who supports the NBP. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
  • Red Skyscraper, supports the NBP, holocaust denial, the "rehabilitation" of gays and jews. Also considers "internationalism" to be an enemy. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
  • Berserk, who is a third positionist who has gone out of his way to bring NBP members to the site and considers Jews and "internationalism" to be the main enemy. Neo-Fascist
  • Rice349, who began by taking a position like yours, ignoring the problem mainly, and soon became out and out an advocate of the same crap as the rest, all wrapped in a façade of scientific approach. Opposes homosexual liberation, women's liberation and anti-racism/anti-fascism to be diversions and unimportant, and advocates abandoning them. Indirect appologist for Neo-Fascism
  • Iron Feliks, considers Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists to be a model to be studied, Fascism to be more progressive than Capitalism, the NBP to be an ally against "capitalists and trots", Jews to be a threat and a ruling class of their own, gays to be an example of "bourgeois decadance", women who stand up for themselves and demand fair treatment to be immoral, etc... Open supporter of Neo-Fascism who borders on just being a plain Neo-Fascist
so there you go-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I will consider the points you raised. However, in the mean time, please cease your attempts to stump the growth of my site. The fact remains is, I don't nearly have enough time to maintain the forums in a manner I'd like to, most of the admins and moderators were democratically elected by the forum populace. I'm honestly too busy with real political work to get involved in petty internet squabbles and I cannot spend 12 hours a day online in an attempt to stop you from editing links from these pages. Do you see me editing out links to Che-Lives on the grounds that it is infested with drug users and anarchists? So what is your problem? Is your life honestly confined to fighting what you see as Fascism on the internet?

I tolerated you for months and months and listening to your critisms, yet you continue to slander both me and my site in public, you've never once raised these issues with me in private.

I demodded Iron Feliks last week and gave him a warning to cease his impersenation of Jews, I also debated him on Oswald Mosley to which he stopped replying. Honestly, what do you want? You've never taken action against members of your site who have spammed my site in the past, 100% of your posts tend to be centered on "banning the Fascists", why do you expect me to ban almost all of the orginal founders and most active contributors?

Stop removing the links from Wikipedia, what are you attempting to achieve by doing this? --Tarasi 21:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion is only marginally relevant to Wikipedia, except insofar as it bears on whether or not we should link to the site in question. We want to link from Wikipedia to sites that are of a quality comparable to our own; Wikipedia is not a link farm. Tarasi, the promotion of your site is not one of Wikipedia's goals, and given that you say in almost so many words that the reason you want a link here is to promote your site, that is an argument against linking to it. If Che y Marijuana is correct that your site includes an lot of uninformed neo-fascist contributors, and that it is relatively short on solid content, that is highly relevant to Wikipedia, and if it's inconvenient for you, that's not really Wikipedia's affair. Also, frankly, the efforts a few months back to "kidnap" an existing link and redirect it to your site tend to bias me strongly against the site, and I doubt that I'm alone in that. The adoption of new names and then sneaking it back in without discussion doesn't exactly make a positive impression, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel covers it pretty well. As for discussing this with you, I have, and you never seemed very interested in doing anything about it. If you'd like to discuss this further, wikipedia is not the best place. You know where I am, just drop me a line. In the meantime, I will abstain from reverting you for the time being. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

umm... I said I would stop reverting while discussion was happening... are you going to discuss this or did you just say that so that we would stop removing the as-of-now inappropriate link?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I said I would wait. It's been 13 days now, and no discussion has occurred, so my original objection to this link remains and I'm removing it again.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 11:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes toward imperialism

Cut from article:

for his outspoken opposition to all forms of imperialism and neocolonialism and ...

Communists generally have opposed only "Western" imperialism or colonialism, while overlooking or even endorsing Soviet imperialism and colonialism (and/or that of other Communist forces). The gist is that Marxism-Leninism is not opposed to these things per se, but only insomuch as they represent obstacles to a Communist victory. Recall that Communist morality is not absolute, but measures all things good and bad in terms of how well it "advances communism".

Communists like to say they are against various Western abuses, but they say this chiefly to condemn the West - rather than out of a belief that these things are bad in and of themselves.

I'm guessing that Che only opposed Western imperialism, but if there's any record that he opposed Soviet or Cuban imperialism as well (as in Angola) that would make for a very interesting article! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Cuban imperialism in angola... right... Che did indeed oppose soviet imperialism, hence the breakdown of his relationship with moscow near the end.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Cuban intervention in Angola, certainly. They had several thousand troops there (tens of thousands?), essentially serving as a Soviet proxy. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
Guevara seemed all too willing to prostitue Cuba out to the Soviets, ala nuclear weapons, when it was convient for him to do so. TDC 20:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Castro made the choice to align Cuba with USSR not Guevara. While Guevara was a convicted marxist and an idealist it's not certain than Castro was once really believed in marxism. Castro was a pragmatic, the Cuban crisis killed the dream of real idependance for Cuba and Castro choosed USSR against the USA. Guevara never fully understood it and criticized USSR in several occasions. At the end of his life Guevara was ideologically something else than a marxist-leninist as he intended to pursue the Revolution at World scale (a Trotskyist idea) that's why it was better for Castro and the USSR to send Guevara elsewhere. Ericd 21:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Che" or "Ché"?

I'm amazed to find not one word about whether the spelling is "Che" or "Ché". I've seen the latter in a number of publications, most recently in Famous Last Words (C. B. Ruffin). Yet there is no clarification which it truly is, nor is was there even a redirect from Ché Guevara for those who might think to spell it this way. In my own ignorance, I can't tell if this is a case of English authors ignoring inconvenient accents or the equally peculiar habit of adding accents where they may not be needed. Can someone authoritatively state (preferably with cited references) which is correct? Not only is it a question of how to spell the appropriate Spanish (or Argentinian slang) for "buddy", but it's perhaps more important how Guevara himself (or his buddies) spelled it, as people's names don't necessarily follow their origins. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the spelling might belong in the article Che, but probably not here. I'll add the redirect, though (not that very many English-speakers throw accents into searches). -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Adding accents to monosyllabic Spanish words is pretty unusual. It is usually done only to distinguish two otherwise identically spelled words: for example, "¿Qué dices?" vs. "Lo que me importa…" or "…lo más importante" vs. the (now largely archaic) "mas" as a synonym for "pero". I wouldn't be surprised to see an accent on "¡Ché!" used to get someone's attention, but wouldn't expect to see it on "Che" used as a name. But I'm not a native speaker, and while I'm pretty knowledgable on Argentine Spanish, I'm no expert. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
The accent he is refering to is called "diacritic" (acento diacrítico); I've never read an accentuated "che". It is a mistake to accentuate that word since there are no other homophones; even in Che Guevara it wouldn't, since the Che is derived from the original. Plober 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmabel. I feel more comfortable leaving it "Che" instead of starting a possibly misguided crusade to add the accent. I can see that this may be a case of little documentation about something that native speakers take for granted, and non-Spanish-speakers are in ignorance about. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Che, definitely without accent. --Marianocecowski 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I've got a book by el Che (pasajes de la guerra revolucionaria), printed in Cuba, and that uses the spelling without an accent. DirkvdM 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
And correctly so. Here is a bit of background: Historically, monosyllabic Spanish nouns ending in "e" had been accented. Therefore, if you look at one of the peso bills that Che signed while he was President of the National Bank of Cuba, you will see that he accented the "e" in "Che". Circa 1962, the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA in Madrid, which sets orthographical and grammatical standards for the Spanish language, issued a ruling to the effect that it made no sense to have an accent on monosyllabic words, except to differentiate between homonyms (such as "te" and "té"), and that therefore, from that time forward, the accent should not be used on the "e" of non-homonymous words. Che immediately adopted the new spelling and his signatures after that date do not have an accent on the "e". Moreover, while he was being held captive in the school room in La Higuera, Bolivia [8-9 October 1967], he noticed that on the blackboard the teacher had written the word "fé" [faith] with the archaic accent on the "e"; when she [Julia Cortes] came into the school room later and they had a conversation, he explained to her about the ruling by the RAE and suggested that she erase the accent from the word so that it would be correctly written (i.e., "fe"), which she did. Polaris999 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I am inserting here a scan of his signature to remove all doubts about this matter ... Polaris999 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
His signature
His signature

Certain links

While it makes perfect sense to include links that are intellectually critical of Guevara, the articles by one Humberto Fontova that are currently in the Links section of this page are anything but that. I especially point to the following links:

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y04/feb04/24e6.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova44.html

http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html

These are not impartial criticism of Guevara making a well-thought out analysis on him, but rather hissy fits regarding Che Guevara. I consider these links inappropriate to have on a site that is supposed to be informational for the following reasons:

  • The first article accuses Cuba, and Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in particular, of crimes worse than Nazi Germany.
  • It also makes unfounded accusations of psychological torture on prisoners by the hands of Guevara.
  • It also refers to Guevara as a coward.
  • It makes a silly criticism about Che's opinions and writings supposedly being "boring".
  • Finally, Che is being called "monumentally vain and epically stupid. He was shallow, boorish, cruel and cowardly. He was full of himself, a consummate fraud and an intellectual vacuum. He was intoxicated with a few vapid slogans, spoke in clichés and was a glutton for publicity." Surely these petty insults do not have to be linked to by a page like Wikipedia?
  • The second article is a hissy fit about some celebrity wearing a shirt in the image of Guevara at the Oscars. It only serves to make fun of this celebrity and complain more about Guevara.
  • It also features a horror story by one Pierre San Martin, in which Guevara supposedly blew the head off a 12-year-old and fired away on protesting prisoners in San Martin's cell. As a Google search for "Pierre San Martin" reveals nothing but Fontova's same petty rant or a translation of it in other languages, it is quite likely that this man has never existed.
  • It once again features the same accusation of cowardice that has been seen before.
  • To top it all off, Mr Fontova has this to say about Guevara in closing: "This swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer, was the toast of the Oscars."
  • The page also features a link to an index of more works by Fontova, with about the same intellectual value as the ones we're discussing here.
  • The third link has about the same features as the other two. Whining about a celebrity carrying the image of Che? Check. Accusation of cowardice? Check. Accusation of cruelty to POWs? Check. Accusations of military incompetence? Check. Accusation of mass murder? Check. Another accusation of cowardice? Check.

While they are a great comic relief compared to all the serious articles on Che, their hilarity does not justify them being linked to by an informative site like Wikipedia. I'm removing them, if anybody seriously wants them back, we can always discuss it here, the links are posted above for review.

--Eyeflash 17:45, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

A little one sided don't you think. The Che was known to separated himself from his group during action and he is known to have failed to support Rene Ramos Latour (Daniel) during the "Ofensiva." As a result Ramos Latour was killed. One of the problems with self descriptions of Castro's and Che war actions is that in order to enhance their "deeds" they needed to diminish or take credit for the actions of others. El Jigüey, 11-30-05

Grave Visitors

While it's not exactly the most relevant piece of info in the article, I added the United States to the list of countries of origin of tourists to Che's grave...while I would bet hundreds have been there, a close friend of mine has been there at the very least :) I couldn't decide where to add the United States to the list. I didn't want to put it first or last for emphasis since that seems US-centric, but at the same time I don't think it shouldn't be lost in the middle since it involves breaking the law for an American citizen (AFAIK it's not illegal for the citizens of any of the other countries listed), which I think makes it more interesting that people make an effort to do it.

So (sheesh this is long) I did the logical thing and put them all in alphabetic order...hope that's cool with everyone. --Lance 1 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Yes, that is good. And for the record, Americans can visit Cuba legally if they have a travel license issued by the Treasury Department. Not easy to get, but there are ways. . .

Fidel & Che

Do we really need three separate (recently added) passages to the effect that Fidel Castro may have distrusted and exploited Che? Seems to me like this can far better go one place in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions questioned

"Che-mart" is a moderately amusing humor site, but I don't think it merits a link.

The recently added sentence that begins, "The most widely agreed upon account is that Guevara received multiple shots to the legs...": On what basis is this described as "most widely agreed upon"? Indeed, is there any citation at all? It seems to me that all we have are the conflicting accounts of the few people present, and that anything else is speculation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

is this true?

"When the police killed him for leading a failed peasant revolt, Ché was wearing a gold watch."

It is said in the article that it was a Rolex. -- Chris

Actually, it is probable that when he was killed, Che was wearing two Rolexes. And this is why: Fidel Castro has stated that, before Che and his fellow guerrillas departed from Cuba for Bolivia, he gave a gold Rolex watch to each of them. This was in keeping with a tradition he had established in the Sierra Maestra when he gave a Rolex to each of his associates who was promoted to Comandante, along with the small gold star which was the insignia of that rank. The main reason for giving the Rolexes was that it is necessary for a field commander to have a precision time piece because synchronicity is essential for military operations. Rolex was an obvious choice given its reputation for accuracy and reliability. So, one of the Rolexes that Che was wearing when he was captured in Bolivia was no doubt the one given to him by Fidel just prior to his departure from Cuba in October 1966.
The second Rolex he was wearing must have been the one that had belonged to his close friend, Tuma, who had fallen in combat and died in his arms on June 26, 1967. After he expired, Che took his Rolex and slipped it onto his own wrist with the intention of one day giving it to Tuma's newborn son in Cuba whom he had never seen.
Perhaps you are wondering what had become of the Rolex that Fidel had given Che when he was promoted to Comandante in the Sierra Maestra on July 22, 1958? That watch was one of his most prized possessions -- in fact, probably his only prized possession, given his general disdain for all things material (except books). His father, mother, sister Celia and brother Juan Martín came to visit him in Cuba shortly after the triumph of the revolution in January, 1959. This was the first time they had all seen each other in six years, and would be the last time Che would ever see his father. As they were saying goodbye in the Havana airport, Che's father took off his watch -- which was an antique pendant watch that originally had belonged to his late mother, Che's beloved grandmother Ana Lynch y Ortíz, that he had had converted into a man's wristwatch by a Buenos Aires jeweler -- and handed it to his son. Very moved, Che slipped off his own watch and pressed it into his father's hand, explaining that it had been given to him by Fidel at the time he was promoted to Comandante. His father treasured that watch always and wore it every day for the rest of his life. (He died in 1987.) Hope this helps to answer your question ... Polaris999 03:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry information

The Basque People's page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people) states Guevara was of Basque ancestry: "Several of Argentina's Presidents have been of Basque descent, including Irigoyen, Aramburu and Urquiza, not to mention other figures, notably Che Guevara."

Should this be included in the oppening bio? Currently, it only states that he was of Spanish and Irish decent.

  • Does anyone have any documentation of Basque descent? In my experience, the pages devoted to ethnic groups have a tendency to be written mostly by people of the ethnic group in question, and they often make claims that are, to put it nicely, a bit of a stretch. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are apparently many people of Basque ancestry in Argentina, so the claim is possible, but that isn't proof.

I found the following information in Flame magazine. (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/che_guevara_irish_roots.htm) Is this worth including?

"As for the surname Guevara, it is believed to be of Basque origin, and is derived from the place name Guevara which is located in the Basque province of Alava. According to etymologists, the place name Guevara is derived from the Basque word "ebar" which means "fern or bracken". The earliest record of the surname is that of a donation made to the Order of Calatrava by Vela Ladron de Guevara in 1288. He was a descendant of Count Ladron Velez de Guevara, Senor of the House of Guevara, who described himself as a "Prince of the people of Navarre". (anon 10 Aug 2005)

Certainly seems plausible, I wish they had given their source more clearly than "believed to be". Does anyone know this magazine well enough to know if it is a generally reliable source in matters of fact? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of that. Argentinian, especially after the recent crisis, claim they come from boats. If the editor hasn't got a single proof, i think it should be deleted. Not a big case, except maybe for Basque revolutionaries?!

Last words

What about "I am Che Guevara and I have failed."? Even if it's not true (I wouldn't know about that), this quote is so famous that it should at least be mentioned somewhere. Shinobu 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you have a citation for this claim? With a decent citation, it belongs in the article. Without one, it doesn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The quote is famous from a Times lead.

There are serious doubts about whether he actually said this when he died though:

At one point early in the confusions General Ovando, Chief of Bolivian Armed Forces, declared that he had died in battle, and that just before he dying he had declared: "I am Che Guevara and I have failed.";these are sometimes accepted as his last words, though subsequent reports have generally discredited that initial account.
(from Wikiquote)

Someone who reads this article is likely to know said Times lead. Not finding any info on it, but merely stating other (probably more probable) last words, may leave a reader with some questions.

As for a citation of this quote(?)'s famousness, it's been in the Times, one of the most well-known articles from one of the most well-known newspapers. It's still quoted in style guides. Shinobu 06:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the quote. Times of London, New York Times...? Date? Actual citation?-- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Times, I think. Probably an issue not too long after his death. I have found the quote on the web (and also translated in various other languages), but the actual article predates 1985 and as such is not available on line. The lead went something like this:

"I am Che Guevara and I have failed" were the last words the Cuban guerilla leader uttered to Bolivian soldiers before he died of his injuries early yesterday morning. ...

This is not the actual article text, but maybe it's a help in locating it. Shinobu 06:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mario Terán asked to be allowed to kill Che. "When I got there Che was sitting on a bench. When he saw me, he said "You have come to kill me" I didnt dare to shoot, and then the man said " Calm down, you are going to kill a man" Then I gave a step back, towards the door, I closed my eyes, and I fired the first burst. Che fell down with his legs torn, he twisted and started spilling a lot of blood. I recovered my temper and fired the second burst, wich hit him in the arm, a shoulder, and the hearth"" Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como El Che. First Ed. page 819. He is also quoted as having said "¡Tirá cobarde, que vas a matar a un hombre!" ("Shoot coward, For you are going to kill a man!" --David Chapa 07:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Trust a journalist to guess Che's last words!

neutrality disputed

"all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

checking the history of the article and this talk page, the underlying goal is clear: prevent all blunt criticism of the subject. any attempt to add external criticism is nitpicked out the door as "POV", and brief, comparatively benign statements in the article are cited here as though they represent real criticism. they do not.

it is artifice to manufacture, when convenient, a requirement that cited external views be NPOV. the praise certainly isn't. wikipedia must be NPOV, but external, sourced statements in an article needn't. this article is muted yet ill-disguised fan blush, and it violates wikipedia policy on neutrality. there are many clear POV aspects in the article even before discussing exclusions. i would edit them, but the history suggests it would be futile without laying the groundwork here first. perhaps the best summary example, from the end of the article:

"Some believe that Guevara, called 'the most complete human being of our age' by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, will one day be considered as important an activist and thinker as Simón Bolívar, leader of the South American independence movement and hero to subsequent generations of nationalists throughout Latin America. Others believe that he was a hero of the Cuban revolution who was skillfully manipulated by Fidel Castro in order to inspire the masses, all the while being moved into positions where he would represent little or no danger to Fidel himself."

that is a clam bake. nowhere exists anything resembling the significant-minority view of those who assert, pointing to documentation at least as worthy as what underlies the gushing of the article, that guevara was a murderer. the worst in the summation is that he was still a hero, though one who was manipulated and not given his proper place in castro's empire. humberto fontova's view, for example, is not to be included, even in links? on what grounds — that he lived in cuba, has interviewed subjects who claim that guevara was nefarious, and wrote Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant? because he says This swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer...?

stated on this page: The problem is that those who have been inclined to add criticism have mostly been inclined simply to add rants. In my experience, there's been a lot of this going around, especially with respect to right-wing criticism of figures on the left. It's not very interesting—and certainly not encyclopedic—to add that they are disliked by the Fontovas and Limbaughs of the world.

anybody harshly critical of guevara is pre-defined as an irrational, extremist lout, and therefore ineligible for inclusion. why does that sound familiar?

"Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Things not to avoid

humberto fontova: Che's slaughter of (bound and gagged) Cubans (Che was himself an Argentine) exceeded Heinrich Himmler's prewar slaughter of Germans—to scale, that is. So what happens today? Well, you see Che's face on t-shirts worn by people who oppose capital punishment!

his is a significant-minority view — absolutely POV, and absolutely relevant. the view above, or something similar, belongs in the hero-worshipping t-shirt snarf at the article finish, and the facts underlying it (at least) belong in the article in a manner other than brief dodges inserted for cover purposes (weasel-worded and filtered to basically conclude: "che killed only bad guys, though he did imprison this one good guy. forsooth"). someone will effectively deny these critical views are significant because they are "not interesting"? i believe they are far more interesting than monocular admiration passing itself off as NPOV, but neither opinion is relevant. the absence of any of the manifold strong criticisms makes the article POV, under the hidden premise that speaking well of a subject is necessarily NPOV.

wikipedia is not meant to ignore POV criticism, but rather to report it dispassionately and proportionately. quite passionate in the article and discussion is the stalwart blocking of unpopular views (POV enforcement). criticism of the man who really did what the article mostly dances around (e.g., systematic killing/brutality is referred to repeatedly as "the revolution", implying it was the good kind of killing/brutality, only against "bad guys") must be present to comply with wikipedia's neutrality policy. where is the countering view? not here. the "criticism" links at the bottom (not found as text in the article) are sparse, and often mild — not representative of significant-minority criticism. the "Writings about Che Guevara" section ranges from benign to fawning. real criticism (i.e., not softball) is limited to a few links amid overt paeans in a section titled "Criticism, praise, etc." — after we've read in the article what a hero he was, with sparse, mild descriptions of what he was really up to pointed to as criticism.

let guevara stand in front of the world audience, not just the ticket-buying fans. but first accept two truths, if they apply: 1) you favor the subject. 2) you protect him from criticism. the first is acceptable at wikipedia; the second not.

i encourage others to read every word of the article, as i have, and isolate all of the praise, weasel words, and criticism. read the "Hero cult" close of the article, then see if you can find balance to that elsewhere. look outside wikipedia and see what is said about guevara, even in circles you might not frequent or prefer. that whole body of opinion is not represented well here.

"Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

SaltyPig 11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would agree that "Some believe that Guevara … will one day be considered as important an activist and thinker as Simón Bolívar" is sheer self-indulgence. That does not belong. The rest of the paragraph in question seems OK to me, though, yes, it probably would be worth also mentioning the opinion of someone actively opposed to him.
  • "anybody harshly critical of guevara is pre-defined as an irrational, extremist lout…" Pre-defined? No. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and that's what we've mostly been dealing with here.
  • As for Fontova: I object to citing Fontova on Che Guevara for the same reason I would object to citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon. He is nothing like an authority, and there is plenty else to draw on that is not written in bile. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
since you called that a partial response, i'll await the rest. the article has far more problems than just those things. you have prevented the inclusion of a historian with a major book on castro/guevara, based on interviews of many people who interacted with them — basically on grounds that he doesn't speak stuffily enough for you. however, it is possible that "swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer" is accurate. (see quote on euphemism above.) victims of the "hero" guevara, represented now by fontova, are to be heard with the t-shirt wearers and poster tapers. wikipedia isn't the place to spread the cult of a highly questionable man, however trendy his image may be.
any serious wikipedia editor who contributed to bringing about the current result should reexamine. your recent defense of the word-orgasm by sartre, after removing fontova as a "hatchet piece", reveals indefensible bias: a hatchet piece is what that quote from sartre requires for balance. you explicitly defend the opposite of a hatchet piece, considering it kosher to praise the man with grandiose language but not to criticize him with its negative correlation. the subject is protected from harsh criticism while it's insisted an opinion that he's "the most complete human being of our age" (wow!) remain. this requires debate? have the editors lost all objectivity with regard to che guevara? balance in this article is shot, if it ever existed. SaltyPig 07:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, when someone uses a comparison like "he was worse than Nazis!!!111", their credibility disappears. -person at work unsigned by 216.46.17.232
    • you are prevented from signing in at work? perhaps you could address what fontova really said, then try to dispute those details. mere diversionary straw man you've posted, typical of the fallacious tactics used to suppress views unfavorable of guevara here. you don't like hearing that guevara slaughtered people in large numbers? guess i wouldn't either if i were vapid enough to wear a t-shirt with his pic on it. erm, he killed a lot of people. hello! SaltyPig 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When I said "partial response" I meant only that I was not responding to all of your points. As for leaving the description "the most complete human being of our age", the reason it merits keeping is that it was Sartre who said it. If you can come up with a quotation from a comparably (not even necessarily equally) important figure speaking against him (there should be plenty out there, do some research) I'd support it going in the article.

Frankly, though, if you want to keep questioning the motives of the other contributors (just in the last paragraph: "diversionary straw man", "typical of the fallacious tactics", "you don't like hearing", "if i were vapid enough"), I'm not very interested in dealing with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"As for Fontova: I object to citing Fontova on Che Guevara for the same reason I would object to citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon. He is nothing like an authority, and there is plenty else to draw on that is not written in bile."

How about including in the article some of Che's quotes (including in "Motorcycle Diaries") that are more likely reveal why many consider him a bloody thirsty wacko? You link to some articles that quote them but this wikipedia article does not quote them itself:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006484

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

or

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-10-13/movie.html

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl."

or

http://claremont.org/writings/050125custred.html

"Hatred is an element in the struggle," he said, "unbending hatred for the enemy which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations…."

"A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."

How about the fact that Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Guevara personally reported in "Yo Soy El Che!" that Che himself claimed to have sent over 1800 people to firing squads? I don't think it is just to underplay the reputation Che gained for cruelty or that he was an avowed Stalinist. One doesn't have to gush for Che for an article to be biased in his favor. Imagine doing a wiki article for Nixon and not mentioning the anti-Semitism and profanity on The Tapes. Or his paranoia. Or one that painted all his actions as necessary considering the virulence of his opponents.

If it seems too daunting a task, I'm willing to take the updates to the article.

JWynn | 07:15, October 10, 2005 (UTC)
I do think some material related to this belongs in the article, and I am much too busy myself to work on it. On the other hand, remember that Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. We don't just want large numbers of undigested, uncontextualized quotation. Polaris, you've clearly shown yourself to be pretty expert on the subject at hand, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Jmabel, for asking for my thoughts about this. Over the past few weeks, I have been reading many of the wiki "Featured Articles" in the History and Politics categories, trying to see what makes an outstanding wiki article. Most of these FA's have all quotations placed in the Wikiquotes section. Way back when we first began work on the Che article, we did have a section called "Quotations" at the bottom and I had placed a number of quotes there, but someone later incorporated the entire section into Wikiquote. I am not sure that it would be my personal preference to have all quotations consigned to Wikiquote, but it appears that this is current wiki policy and I therefore favor following this standard. Polaris999 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Polaris, the usual standard on this is that we shouldn't have a section that is just a list of quotations, but certainly if representative quotations from the subject of a biographical article can be woven into the narrative, that's fine. Imagine a biographical piece on Julius Caesar without Veni, vidi, vici, or one about Henry IV of France without Paris vaut bien une messe. Or of Castro without La historia me absolverá. Certainly none of these Che Guevara quotations are that emblematic, but if one of them could be worked into the narrative, it probably would be a good thing, because they do illustrate a side of Che that is shorted in the article. The rest can go to Wikiquote. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Congo Dates Are Wrong +

01 September 2005

Perhaps someone would like to correct the section re the Congo. Che left Cuba after renouncing his Cuban citizenship in April 1965 -- he was definitely not leading a guerrilla movement in the Congo in 1964. Also, because of this sequence of events, the section on the Wiki page re the Congo should follow, not precede, the section about Che leaving Cuba.

Note: Since no one else undertook to do this, I did it myself. Polaris999 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Several questions

  1. What the heck is a "distant grandfather"? Should this be "ancestor"?
  2. "Serna y LLosa": wouldn't normal capitalization be "Serna y Llosa"? Certainly the latter is how Mario Vargas Llosa spells it.
  3. I notice the recent deletion of the following paragraph; the comment was "removed section that has no historical basis -- Che entered Havana on 3 Jan 1959". I'll assume that comment is factual, but certainly the claim that Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival is widespread, and probably should be returned to the article with one or more citations for who has claimed this.
    "Fidel Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival, so much so that Che was not present when Fidel triumphantly entered Havana on January 8. Che was sent with a separate rebel column to "capture" another major city for the rebels (for more on this see the book Diary of the Cuban Revolution)."

Jmabel | Talk 21:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest something like : Guevara was not present when Fidel triumphantly entered Havana on January 8, he was sent with a separate rebel column to capture another major city for the rebels. According to the book "Diary of the Cuban Revolution", Fidel Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival. Ericd 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The decision that Che was to capture Santa Clara (the "major city" referred to above) was taken during the period 11-14 August 1958 and Castro made him the commander of a new column created for that express purpose. I really do not believe that at this point, when the war against Batista was waxing at full intensity, the decision that Che should lead the rebel column to Santa Clara was taken because Castro viewed him as a "potentially dangerous and popular rival". Presumably, Che was selected for this critical mission because Castro considered him to be the rebel leader best qualified to carry the Las Villas campaign to a successful conclusion.
Another point: As soon as he received the news that Batista had fled Cuba, Castro ordered Che to proceed to Havana and take control of the La Cabaña military fortress, which he did on 2 January 1959. Therefore, on Castro's orders, Che arrived in Havana six days before Castro himself did.
Regarding the complex relationship between Castro and Che and its evolution over the years, there is certainly enough material to write an entire section for this article and perhaps someday someone will undertake to do so ...
Polaris999 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Re Several Questions

1. "distant grandfather" -- this peculiar language caught my attention also and I was about to change it to "ancestor" when it occurred to me that "ancestor" is sometimes used, albeit incorrectly, when there is not a direct line of descent whereas saying "distant grandfather" clarifies that issue. How do you feel about "forebear"?

  • "Forbear" would be fine with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

2. Thank you very much for pointing out that typo of "LL" where it should be "Ll" -- I'll fix it, if you haven't already.

3. The claim re Castro perceiving Che as a "rival" is expressed elsewhere in this article but there too it is unsourced. I think that, in reality, Fidel perceived Che more as a "loose cannon" than as a threat to his hold on power. Be that as it may, I certainly agree with you that any claims about their relationship should be accompanied by citations and hope that the person(s) who inserted those claims into this article will add the appropriate citations.

Polaris999 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Contradictory Statements

In one place in this article it says "Rodriguez had removed Guevara's hands to send to different parts of the world to verify his identity." In another place, it says "Also his hands were cut off and sent to Fidel Castro."

Is there documentation for the statement that it was Felix Rodriguez who cut off Che's hands? If so, would someone please attach the citation?

It is well known that in 1968 Che's hands, preserved in a jar of formaldehyde, were sent to Fidel Castro by Bolivian Interior Minister Antonio Arguedas; I am not aware of any evidence that suggests they had ever been sent to "different parts of the world to verify his identity". It is my understanding that his identity was confirmed by fingerprint analysis which was performed by two Argentine forensic experts who were sent to Bolivia for the purpose of comparing the prints taken from the body to ones known to be Che's that were on file in Buenos Aires. Polaris999 20:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Birth certificate

-- I just removed the following text from the article. I have no opinion on this matter myself, just thought it didn't belong where it was placed --JoanneB 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC) --

"The birth certificate may have been deliberately falsified to help shield the family from a scandal relating to his mother's having been three months pregnant when she was married." Why is this included in the article. What has it got to do with Guevara. It is merely a circumstance of birth. Puts an expose flavor to the article which really doesn't belong in Wikipedia (Unsigned by 71.28.252.57)

That comment definitely doesn't belong in the text of the article, but I do think that the point made by "Unsigned" is well taken. Why is there so much emphasis on this inconsequential matter in this article? It is mentioned not only in the section "Youth" referenced above, but also in a lengthy footnote attached to the introductory paragraph. I don't understand why it is necessary to include such irrelevant speculation at all, much less repeat it twice, and believe that doing so detracts from the article.
Does anyone else have any thoughts about this one way or the other?
Polaris999 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It helps to explain why different sources give different birth dates for him. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Does this happen often? What alternate date is frequently given? But, in any case, wouldn't the lengthy footnote (#1) be sufficient to deal with this? -- 68.100.75.69 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember the details, you can search through the article history, but yes, it was flipping back and forth like a flag in the wind until we explained in some detail. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
See #Date of birth above. And that will give you the right time frame if you want to trace the actual edits to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I did notice that section a couple of hours ago. Just seems to me that an inordinate amount of space is being given to this insignificant topic. Does it really matter whether he was born on 14 May or 14 June 1928? He and his family always celebrated his birthday on 14 June and that is the date that, according to all sources I have seen, appears on all of his official documents. It therefore seems to me that a footnote mentioning the alternative date should be adequate; but if the consensus is that it deserves this much attention, I defer. Polaris999 07:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't really care whether it is in the main body of in a footnote, but I think it should be here. I think one of the greatest services a reference work can render is to sort out topics on which many other more casually written sources are liable to give a confused or partial story. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Had to remove link

A couple of minutes ago, when I tried to save a minor edit I had just done to improve the formatting of the caption on the lead photo, the SAVE was blocked and I got the following message from Wiki:

"The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

"See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://chehasta.nar--.ru " (where the two dashes represent the letters "od")

I tried again to save the page, but received the same message. Then I searched for the link mentioned in the error message and deleted it from the text of the article. After that, I was able to save the page without any problem.

Polaris999 04:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

What do we need to do to resolve the NPOV status of this article? I notice that Wiki says that there are too many articles in the NPOV category and that every effort should be made to remedy their problems and move them out ... Help anyone?? Polaris999 03:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Since several of us have recently done a significant amount of work on this article, attempting in the process to address NPOV issues, isn't it time for it to be re-evaluated? Furthermore, it would be much more helpful for those of us who are working on it if specific sections that are considered to have an NPOV issue by some would be flagged individually. Having the NPOV flag attached to the entire article really does not tell us much, and is of no assistance in trying to figure out which particular sentences may be of concern to those who have NPOV issues ...

Should this article perhaps be submitted for "Peer Review" in order to elicit comments and suggestions from other Wikipedians?

Polaris999 19:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is one step from pushing for Featured Article status. I'm not sure this is there (and it's difficult to impossible to get FA status for an article that isn't stable). But since no one came forward in over 48 hours to tell you what they think still merits an NPOV flag, it certainly would be reasonable to remove it. Hopefully anyone who wants to put it back will be more specific. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks, Jmabel, for your very helpful reply. I will proceed to remove the NPOV flag and then we will see what happens ... I would like to get this article into the best shape possible in time for October 9 when it will be linked to as a "Featured Anniversary". Polaris999 06:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Footnote Problem

I have noticed that this page has two "sets" of notes currently ongoing. The first set, all of which are displayed in the text in superscript, are footnotes (at present 1-5), which according to the wiki "help" page concerning notes is the only approved usage, viz.:

Three ways to link to external (non-wiki) sources:
Bare URL: http://www.nupedia.com/ (bad style)
Unnamed link: [1] (only used within article body for footnotes)
Named link: Nupedia

But there is another set of notes, numbered 1 and 2, that are not superscripted. These notes are not footnotes but rather links to external sources.

Furthermore, even footnotes(1-5) that are in correct format are not in the currently preferred wiki style that uses names rather than numbers, so it would seem that all of the notes in this article need to be re-done to eliminate the existing duplication and incorrect format, and also to bring them into conformity with preferred wiki standards. Polaris999 22:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I just corrected this problem. All references/footnotes are now in the wiki-preferred alpha style, including those two troublesome external links.Polaris999 00:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is his name pronounced like Chey Ga-veh-raa?

More like: Cheh Geh-vah-rah

Polaris999 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends somewhat on where you are from. Cheh Geh-vah-rah would certainly be a common pronunciation by an English-language speaker, although that "eh" isn't quite on the mark. About halfway between the vowel sounds in "them" and "they". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- I couldn't figure out how to represent that sound precisely. Perhaps the person who wrote the information about the pronunciation of "Che" in the Guatemala section of this article will do a phoenetic rendering of "Guevara" as well ... Polaris999 04:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments, verification of dates in the Revolutionary government section

At present, the article contains the following text:

"In 1959, he was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC[2] secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500)."

The dates given here for his tenure at La Cabaña, i.e.,"1959-1963", are not ones that I have ever seen elsewhere. It is my understanding that he was in command of La Cabaña from his arrival there on January 2, 1959 until his departure from Cuba on June 12, 1959 at the head of a diplomatic and commercial delegation that visited various countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. Upon returning to Cuba in September, he did not go back to La Cabaña but rather took up a new post as Director of Industrialization at INRA (the National Institute for Agrarian Reform). Both Anderson and Castañeda support this version of events. Therefore, I would like to request that the person who wrote that Guevara was the commander of La Cabaña from "1959-1963" kindly provide a citation for that statement and that, if it cannot be properly sourced, the dates be changed to correspond with those used by Anderson and Castañeda. Polaris999 05:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has provided a citation for "1959-1963", I am now going to change it to the dates given by Anderson and Castañeda. Polaris999 19:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that was one of TDC additions all his contributions were unsourced. Ericd 21:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status for photos

A lot recently added photos have no copyright tag. Ericd 21:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to ascertain the status of the photograph of Felix Rodriguez standing next to Che, and have discovered that this photo was taken on the order of Rodriguez while he was operating as a contract employee of the CIA, and was turned over by him to the CIA. Does anyone know what the copyright status of photos belonging to the CIA and/or other US government agencies is? Or how one could find this out? Polaris999 23:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much everything from the US government is public domain. See Work of the United States Government. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this information. I think that the copyright status of most of the photos has now been cleared up, except for Constructinghome.jpg which was uploaded by NWOG. I had never seen this photo before and have not been able to locate any information about it. Perhaps NWOG will provide additional data about it that would help us to determine its status. Otherwise, we can replace it with one of Che doing volunteer labor on the docks or cutting sugarcane, both of which were postcards in Cuba in the mid-sixties and so would be either fair use or public domain ... Polaris999 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments requested re "Marxist" or "Communist" in this article

At 05:14 on 18 September 2005, an unregistered user changed the adjective in the first sentence of the lead paragraph in the Che article from "Marxist" to "Communist". I am wondering how other wikipedians feel about this change? Although Che held ideals that may be described as communist [and were so described by him], he never belonged to any Communist party. It would therefore seem to me that the adjective "Marxist" is more appropriate here, but I would like to hear what others think about this ... Polaris999 22:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Marxist" -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I just reverted it to "Marxist". Polaris999 06:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions requested re unsourced statement in Che article attributed to Valladares

The following sentence, without citation, has been re-inserted into the Che article by Ericd, after having been recently removed by another user:

"Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."

All of the sources that I have been able to find say that Valladares was arrested and jailed in La Cabaña in 1960. Since Che's tenure as commander of La Cabaña was from January 2, 1959 until June 12, 1959, it is not possible that Che was in command while Valladares was imprisoned there and therefore Valladares cannot have experienced any mistreatment at his hands. Polaris999 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one responded to the above, I have done as much research about this matter as I can using the online resources to which I have access. I learned first of all that Valladares, according to his own testimony, did not enter La Cabaña until 1961, as per the following excerpt from his book "Against All Hope" which is available on amazon.com:
"Those were the first days of 1961. All along the shore in Havana, there were cannons pointed toward the north. The United States had broken off relations with Cuba; and the government was concerned about the threat of an invasion. The wind raised great waves that leaped over the wall of the Malecón, the seawall that runs along the coast of Havana. The car sped down the shore road and went through the tunnel across the bay, and we entered the fortress of La Cabaña. In front of the high fence, its gate opening onto the medieval-looking main entrance of the prison-fortress, they ordered us out of the car."
(For clarification: Valladares writes that he was arrested in December, 1960 but held for some days in a detention center in the Havana suburb of Miramar before being transferred to La Cabaña in early 1961.)
I then searched this entire book on the amazon.com site for the keyword "Guevara" and found that: there are no references whatsoever to any interaction between Che Guevara and Armando Valladares, nor to any incidents witnessed by Valladares that involved Che Guevara, nor any suggestion that Guevara was in charge of La Cabaña fortress during the time that Valladares was imprisoned there.
For the above reasons, I am going to remove the referenced sentence from the "Revolutionary government" section of the Che article.
Polaris999 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This was an unsourced addition by TDC this was alleged in many sites on the net before TDC's "contributions". I've tried to verify and source some of TDC contributions and rewrite it in NPOV way. Personally, I don't consider Valladares as a reliable source. You're smarter than me in verifying the chronology. Ericd 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ericd, for your comments and for the interesting information about how you improved, verified and sourced parts of this article. Tracking down citations certainly can be a "time sink", as I have lately discovered. Now that the article has developed to a certain stage of coherency, perhaps we should be more vigilant about enforcing the wiki policy regarding obligatory referencing (as outlined in Cite your sources)? I would also like to ask you whether you believe that this article, as it now exists, has adequate sourcing, or should I add a few more? No doubt, if we put our minds to it, we could find a citation for every sentence now included here -- excluding, in my case, the sections "In the movies" and "In video games" about which I have no clue. But, would that be overdoing it? Do we really want to have a footnote at the end of every sentence, or is there a point beyond which "hyper-citation" becomes clutter? I would also be very interested to hear what you consider to be the major deficiencies of this article in its current state and any suggestions you might share re how it could be further improved ... Thank you - Polaris999 07:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit overbooked yet but I will try to post an extensive comment about the article next week. Ericd 09:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for opinions re a certain word in this article

The lead paragraph contains a sentence that ends:
"many believe the Bolivian government purposefully executed him in order to avoid a public trial and potential martyrization of Che's image."

I am wondering about the appropriateness of "purposefully" here, which strikes me as redundant. Has anyone ever been executed "accidentally"?

Would appreciate hearing the opinions of other wikipedians re whether "purposefully" should be left in this sentence, or removed ... Polaris999 05:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know if "many believe" is right I haven't read it completely yet but CIA declassified documents seems to show than the CIA wanted Guevara alive. If you feel to dig in this here is the URL : http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/ Ericd 09:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and for the link -- as it happens, I have read all of those documents. I am fully convinced that the Bolivians intended to execute Guevara from the outset, but think the wording in this sentence could be better: something like, "many believe that the Bolivian government decided to execute him in order to avoid a public trial (etc.)". Re your point concerning "many believe", I think it is very well taken -- perhaps you will suggest an alternate way of expressing the situation. About the CIA allegedly having wanted him to be kept alive, it seems to me that, had this been the case, Felix Rodriguez could have found some means of stalling the execution; instead, when the schoolteacher mentioned to him that the radio was saying that Che had died of his wounds, he immediately passed this information on to the Bolivians knowing (according to his own testimony) that this would cause them to speed up the execution. Of course, there is always the possibility that others at the CIA wanted Guevara to be kept alive, but Rodriguez was acting on his own initiative because of his long-standing personal animosity against Guevara ... (But, if this were the case, shouldn't Rodriguez have faced disciplinary procedures at the CIA for insubordination? And there is no evidence that I have heard of that suggests he did.)
I will certainly be looking forward to your analysis of this article, whenever you have the chance to do it! -- Many thanks, Polaris999 23:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Guevara was already pretty well known before he was executed. They had to have known that killing him might make him a martyr.Most likely it was to save a trial.-

71.28.243.246 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you -- to avoid a trial, and also to avoid having to incarcerate him on Bolivian soil while he was serving his sentence. Polaris999 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen many people at the CIA facing "disciplinary procedures"? Cheers anyway!

Overreliance on Diaries?

I dont honestly know enough about the subject to identify any specific instances, but it appears to me that the Article is very reliant on Guevara's diaries, especially for the later period of his life. Obviously, the reason why is the lack of reliable sources on this time. But nevertheless, I'd be loath to describe ANY autobiographic source as unbiased. --RaiderAspect 11:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Symbol of Peace"

I have removed a paragraph in the section "Hero Cult" - namely the following:

"Guevara, who murdered numerous people, and who jointly presided over the Cuban Communist movement that murdered thousands, has been adopted as the symbol of the Crypto-Communist "Anti-Globalization Campaign" as a "symbol of peace"! "

The text is clearly marked by significant anti-Guevara and anti-leftist bias; even though it couldn't hurt to include a passage about the use and significance of Che's image for current groups that may or may not have any affiliation with his life and thought (antiglobalism, popculture), this version is not at all fit for Wiki-material. Please rewrite the section, as soon as a consensus on the substance is reached.

Thanks, --212.123.167.171 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Documented victims

There's a list at : http://canf.org/2005/1es/historia/2005-jun-01-documented-victims-of-che-guevara.htm


Does anyone have information about this?

203.199.81.148 has added the following sentences to the section "Bolivia":

"Most of those Bolivians who were suspected of any alignment or even thought of cherishing any sympathy for Che Guevara were tortured for information and then summarily executed. By some estimates, around 300,000 people of Bolivia fell victim to the mass hunt orchestrated by the Bolivian government with the full support of the CIA."

Does this mean that 300,000 Bolivians were summarily executed during the 11 months that Che was in Bolivia? I have never heard anything like this before, but have no personal knowledge of the situation. Does anyone else have any information to confirm or debunk this statement? (No citation is provided by the 203.199.81.148.)


Since no one responded to this query, and because the claim that 300,000 Bolivians were tortured and summarily executed during the 11 months in question seems extremely improbable and I have not been able to find any documentation to support it, I have just now removed the two sentences referenced above from this article. If 203.199.81.148 or anyone else comes forward with a certifiable source for this statement, it can of course be restored. As to the other change made by 203.199.81.148 (below), I hope that some of you will share your thoughts as to whether it should be allowed to stand, be modified, or the paragraph restored to the status quo ante. Thank you -- Polaris999 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


203.199.81.148 has also changed a paragraph in the "Capture and Execution" section that had read:

"On October 15 Castro admitted that the death had occurred and proclaimed three days of public mourning throughout Cuba. The death of Guevara was regarded as a severe blow to the socialist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America."

to

"On October 15 Castro admitted that the death had occurred and proclaimed three days of public mourning throughout Cuba. The death of Guevara was regarded as a severe blow to the socialist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America, and the rest of the third world countries. The loss of Che Guevara was felt in the hearts, minds and the collective consciousness of the people all over the world."

It seems to me that the last sentence may have POV problems ... Polaris999 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

NB: This particular problem has just been resolved (at least temporarily) by TDC who removed the sentence in question at 17:49, 14 October 2005 with the comment "(→Capture and Execution - remove ridiculous POV)". Polaris999 02:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Che?

I see that Che Guevara is titled "Dr. Ernesto Rafael Guevara de le Serna" in the introduction, something I find to be factually incorrect. A degree in medicine (M.D) is not the same as a doctorate (Dr.), and although "Doctor" is somewhat interchangable with physician in everyday language, it's still factually incorrect and not suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing in the article suggests that Che Guevara earned a doctorate in medicine (or any other field), and the prefix "Dr." is thus colloquial at best and misleading at worst, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedic article. I will now remove the prefix from the article(again), and ask that whoever reverts it explain why on this page.


OK, I see that it's been changed to M.D, which at least isn't factually incorrect. Kinda irrelevant for the introduction, though. It isn't a defining characteristic, and it's mentioned later in the article.

Problem with syntax

In the section Criticism, praise, etc., someone has failed to enter an item in correct wiki format; I have highlighted this item in red below. As a result of the incorrect manner in which this item was entered, it is appearing as footnote #20, although it is not a footnote at all, and therefore threatens to destroy the format of the entire article. Because of this, I am removing it and hope that the wikipedian who entered it will be careful to use the correct syntax if he/she wishes to enter it again.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara, 1928-1967 Critical look at Guevara's life from an anarchist perspective.
Hasta siempre, Comandante, popular song by Carlos Puebla (lyrics, notation, and several digital audio formats)
Hasta siempre, Comandante performed by Carlos Puebla and his group Los Tradicionales, in RealPlayer format -- click to listen
Carta al Che performed by Carlos Puebla and his group Los Tradicionales, in .wav format -- click to listen
[20]]Fidel's Executioner
By Humberto Fontova

Polaris999 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Photos

I wrote much of the content in this article a little over a year ago. Since then this article has been loaded once again with way too many iconic images of Guevara. This is unencyclopedic, as the article is on the real Guevara-- not the icon in Communist agitprop or Western pop culture. I'm going to go ahead and remove some of the iconic photos. 172 | Talk 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This article might also be able to do without the large list of external links originating or pertaining to Western sources. It should strike people as odd that few of them are related to literature, monuments, or events sponsored by the Cuban Communist Party. Whether Che's Western admirers like it or not, his legacy is most notable in connection with the Cuban Communist Party, which he was instrumental in transforming into the single ruling party of Cuba. 172 | Talk 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Creating a seperate article? "Hero cult"

As this is an article about the man Ernesto Guevara, I thought it might be better if we would create a seperate article for the unfortunate commercialization of Ernesto's image. It has nothing to do with who Che was, and he always had a feeling of intense dislike of celebrities, commercialization, hero worshipping, etc. So I suggest we create a seperate article for that. - NWOG, 01:24, 22 October 2005

No one can argue with your point. But I don't see the problem with keeping the section on the hero cult toward the end, so long as it stays within reasonable limits. 172 | Talk 01:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
* * * * *

Problem with reference inserted into section "Cuba"

The following lines were recently inserted into this section:

"Che's determination to march many miles in hot humid weather that aggravated this condition was an inspiration to the men who fought alongside him, most of whom were Afro-Cubans from the most oppressed ranks of the peasantry, the so-called 'guajiros.'" [5]

There are several problems here.

  • First, what does "this condition" refer to? One can guess that it is perhaps a reference to his asthma, but this is not at all clear from the text.
  • Second, the external link placed at the end of this sentence, apparently in an attempt to create a footnote (?), is not coded in the correct wiki syntax and therefore disrupts and disorders all of the other footnotes/references in the article, for which reason it must be removed and I will do so presently.
  • Third, the above-referenced link leads to a page the URL of which is: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/Che_Guevara.htm
At the top of this page there appear the lines:
Che Guevara: a Revolutionary Life
By Jon Lee Anderson Grove Press, 1997, 814 pages
which certainly suggest that the text on the page is an excerpt from Anderson's book, which it is not. It seems to be a review or commentary that some unnamed person has written about the Anderson book, and the reference in question is therefore totally misleading. Polaris999


INSERT at least in the western part of the Sierra, there were relatively few Blacks in the hills, most were part Taino and part "white" (e.g. Guajiro or Montuno), some were Isleños, that is from the Canary Islands, there were some Spanish from Spain. El Jigüe 12/4/05

Survey re "Photo Gallery" -- please vote

N.B. This survey is now closed. Please refer to the "Conclusion" section at the end.

Over the past several days, User 172 has been repeatedly deleting the "Photo Gallery" from the Che article. Several other users have been restoring it. User 172 deleted it at 10:22, 22 October 2005 with the comment "(getting rid of non-standard photo gallery)". I restored it at 13:20, 22 October 2005 with the explanation "(restoring Photo Gallery which is in compliance with wiki standards as specified on page Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial)".

User 172 then deleted the Photo Gallery at 14:13, 22 October 2005 with the comment" (Anyone can edit those pages and create a new "policy." The one you are citing is not practiced, as photo albums have been rejected by consensus in the past in many similar articles)".

In order to find out what the consensus of wikipedians is concerning the inclusion of the Photo Gallery at the bottom of the Che article, I have set up a survey to elicit votes. If you support the inclusion of the Photo Gallery, vote "Support". If you oppose inclusion of the Photo Gallery, vote "Oppose".

Please participate! -- Thank you, Polaris999 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. In case any of you have not seen the Photo Gallery in question, I have temporarily set it up on a separate page so you can take a look at it: Che Guevara photo gallery
Polaris999 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

I doubt that consensus can be illustrated by the fiat of a vote. The best indication is the absense of photo albums from similiar articles and the archives of the conversations in which they were ruled out in the past. 172 | Talk 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason why Guevara should get a photo gallery while subjects of other biographies on Wikipedia should not. The problem is that extraneous would get added, despite the lack of importance concerning what is taking place in those photos. Stalin used photographs of himself in carefully selected settings as a propaganda tool in order to create a myth for himself. In the same sense, Wikipedia editors could be accused of the same practice if the article includes many random photos illustrating nothing other than Guevara appearing to be a "heroic guerrilla." 172 | Talk 03:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many pictures of Stalin in the Joseph Stalin article. Maybe they should be arranged into some sort of gallery instead of randomly scattered throughout the article. Stalin deserves a gallery too.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I dont see the pictures as propaganda. Maybe if there were pictures of him surrounded by children or people cheering you could have a point but not with the current gallery. - Melca 21:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The images not included in the article already are propaganda. What is the reason for the picture of him alone playing with the puppy? Such a photo does not offend me. But I know Cuban Americans who regard Guevara as nothing more than a ruthless killer who would be quite offended if such photos were to be included. 172 | Talk 08:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would Cuban Americans be offended by a picture of Che and his puppy? The puppy is barely visible and i first noticed it when i read your post (it’s very cute though ;). I really think you should use your energy on something else. I doubt people form an opinion on an important person from history just by his or her pictures. And just so you know Wikipedia is not a place for people who get easily offended and it doesn’t try not to be. Just check this article ex: Oral sex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melca (talk • contribs) 10 Nov 2005.
The very point of a gallery is to place photos when there are too many, as is the case here. And leaving out info (well, it's a form of info) because it is too much is not the Wikipedia way. But there aren't enough pictures to warrant a separate page, so the gallery is a neat solution. I'm mildly in favour of using <'gallery> tags, though. DirkvdM 07:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. At the very least the two famous photos should be in the article and they should even get a more prominent place, but there are plenty other pics as well, so a gallery is a good idea. Which ones should go in it and which ones should be made bigger or put in a more prominent place is a different matter. DirkvdM 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose somewhat. More appropriate in the Commons. Too many photos in the article makes it take too long to load, for one thing. HGB 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an important consideration which must definitely be weighed -- thank you very much for mentioning it. I am afraid that those of us who have faster connections may tend to overlook the matter of loading time and we need to be more attentive to this. Polaris999 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - The photo gallery is small and unobtrusive. Cedars 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is an outstanding article being held back from becoming a featured article because of length. Deleting (or moving to WikiCommons, another article, etc.) the photos would go a long way toward fixing that problem. I cannot find another biographical wikipedia article with a "photo gallery," certainly not a featured article (prove me wrong!). In particular, the famous photo of Che should be made the main photo and the rest should be disgarded. There are more than enough photos without the gallery. People who support have argued that it is "small and unobtrusive". First, every KB counts for FA. Second, its quite obtrusive considering that its unprecedented. It seems like the informed consensus is with me on this. 69.22.42.35 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    "every KB counts for FA": not really true. For starters, there has been repeated consensus that the 32KB goal is based on bytes of visible text (for example, it is not held against an article if it needed lots of markup or HTML comments; conversely, material included via templates counts). For another, when there has been a solid justification for an article's length, plenty of longer article have been approved for FA. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - A lot of people worked hard on this article to bring it up to FA quality. You owe it to them to let go of this gallery so get the size down. The text of this article is outstanding. The "photo gallery" just looks awkward given that no other peer articles have one. The gallery being "small and unobtrusive" is not a reason why it should be there. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. The images add no information to the article which is new or useful. I am removing the photos because no one has responded to the last two comments for removing them. Of the last two "supports" one was blank and one was a rearticulation of a previously responded to argument. If you like these images, put them on the wikicommons which is already linked to. Please do not readd them without engaging in the talk page substantively. Savidan 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conclusion -- Many thanks to each of you who took the time to participate in this survey. Since opinion seems to be rather divided and no one supported the "photo gallery" enough to restore it after Savidan deleted it on 16 December 2005, I decided to move the four photos that it contained that I know to be public domain over to wikimedia. Of the two remaining photos, one is that by Korda which someone recently restored as the lead photo for the main article, and the other did not have any licensing information provided by the person who uploaded it and therefore cannot be included in wikimedia. Polaris999 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote to prohibit anonymous edits

This article is frequently vandalized by anonymous users. This vote is a non-binding poll to determine the Wikipedia community consensus on prohibiting anonymous edits as a method to reduce vandalism. The results will be forwarded to the WikiMedia Board of Trustees as a recommendation. You can copy and add this comment to other talk pages to encourage others to vote. Click here to vote.

Chess

"Guevara started playing chess by the age of 12, only later to become one of the Island's Grandmasters." I'm guessing that "the Island" means Cuba, but at the age of 12 he was not on an island, was he? Assuming I have read correctly, could someone please reword appropriately? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It does say 'only later', so not at the age of twelve. So you didn't read correctly. :) DirkvdM 08:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand that, but still nothing there is no grammatical antecedent for "the Island". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, just wanted to write a note in support of your decision to take out the reference to Che's supposedly having been a Grandmaster of Chess. When that assertion first appeared in the Wiki article a few weeks ago, I was almost positive that it was an error. Nevertheless, since it is always possible that he was a Grandmaster of Chess but that this information had somehow escaped my notice, I did not feel that I should remove it without doing some research. Since then, I have looked through many print and internet sources and have not found any documentation to support the claim that he was a Grandmaster of Chess. He definitely was an aficionado of the game, and a somewhat skilled player, but I do not believe that his participation went beyond that. I have noticed that he is referred to on some Spanish language web sites as el Gran Maestro, which may be the source of the confusion -- however, this allusion is to the didactic value of his revolutionary example, not a title in Chess ... Polaris999 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


It's almost certainly incorrect that Guevara was a Grandmaster. (This is an official title given by the world chess organztion FIDE. There are only ion the order of hundreds GM in the world today, and not even all professional players are GMs. The match against Najdorf was a blind-simultaneous game (Najdorf played against 10 or so others simulatneously without looking at the boards), and apparently he offered a draw to Guevara, who rejected the offer, but ultimately Najdorf won.

(There's a chess base article on Guevara and chess, unfortunately only in German, here: http://www.chessbase.de/events/events.asp?pid=569 )


INSERT As far as I know there was only one Cuban Grandmaster and he was José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera El Jigüe 4/10/05

The main article states that "he attended and participated in most national and international tournaments held in Cuba". However, a quick search in the game databases of Chessmaster10000 and Fritz 8 returned no results for 'Che Guevara' or 'Ernesto Guevara'. Could somebody clarify this? As far as I know, each international tournament held somewhere is recorded even if the players involved have a rating below 2000. I'm not taking away anything from Che, I'm just interested to know if he actually played standard games apart from those politically drawn games with Najdorf and others. I know that the ELO rating system was not implemented until after his death (at least with FIDE), but does anybody have an idea of his real playing strength? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.37.184.165 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006.


I have just come across the following information which I think may be of interest to User:195.37.184.165 and perhaps others:
En México, el Che comienza la práctica sistemática del ajedrez, en los ratos libres que le deja el entrenamiento similar de los futuros expedicionarios del yate "Granma". Alberto Bayo, general republicano español, quién era el instructor militar de los revolucionarios, era el contrincante asiduo del Che.
Luego del triunfo de la Revolución cubana, el 1ero de enero de 1959, el Che aprendió a jugar béisbol, jugó fútbol pero sobre todo se consagró a la práctica del ajedrez, hasta el punto de que en Cuba se le considera como impulsor de ese juego ciencia en Cuba.
El Che participó así en competencias simultáneas, auspiciando eventos y participó en los campeonatos internacionales "Capablanca in Memoriam".
El MI Eleazar Jiménez, varias veces campeón nacional cubano en los ´60, recuerda al Che:
" A veces uno lo veía competir en los torneos de los centros de trabajo...y pensaba que era uno más...pero nada más alejado de la realidad, era un jugador fuerte, que conocía mucha teoría y la aplicaba bastante bien en la práctica ".
" Le gustaba mucho jugar rapid trans a 5 minutos y era frecuente que al concluir la sesión de algún Capablanca se sentará con algunos cubanos o extranjeros de calidad para efectuar este tipo de partida".
Source: Che Ajedrecista, http://www.echeguevara.com.ar/cheguevara-article200.html
Polaris999 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy, coherency, grammar and vocabulary

Accuracy, coherency, grammar and vocabulary seem not to be a matter of concern to many of the people who are "contributing" here recently. For example, I have been waiting for several days now for someone to explain by exactly what means the "dissents" referred to in the section Revolutionary government were "executed".
Jmabel, since you are very knowledgeable about all things Wiki, would you please explain at what point a page becomes a candidate for protection, and whether this page is approaching that threshold? Thank you -- Polaris999 18:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone has finally changed "dissents" to "dissidents" ... Polaris999 21:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how knowledgable I am, but as far as I can tell, this is nowhere near any threshold for protection. There are 3 reasons we protect pages:

  1. For obvious reasons, we temporarily protect images while they are on the front page.
  2. We temporarily protect articles that are receiving a storm of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If it's from a variety of IP addresses, we can't solve it with blocks, and this sort of thing can just plain render a page useless if not stopped somehow.
  3. We sometimes temporarily protect articles that are the subject of edit wars: when the process has broken down, and there is no movement toward consensus on the talk page, this forces people to shift to discussion rather than edit warring.

We do not protect over poorly executed good-faith edits.

The only one of the three conditions for protection that even imaginably might be occurring (I haven't been following super-closely) is the last. But I haven't seen anyone (you included) raising important issues on the talk page and not getting responses. The (admittedly messy) wiki process seems to me to be working about as usual for a controversial topic. If you have some specific issues that you think are a problem, lay them out. But if it's just bad spelling, grammar, and usage, just fix it (or don't: you are not required to be the custodian). And if a passage is incoherent, then you can cut it to the talk page & reproduce it here with a message that you have no idea what it was intended to mean, and would the author please reword.

Given the topic of this article, many of the most knowledgable people may have better Spanish than English. If that looks like what is going on, and you can't understand what they are trying to say, you can invite them to write their stuff in Spanish on the talk page: there are plenty of people around who can translate Spanish to English. (But apparently this is not what was happening)-- Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Correcting myself: yes, the degree of edit warring the last few days does approach protection level (although it seems to have calmed down the last 20 hours or so). But no one, yourself included, has brought the substantive issues to the talk page (and there were so many edits that with a backlog on my watchlist, this never made it to the top.) Please, someone, summarize the differences here, and try to discuss them on the talk page rather than by warring edit summaries. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Jmabel, for clarifying this matter. I had, of course, read the wiki page re protection, but was not sure exactly how the standards would apply to what was going on with the Che page. It is encouraging to see that the warring edits have slackened off over the past 20+ hours; perhaps this trend will continue. If not, I hope that the disputing parties will follow your advice and bring their disagreements to the talk page for resolution.
Polaris999 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Cuban Exiles' testimony

I have reverted the latest changes by User: NWOG. I thought I'd give the reasons

  1. He says that Cuban exiles cannot be trusted because they hated Che and were responsible for his death. This assumes that every single Cuban exile is collectively responsible for the death and therefore no one can be trusted. I don't think it makes sense to assign collective guilt to a class of people.
  2. If in fact I see a man shooting a 12 year old boy in cold blood, I am not going to like the man. You cannot then use my dislike of the man to claim that my testimony cannot be trusted because I am biased and have a point of view. If this standard were adopted, no case could possibly be decided.
  3. To assign motives to a class of people as some people have done in their edit summaries ("They are an enemy of Cuba" etc.) is POV. If this were a valid way of doing things, then we could never quote primary sources on contentious topics like these- because every one of them will be too close to the action to be unbiased.

--Ravikiran 05:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


According to this one person, he was already in jail when it happened. If so, why was he in jail? Was he a member of the secret police? A Batista-soldier? According to David Icke, Bush and Dick Cheney is a paedophile. He is serious when he claims Bush and Dick is responsible for the attack on the WTC. He also believe the world leaders are reptiles. But does his claims belong to an encyclopedia? There will always be conspiracy theories. You simply need proof if you are to suggest a person (whoever that may be) is a child-killer. Because these claims are even less reliable than German tabloids, if we are to discuss the Norwegian royal family. - NWOG


We are not trying Che Guevara. We are just reporting on what some people who are involved in a story are saying. The reader can read the books and make up his own mind. We are just pointing to him. There are many reasons why a person could be in jail in Cuba. One of them could be that he opposed the regime. It is an interesting point of view to assume that just because someone was in jail, he must be lying about other things too. --Ravikiran 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Photographer - so where are the photos?

If Che was an avid photographer then wouldn't it be a good idea to include some of his photos (possibly on a separate page)? I assume they'd be free of copyright. Anyone know where to find any? DirkvdM 08:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here :

http://www.mkg-hamburg.de/english/ausstell/03_che/home.htm

Ericd 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Not a very large collection, but then it's only meant as an apetiser for the display. I'm still unsure about the copyrights, but the site states that the photos are on loan from the 'Centro de Estudios Che Guevara, Havana, Cuba'. And I seriously doubt if they'd object to publication of the photos elsewhere. It's been asked about at Google answers, but the answers aren't conclusive. So for now I'll just add the link you gave to the article. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Guevara was not notable as a photographer. An external link to a wesbite featuring his photos can be added, but there's no reason to place them in the article. 172 | Talk 08:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about messing up the formatting of the introduction to the article, but someone messed up the entire article's facts, so I was forced to replace that introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.86.166 (talk • contribs) 21 Nov 2005.

To say that Che was a commie yes but that man had ideas to end poverty and turning to communism is the best way the world can do.To me i think this man is a hero to the poor people .My mothers and fathers family didnt have that much and knowing that one man would change there life to be more comfortable where there would be no rich or poor is somethig great. What this man was fighting for was a cause and that was great. At the age of 39 Ernesto died and if he didnt die then mabye life would be alot more easier. This man is a hero and i belive in him and so dose the people of every other coutry.to my me and all my family he is ahero and nothing more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.182.147 (talk • contribs) 22 Nov 2005.

Insinuation

In December 1964, Che Guevara went to New York City to visit the UN. While there, he had little-known meetings with three associates of Robert Kennedy: newsman Tad Szulc, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and journalist Lisa Howard. A few weeks later, in January 1965, a Cuban exile supported by Robert Kennedy in 1963, Eloy Menoyo, was arrested while on a secret mission into Cuba.

This may be true (although it's uncited), but its placement immediately before "After April 1965 Guevara dropped out of public life and then vanished altogether," insinuates causality. Is there any basis for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone were to write a book speculating that Che Guevara had been an extra-terrestrial, would it be appropriate to include quotations from it in this article? Aren't there certain standards of credibility that are supposed to be observed when writing for Wiki? I could totally demolish, point by point, all of the bizarre and absolutely baseless speculations in the work that you are referring to, but consider that they are so absurd as to not merit the time this would require. Polaris999 09:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revolution-through-terrorism

I've deleted "Many of these same teachings, today, are criticized as revolution-through-terrorism, due to their emphasis on asymmetrical warfare." The sentence doesn't make a lot of sense; and the use of "asymmetrical warfare" (warfare between opponents of widely different capabilities) instead of the more precise "guerilla warfare" doesn't help. I presume that the intention behind this sentence is something like "Guevara's teachings have been criticised as tevolution-through-terrorism because the weak guerilla forces must perforce use terror as their primary method, due to their inability to mount conventional battles". I don't think that this is true, though I will leave the final decision to those with more knowledge than myself. I think Guevara's attitude, and the general intention of guerilla warfare, is to win the support of the population and to make hit-and-run raids on enemy forces. Terror is used only as a tool to prevent the population from supporting the enemy. Anti-guerilla forces use terror in the same way.

To clarify the mind, a less controversial case is useful. Think in terms of the French resistance to the German WWII occupation. Pol098 05:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Pol098 -- Just a note to say that I am in agreement with your decision to remove that sentence. Che strongly opposed the use of violence against the civilian population. In Bolivia, the people who lived in the area where the guerrillas were operating generally referred to him as "El Médico" because he spent most of his time with them diagnosing their medical problems and giving them whatever medicines he might have that were appropriate to treat their illnesses. When requested to do so, he even pulled their teeth. As to whether or not all guerrilla groups everywhere have always eschewed the use of terror, I believe that each group would need to be studied individually to find out exactly what its specific policies are/were. Polaris999 09:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Polaris999. And the reason I removed the original sentence was that it was gibberish, didn't mean anything; and if you pushed it into meaning something it was wrong in general, not just about Guevara. Any tiny, ill-equipped, but sane group MUST gain local support, whether sincerely or cynically; 100 men can't terrorise a population into supporting them against an army. I don't think any guerilla groups, including Guevara's, eschew the use of selective terror, it's just a targetted tool, not overall policy: anyone local captured by the enemy of the guerillas must be very afraid of what will happen if (s)he talks. So I'd expect the standard guerilla policy to be: make friends with and help the local population in general, but deal very harshly with anyone who betrays, whatever the circumstances.

Pol098 12:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Eutimio Guerra

According to some Eutimio Guerra was a major figure in the "Agrarian Reform" movement in the Sierra Maestra. It is not known if he really was a traitor since with few exceptions we only have Guevara and Castro's versions of events. However, it is wise to remember that Guerra was only one of many people executed, or driven from the Sierra Maestra by Guevara to be killed by waiting Batista forces. These bloody events had few witnesses and seemed to have involved complex struggles between those loyal to Frank Pais, the clandestine communists who fled the 1933 Soviet of the Sugar factory at Mabay, bandits loyal to Cresencio Perez, and an odd assortment of Spanish Republic loyalists. There also seems to have been some CIA support of Castro. xe xe El Jigüe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs) 27 Nov 2005.

The recent edits by User:205.240.227.15 look to me to consist mostly of uncited disparagement of Guevara (ditto the remark above) and insertion of POV phrasing. I don't have time to go through these one by one, but:
  • "Granma was conveniently delayed": "conveniently" for whom?
  • "However, at least some of these were rivals or inconvenient non-ideologues. For instance even much maligned Eutimio Guerra had been "an (sic) land reform organizer." Citation?
  • "…apparently the only significant achievement of Guevara was to severely damage the agricultural environment…": is this an encyclopedia article or a prosecution summation before a jury? And that's uncited, too.
There might be something worth having in some of this, so I am not unilaterally reverting at them moment, but I sure won't have a problem if someone else reverts.
Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 28

November 2005 (UTC)


Xe xe Jmabel it would seem that POV means things you disagree with. The citations are there you must have missed them. I have inserted them but here they are just for you Xe xe El Jigüe


On Utimio Guerra:

Morán Arce, Lucas 1980 La revolución cubana, 1953-1959: Una versión rebelde Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica; Ponce, Puerto Rico ISBN: B0000EDAW9

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN: 8423336042, ISBN: 9707490012

  • "it would seem that POV means things you disagree with": are you telling me that "conveniently" here is not POV? How about a wording like "apparently the only significant achievement of Guevara was to severely damage…". If that's your idea of neutrality, I wouldn't want to see how you write when you are trying to disparage someone. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Jmabel: Castro was and is famous for his discrete exits and delayed entrances. The first account I heard second hand, but from a reliable first hand source, was that of Rolando Masferrer (not a nice guy either also with communist links) who after Castro tried to kill him at Havana University, said he recognized Fidel by his fat backside "caderas anchas y amplias." It is generally believed that Castro never entered the Moncada Barracks. I believe it was at Ubero when Castro fired the first shot with his telescopic rifle at a great distance....the others had to charge in. He set up the landing so that there was successive sacrifice of three squads. Huber Matos relates Castro's terror of air attack. At Guisa Castro stayed at Mon Corona's estate behind thick reinforced concrete walls a least a mile behind the lines, and when that seemed unsufficient he fled with all his headquarter staff to the immense caves at Santa Barbara in the lower Guisa River canyon. This left all us other idiots on the front lines protecting him and the other brass. As to the Che Guevara, luckily I never met him although he did falsely accuse and then execute a rebel who I knew from childhood. When we were being strafed at the "Minas del Frio" I saw the deep caves he had ordered dug to protect himself, I saw they were built in clay and stayed in a trench outside. For further details you are going to have to buy my book "coming shortly to a book store near you." Now tell me I have a particular POV! xe xe el Jigüe 11/29/05

La what?

In the section "Cuba", one of the changes recently made is the following:

... at times during "La Offensiva" he lacked...

The phrase "La Offensiva" is designated as a link. I checked it and it is a link to an empty page. Furthermore, the conglomeration of letters making up "Offensiva" does not form a known word in either Spanish or English. What is this, Spanglish? Has the person who wrote this done so intentionally, as would be suggested by his having designated it as a link? Does it matter? Or is it the case that this article has now degenerated to the point where such gibberish is of no importance? Polaris999 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly should be changed; FWIW, there has at no time been an article under that title. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


La Ofensiva perhaps if you knew anything about Cuban history you would know about this, but then you were not even born then, let alone close to the action....El Jigüe 12-4-05

When I created this query at 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC), I entitled it "La what?" referring to the fact that "Offensiva"(sic) does not exist as a word in either English or Spanish.
At 03:09, 4 December 2005, 205.240.227.15 changed its title to "La Ofensiva?"
I am reverting the title to the one I originally gave it because the title of a query is not supposed to be changed by someone who responds to it, and moreover, in this particular instance, the change obfuscated the issue at hand. Polaris999 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ay Vey! Polaris, you were not there, nor do you know the historical details, the personages, the details of combat, and above you never saw the betrayed and or innocent dead. The Che Guevara had only one "virtue" he was a ruthless executioner, he delayed the victory of a democratically inspired revolution and turned it into a marxist morass. El Jigüe 12-27-05

This is not the place for your right-wing propaganda, El Jigüe. If that is what you want to do, find a page about fascist Cuban exiles. 62.238.92.181 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is tagged with {{disputed}}. Could someone please make a statement—preferably a neutrally worded statement—of what factual claims in the article are currently disputed? And please keep in mind that POV issues are a separate matter, this tag is a claim that the article is factually false. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it has been ~two/three days, and no-one has made any such statement, I have removed the tag. — Daekharel 01:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes Section has been corrupted yet again

I have corrected the Notes section many times over the past weeks, but from now on will leave that task to those who continuously wreak havoc upon it. Polaris999 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hero reverence"

How did we get from "hero cult" to "hero reverence"? I suspect someone may have gotten a little carried away with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. "Cult" is certainly a word to avoid in describing a religion or an organization, but I believe this was its proper use. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm, while cult would be the word used by much of the popular press to describe the kind of following this individual has (in the same certain popular movies have a "cult following"), but from a technical point of view reverence is a more correct term. It seems to me to be a case of the common word usage differing from true linguistical correctness. I'm not really sure which word should be used, what is the standard Wikipedia position on this issue (I have not been able to find one in my limited search)? - Canderra 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll raise the question at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. The policy seems to have nothing to say about this particular use. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Terror and helping peasants

"The remaining rebels fled into the mountains of the Sierra Maestra, where they slowly grew in strength, seizing weapons and winning support by terror and persuasion" was recently changed to "The remaining rebels fled into the mountains of the Sierra Maestra, where they slowly grew in strength, seizing weapons and winning support by persuasion and helping peasants." I suspect all three terms are true. However, "terror" is a pretty loaded word, so for the moment I am not restoring. Does someone have some citations for what specific actions "terror" here refers to? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah come onnnnnnnnnn! Terror is the correct term when one persons really scares other people by executing their relatives and friends, with deliberate intent to induce fear. El Jigüe 12-28-05

Again, El Jigüe presents us with unfounded right-winged propaganda. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine by the Republican Party. Toss off. 62.238.92.181 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Only, El Jigüe clearly and truthfully describes what terrorism is, so it seems to me that you are the one with a few screws loose. Slayemin 04MAY06

Is this a new Wiki format? Or, if not, ...

Please look at the section "Cuba" and observe a bulleted list of six books that someone has inserted at the end of that section. What are these supposed to be? If they are supposed to be references, they need to be converted into the correct Wiki reference format and moved to the "Notes" section. Otherwise, they simply need to be deleted. Isn't it supposed to be the responsibility of each person who contributes to a Wiki article to use the standard Wiki format for the references and footnotes associated with each contribution s/he makes? And shouldn't other contributors enforce this Wiki policy by removing contributions that do not conform to this established standard? Polaris999 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone having questions about how to correctly cite sources for this or any other Wikipedia article should be able to find all the answers at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Polaris999 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Yeah! Yeah! Bureaucratic nonsense. If you dislike the format badly enough to want to remove pertinent references, change them yourself, or a least change one as an example. Anything else is nothing but a covert way of exerting censorship. Sometimes you people remind me of "Dean Wormer" in the movie Animal House with his double secret codicles. Talk of passive aggressive!!!!!!! El Jigüe 12-28-05


Are you the person who placed that list of six books at the end of the "Cuba" section? If so, I would like to point out that there is no possible way that I, or anyone else, except yourself, could know to which fact or sentence you intended any of those books to refer since no linkage was provided. All I, or anyone else, could determine by looking at that list of six books was that it didn't belong in that location. You will perhaps have noticed that jmabel moved that list of six books to the "References" section at the end of the Che article, which is the only place it could be situated since you did not provide any indication as to how each book in the list was connected to some aspect of the section "Cuba". Lacking such information, neither I, nor anyone else, could have converted your list of six books into footnotes, even if we had desired to do so. This also applies to your suggestion that I could have changed one of them into the correct format as an example, which I would have been glad to do had this been possible.

Judging from your hostile comments, I assume that you are unaware of the fact that over the past 24 hours I have spent considerable time trying to figure out the meaning of various footnotes that you have recently inserted into the Che article in an effort to preserve them. (My work on them is recorded on the History page.) I am referring specifically to those re the Congo, which I converted into the correct footnote format, and those re the failed attempts in Panama and the DR, which I converted into the correct in-line citation format. If, in addition to these examples, you are interested in learning more about how to work with Wiki reference formats, I would refer you once again to the page I recommended above, ie., Wikipedia:Cite sources. Polaris999 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have just discovered that jmabel has changed the two inline citations I had created for the references re the attempts in Panama and the DR to the standard Wiki footnote/reference style, which would be fine with me except that the footnote which he is calling "Jimenez" doesn't work. If you click on the superscript 8, it will take you down to the reference, but then the carat will not take you back up to the proper place in the text. Another problem is that the source cited is a truncated version of the complete URL which was originally given, and now reads only: 

     ^  Peña, "La Expedición…

jmabel, since I don't understand what you were intending when you modified this footnote in this way, would you please make it work? Otherwise, I will just have to re-do it as seems appropriate to me, and I would rather not undertake to do so since you are working on it now ... Polaris999 08:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The shortened form is because it is a newspaper article, and I've listed the full citation in the references. I'll try to see why something is broken, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Found the problem: ref→note works find with accents, but note→ref doesn't! -- Jmabel | Talk 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! I do wish that somebody would do a bit of programming to remove bugs such as this one you just discovered and also to make the ref/footnote system easier to use. For example, it seems to me that it should be programmed in such a way that when a reader clicks on a ref, let's say "fuerte" as an example, the code would search the list of footnotes for "fuerte" and return the footnote labelled "fuerte", regardless of its physical location in the list. This would solve all of the problems we (and I assume all other editors) are currently experiencing with the existing primitive system which is an incredible time sink. Polaris999 13:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless I'm very mistaken, it already does that. The problem is that in both the article body and (assuming you use "# {{note}}" to generate numbering) in the notes, the numbering is necessarily sequential; thus, if things are out of line, the numbers don't match. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have wondered about that but was afraid to experiment for fear doing so might have unexpected consequences. Should we try removing the # and see if this works better for us? (Perhaps we could test it on the "Involvement" article since there are fewer notes there and, if it doesn't work well, there will be less to re-do.) Polaris999 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I promise you don't want to do that. It's been tried elsewhere, it's a worse solution. What we are doing here is the current state of the art; it's not so great in an article people keep messing with, but it's the most workable thing we've got. See Template talk:Ref and/or Wikipedia:Footnotes if you want to learn more. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Jmabel -- I will certainly heed it. BTW have you noticed the "workaround" I invented earlier today that allows the Harvard-type references (also called "simple hyperlinks") to be used without disrupting the order of the ref/note-template footnotes? Since Wikipedia:Inline_Citation allows for the usage of simple hyperlinks in combination with ref/note templates provided that the simple hyperlinks do not generate numbers, i.e. "Some editors feel that all inline references should be done with these templates, and all actual reference links should be in a references section. Other editors do not favor their use at all. Note that in any case if these templates are used, then simple hyperlinks without explanatory titles that generate numbers, as described in the previous section, should not be used. Using both will cause a mis-match between the numbers generated inline and the numbers that should correspond in the notes below.", I am hoping that this "fix", which consists of placing one space followed by the HTML code &rsaquo; for a "Right Single Guillemot" ( › ) immediately after the URL that is being linked to, will be amenable to all persons working on the Che article. Here is an example of its usage, which is my modification of an actual Harvard-type reference EJ had placed into the section "Insurgent" and which had generated its own number and thereby disrupted all of the other ref/note numbers in the article until I prevented it from doing so by applying my "fix":

... who had been installed as his primary agent in La Paz was reportedly also working for the KGB, and is widely inferred to have unwittingly served Soviet interests by leading Bolivian authorities to Guevara's trail ›.
and the following is the wiki code I used to generate this non-numeric simple hyperlink:
[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/SDR.htm &rsaquo;].


Polaris999 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup, that works, but why mix? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Xe Xe. Yes I was the one who placed those hardcopy reference citations, I also added page numbers so some can find them without using the new Google or the Amazon.com systems. It was churlish (Churl as in Churls of the Castle, the origen of the House of Charlemagne of me to "beat up" on the graduate students of others. My apologies. In partial compensation I will add a link to the Basque inference in the Guevara section, and note that these were "Demons" from the "Demons and Moors" in the Song of Roland xe xe El Jigüe 12-30-05

"El Jigüe", the problem isn't that your references are hard copy and give page numbers: that's a good thing. The problem is that you inserted modified Harvard-style referencing into an article that otherwise uses footnotes. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Ahahhhhhhh...I am a scientist that is the style most familiar to me. I hate footnotes, feeling that they reflect what scientists feel is sloppy imprecise humanities thought. Yet will see what can be done. El Jigüe 12-31-05

Did you notice my new "workaround" which I describe a couple of paragraphs above in this same section? I designed it hoping that you would find it more to your liking than the ref/notes style. It will work well with all references that are hyperlinks. In fact, I too prefer the Harvard-style references for hyperlinks because I like to click on them immediately when I come upon them while reading the text. The method that I have devised would make it clear while reading the article which references are hyperlinks and which are to printed material (but, unfortunately, those to printed material would still need to be done in the ref/notes style...) Polaris999 19:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

dispute tag

I removed the dispute tag. This article is very long. It has been subject to extensive debate and consensus has been reached in many areas. If you wish to dispute the factual accuracy of the article please put the tag only on the section that you dispute and list a specific reason on the talk page. Please do not readd without doing this. Savidan 03:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, probably more usefully in most cases, put {{fact}} on the specific issue you are disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Disappearance from Cuba section

An anon IP added a {{POV}} tag to the Che_Guevara#Disappearance from Cuba section of the article with this edit summary:

this section contains innacurate information and rumor that was formulated by anti-Castro factions in an attempt to isolate Fidel Castro.

I removed the tag, but left this here for discussion. BCorr|Брайен 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In this section it is written that Guevara became somewhat Maoïst. This is by no way obvious. Guevara was critical of the USSR, and called for "many Vietnams" that I understand as "World Revolution", a troskyist idea. I don't think Guevara became Maoïst, he was on his own line. Ericd 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that, while Che was primarily "on his own line", that line was considerably closer to the Chinese position in the Sino-Soviet dispute. Polaris999 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This line of thought was purposely fabricated and propogated by the anti-Castro community AFTER Che's death. The idea is to allow a way for people who look to Che to turn against Fidel and to think that what Che stood for and what Fidel and the Cuban government now stand for are two differnt things. Lacha 14:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Really?? That is quite fascinating ... (Too bad no one told Carlos Rafael Rodriguez and his old PSP associates about that, they might have stopped persecuting Che had they only known ... ) Polaris999 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea of this project, I thought, was to create a database of fact, not to create a venue for converting rumors into "accepted" reality. It is obvious to anyone who has spent any time whatsoever looking at Che Guevara as a human being with a life and family, instead of as some mythical character, that the line of thought propagated here regarding a rift between El Che and El Comandante is pure nonsense. How would the promotors of such thought explain the close personal relationships between El Comandante and the wife and children of El Che? Are we expected to believe that his own family was unaware of the rivalry between them? Or that the Guevara family has chosen to ignore what this line of thought leads to: namely, the betrayal of El Che by Fidel. While the personal life of the Guevara family and the Castro family are kept private, it is no secret to anyone in Cuba that they are very close indeed and there is no evidence whatsoever of a break between the two men or any evidence of discord between the families. It is pure nonsense that is easily spread, but dificult to counter since most people who write on the subject have never spent any time in Cuba and instead refer to "testimony" offered by those who have abandon the Revolution for whatever personal.

I strongly suggest that this section be removed. It is purely conjecture and has no factual basis whatsoever. It discredits Wikipedia as a legitamate reference tool.

AND since this IS in dispute.... I would like to know WHY the in dispute tag has been removed??? -----a gringa writing from Cuba Lacha 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking back one wonders how many are left free in Cuba after so many "have abandon the Revolution for whatever personal" XE xe El Jigue 3-17-06

Photos

In the last few days, with a lot of edits at cross-purposes, these two pictures seem to have been removed from the article without comment in any edit summary. I suspect that this was not a consensus decision and they should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- please put them back -- they definitely add to the article. BCorr|Брайен 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Restoring -- Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


can we get this photo put up in the criticism section? http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006596.html

I can hardly think of anything less appropriate in a biographical article. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A serious problem with the "Disappearance from Cuba" section

On 21 November 2005, an unregistered user (70.19.159.81) inserted into the Che Guevara article several paragraphs based on and alluding to a recently published book written by Hartmann and Waldron. It seemed to be the intention of this person to incorporate a mini-review of that book into this article, an action which I believe is in clear violation of the Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", as promulgated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Earlier today most of the paragraphs in question were transferred to the newly-created article entitled "Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution" by another editor, so I will not discuss them here. However, a fragment remains in this article and that fragment consists of the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the section "Disappearance from Cuba". It appears to have been the intention of Hartmann and Waldron to imply that Che Guevara, rather than Rolando Cubela, was AMLASH. The AMLASH matter has been thoroughly investigated by several Senate Committees and, in all cases, their conclusion has been that AMLASH was Rolando Cubela. Furthermore Cubela himself confessed and served a lengthy prison term in Cuba. Until Hartmann and Waldron came up with their absurd hypothesis, no one had ever suggested that Che Guevara had been implicated in Project Mongoose or any other plot organized by the CIA and/or Robert Kennedy. Since there is no evidence whatsoever to link Che to any such conspiracy, or any indication that he was involved in the activities of Eloy Menoyo, I am removing these two sentences from the article. Polaris999 02:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Hmmmmmmmm it always surprises me how ready some are to accept the Castro version of events, and assume that "confessions" as is common in stalinist show trials reveal truth. While it may seem unlikely that Guevara, would link permanently to US interests, the devious and duplicious self-serving nature of the Che and his overweaning ruthless ambition might have viewed such as an expedient temporary alliance. Thus to purge this aspect completely from Wikipedia seems most unwise. One should never forget that the Che viewed even Castro as a rival, and is reputed to have challenged Fidel Castro's rather discrete courage in battle in front of representatives of the USSR. I suggest that at least some of those two sentences, be restored; however this kind of purge of details of history seem to be done with some frequency here, thus one would not expect this to happen. Xe xe El Jigüe 12-27-05

Song of Roland?

"Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of mixed Spanish, Basque[3] (see The Song of Roland) and Irish descent." See The Song of Roland? Seemed like an odd cross-reference, but I did. The name Guevara does not appear there; what is the relevance supposed to be? I'm cutting it because it doesn't make sense; if there is relevance, someone needs to reword this in a way that makes that relevance clear. - Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, instead of trying to understand you simply remove, a most interesting personal view. Try reading some Basque history......and find out why the "Song of Roland" records the Basque demons...takes one to know one xe xe. El Jigüe 1-5-05.

Depending on which version of the Song of Roland one reads, there may or may not even be explicit mention of Basques (though of course the "Moors" and "Demons" who defeated Charlemagne were, in fact, Basques). But this is practically Easter Egg linking. The events of Roncesvalles have nothing to do with Che Guevara some 1,200 years later. One might as well link the Gernikako Arbola. This is an encyclopedia, not a phantasmogoria. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a documentary

From the article, discussing The Motorcycle Diaries (film).

The details portrayed in this film, such as the size of the vehicle, are considered "legendary" rather than "accurate," and subject to much debate for instance Marcelo Gioffré › (English translation at ›) places the leper colony in Venezuela and cites fellow rebel Humberto Vázquez Viaña in stating that Guevara found relief from his asthma in the combat generated adrenalin.

Why is this here? As far as I can tell, this belongs in the article about the movie, not the article about Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is about the film don't understand your query, please clarify. El Jigüe. 12/31/05

We have an article on the film. This is the article on the person. Why does discussion of inaccuracy in the film belong in the article on the person? We certainly don't go into the many inaccuracies in films about (for example) Napoleon or Van Gogh in our respective articles about them. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks, then, I'll move that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Then references to the film, beyond a few words does not belong here. El Jigüe. 12/31/05


hagiography or balanced presentation

Others will have to decide whether the youth section is to part of hagiography or a more balanced presentation. The provide balance I have rewritten and reinserted the "murder of innocence" theme which was removed. This now reads:However some of Guevara's detractors sustain that in these years a far darker character begins to emerge. A passage in these diaries describes how "Che wakes in the middle of the night and, mistaking his hosts' beloved pet Alsation for a vicious Chilean Puma, shoots the poor creature dead [4]" This theme, the symbolic murder of innocence, is to be repeated in Cuba, when as the Che writes "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War" he has to kill his puppy [5] in the Sierra Maestra. The Che's detractors take this theme to its ultimate level with Guevara's unnecessary murder of a 14 year old [6]. Now it is up to contributors and editors to decide what this section will be like will it show the tender photo of the puppy but not mention how this poor animal died thus to return to mere worshipful hagiography as this section once was or will it be a more balanced presentation. I have little hope for the latter. El Jigüe 1-1-06

significance of Fidel Castro's victory at Guisa

Actually Fidel Castro's own victory at Guisa probably was much more decisive (see Castro 1972 pp. 439-449) than the Che's shared victory in Santa Clara. In addition Cantillo representing The Batista Army surrendered not much later. Don't argue with me I was there. xe xe El Jigüe 1-1-06

Alsatian?

Concerning the dog that Che mistook for a puma and accidentally shot, I have never seen any reference other than the one posted here to its having been an Alsatian (German Shepherd). In the English translations I have of the Motorcycle Diaries, no breed is mentioned. Similarly, in the book, Mi hijo el Che, Ernesto Guevara Lynch includes what appears to be a verbatim extract from Che's diary about this incident and again the breed of the unfortunate dog is not mentioned. So, I am interested to know what source, if any, (other than the amazon.co.uk reviewer cited) has provided this information? Polaris999 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno where the critic got his data, will keep looking. However, a German Shepherd is readily identified by its description. These dogs are about as large as a puma, a favorite of German immigrants and most other dogs in the area are not that large. El Jigüe 1/5/05

Thank you for checking on this. Unfortunately, the amazon.co.uk website does not give an email address for that reviewer so it seems that there is no way to ask him directly ... Polaris999 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have researched this matter and have learned that the dog in question was a fox terrier, not an Alsatian (German Shepherd). I found this information in Alberto Granado's diary entry in which he recounts this incident in greater detail than the text published in either Mi hijo el Che or Motorcycle Diaries. How Ernesto mistook a fox terrier for a puma is quite puzzling ... Polaris999 07:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New inline citation system

This newly-implemented system sounds like it may be the solution to all of the problems with references, footnotes, etc. that the Che article has been experiencing lately.

Cite.php

Shall we adopt it? Polaris999 05:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; it's what I've been using on everything new, but I usually haven't bothered retrofitting unless I'm doing a cleanup. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Could you possibly recommend one of your articles that uses it and has many different kinds of notes and references so that I could study it and learn the system? Polaris999 06:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly an exciting article, but maybe Palatul Telefoanelor? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that article is very useful for reference. I think that I figured the system out and now I have converted all of the "source footnotes" in the Che article to this new format. It is certainly much better than the old ref/note one! However, there was still the matter of a few "content notes" -- I don't think that the <ref></ref> system was designed to handle them. Moreover, trying to include them in with the "source footnotes" no doubt would have been unaesthetic and somebody has recently posted that flag and comment complaining about the appearance of the Notes section. So, I decided to separate out the "content notes" and put them on a page of their own. I am using the simple hyperlink method and the "fix" I developed for it (described elsewhere on this page) to put links in the Che article to the page on which the "content notes" are located. I have also included "internal targets" on the Content Notes page and when a user puts the mouse over the › symbol of the simple hyperlink in the article, in the scrollbar s/he can see the name of the associated "content note". When the › symbol is clicked, the name of the "content note" will appear in the address bar of the Content Notes page. In many ways, a better system would be to place each "content note" on its own sub-page, but I felt that it would be too time-consuming to try to watch all of those pages for vandalism, so having all content notes combined on a single page seemed the preferable option. Perhaps you might have other suggestions as to how to present these "content notes"?
Another question: is there a good description of the <ref></ref> system somewhere that we could provide a link to from this page in case other editors who are working on the Che article want to read about it? (In the meantime, they can take a look at Cite.php which, however, seems not very user-friendly to me ... ) Polaris999 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this method of adding footnotes has yet been written up; it's only been around about a week.
I don't think the separate page thing is a good idea; it is very non-standard. There are not supposed to be subpages in article space. I'm going to take the liberty of doing this a different way. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done this; I think some of these can just be moved into the text instead of as notes, but before I do that, I wanted to check and make sure you agree with the change I made so far. If so, we can put Che Guevara/Content Notes on WP:AFD and get rid of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel -- I think it is great that you moved them into the article. I wanted to put them there myself but was afraid someone would say that the content notes added too many bytes to the length of the article (even though this isn't true). I really have no preference as to where or how this information is presented, be it in the text or as content notes, so long as all of it is available to readers ... Polaris999 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, I just noticed that one disadvantage of having them on the main page is that there isn't any simple way to get back to the referring sentence once you go down to the note ... Do you know of a fix for this? (Bearing in mind that I cannot number these notes because EJ's method of using embedded links will explode any numbering system that I might attempt to use ...) What I need to do is to develop some way to pass the position of the referring location to a temp variable and then give the reader a symbol next to the content note to click on to get back up there. Do you know how I can find out where the variable in question is stored so that I can try to grab it? Polaris999 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, Jmabel. I found a solution!! Content Notes remain on the main page and now they link back and forth perfectly. Take a look and you will see how I did this ... Polaris999 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation

This is a copy of the note that I just posted on the Talk page of Aranda56:

Hello, Aranda56 -- I wanted to say thank you for noticing that the Notes section on the Che Guevara page had been completely re-done and for removing the "Cleanup" flag that someone had placed there a few days ago. The Notes section had gotten into in a somewhat disordered state because of conflicts between the simple hyperlink method and the ref/note style, both of which were unfortunately being used by various editors contributing on this page, but I worked for many hours these past couple of days to translate all of the notes into the new <ref></ref> style, and sincerely appreciate your noticing the improvement. -- Polaris999 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


CRITICISM OF CHE

Stop reverting without discussion. Just because you like Che and have a misguided view of him does not give you the right to delete cited and sourced information regarding views contrary to your own beliefs. (Gibby 19:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Em...yes it does... (rokbas 0:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC))


This is an encyclodpedia. All entries must be Neutral point of view based and any critisms (or praise for that matter) must be backed up by (preferably first-hand) scientific evidence. Linking to a blatently biased article written by a right-wing reporter or a column on a news website does not constitute sufficient evidence.

The appropriate balance for neutrality can be gathered by looking at the many other articles on famous historical persons from all backgrounds. Canderra 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibby has declared his intention to ignore this, and the points made to him by another user, and reinsert this material later.[7]. He can't at the moment as he's blocked for edit-warring elsewhere. Worth keeping an eye on the article. Mattley (Chattley) 13:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually I think that its acceptable to link to things other than "scientific evidence". The point is to document the Criticism of Che Guevara and thus linking to someone who is critical of him is proof that someone has articulated that criticism and thus that it does not constitute original research. Granted, we can talk about the sources which are acceptable but I believe most mainstream news organizatioons are. This is an article about a controversial topic and we should include the most notable criticism of Che Guevara. Savidan 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


It is not original research to cite sources. It is not pov to cite sources with pov's. NPOV policy prohibits us editors from adding pov through our own language and legitimizing cited works. NPOV requires us to present evidence...including evidence you all might not like. I have been subjected to undo criticism on my posts by being forced into higher standards by certain people who simply don't want information contradictory to their own beliefs present in articles. (Gibby 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Do you mean undue criticism? Mattley (Chattley) 18:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

spoonman says: Gibby if you make claims about an historical figure and cite a propoganda page as fact, you do not have a 'neutral point of view'. It is clear that you are trying to re-direct wikipedia readers to a biased source for information on this subject which does not contribute to the information. I have read your agenda of 'ruling wikipedia' KDRGibby and I find it strange that you are so keen on dominating and censoring information when these were such a huge critisism of communist regimes. By enforcing your opinion in the manner you claim on your user page, you are behaving no exactly the same as Pravda in the communist days. I hope that you will join us in making factually verifiable pages in the future as you are clearly a clever writer.

It is a fact that his sources exist. It is a POV (yours) that they are propaganda. Citing that "X person makes Y criticism of Che" is neutral point of view. We should be directing wikipedia readers to sources which are critical and complementary of Che. Spoonman, this discussion should be about how to strike a proper balance without giving undo weight but by insisting that Gibby's edits be completely removed you have taken up a very untenable wiki position which is in fact another form of censorship, just like the communists, eh. Savidan 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Apparently spoonman hasnt heard about the word: sarcasm. My rules for ruling wikipedia were my observations based on dealing with defending editors of articles such as communism...who were actual communists. The irony was not lost on me, but it sure missed you. (Gibby 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC))


Does anyone find it moronic to attempt to deny Che's sociopath tendencies as cited by that author with a statement that he loved his mother? Why the hell does that get put back in? This is why wiki is not a good source for information, any moron can add any bit of bull they want. Someone to an IP check on that guy I want to know what their screen name is if possible. This person really looks like some serious communist apologist. (Gibby 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC))


The addition of the original research "claims are dubious" is very O.R. and that the O.R. evidence that love of ones mother makes it impossible for someone to be a sociopath is bogus. 1. The supplied definition by this editor mentions love of followers, not family. 2. most other definitions do not define sociopaths with any metnioning of the word love...including wikipedia. The entire addition is moronic and out of place and should be deleted from this communist revisionist. (Gibby 16:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC))


http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/ Hey whats wrong with this blog, why did they remove it?



* * * * *

Clarification needed

The section Criticism of Che opens with the following sentences:

The U.S. claim that the Che Guevara was "personally responsible" for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons,and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. They also believe that Guevara was a blundering tactician, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [2] ,[3], [4], [5], [6],[7],[8]

To whom exactly does "The U.S." refer here? Also, why is "The U.S.", which is apparently intended as a collective noun, followed in the next sentence by "They also believe ..." ? And, finally, who specifically are "They"?

Polaris999 00:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


That was added by someone trying to discredit the criticisms of Che by linking it or associating such critisms with the United States (As if they have some secret agenda in making him look bad). I removed it because it is not only improper to say the United States held this view but its just moronic. The section however should stay. (Gibby 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

The referenced claims are all made by US (predominantly right-wing) newspapers and associated journalists and therefore calling them U.S. claims is quite apt I would think. It is not the best possible wording and the issue of use of words such as "They" is addressed in the Wikipedia style help section on how to avoiding weasel words.
However it is quite proper in my opinion that due note be made of the fact that the critisims listed are predominantly from newpaper and magazine sources with a strong political bias against the individual and therefor should be treated as such and not stated as if they are in any way accepted facts. Canderra 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


why arent any of you socialists complaining about the moronic reverts by that communist propagandist from ip 83... who keeps making OR claims about sociopaths and love and dubiousness and other bs...watch this guy...he thinks the communist party of Cuba rules by "moral authority" he is a NUT JOB!!!! (Gibby 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

A note about anti-Che t-shirts may be notable in a section on CG in popular culture, but they hardly constitute serious criticism. Should we link to every company that uses his image on a t-shirt? No. Mattley (Chattley) 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualties at Bay of Pigs/Playa Girón

The figure of 2,000 deaths which someone inserted into the section "Cuba" is one which I have never seen elsewhere and I therefore support 83.108.6.54's request for sourcing (which s/he placed on the article's "History" page.)

In a document entitled "COMPENSATION CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES", the Cuban government writes:

"THE mercenary Bay of Pigs invasion, in April 1961, left a count of 176 deaths, more than 300 wounded and 50 maimed for life, for which reason it constitutes Point Four of the Cuban people’s claim against the government of the United States."

Please refer to COMPENSATION CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES for more details ...

Polaris999 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Polaris those figures are far lower than serious most references on the subject report Triay (2001) p. 110 mentions 4,000 casualities; Lynch p. 148 50X or about 5,000 (statistics only comparible to Soviet loss ratios at the beginning of WWII). "Over 2,200 casualties [8]. In one air attack alone Castro forces suffered 1800 casualities caught on an open causeway in civilian buses and hit by napalm (and thus mostly horribly dead) [9][10] [11]. It is not wise to trust "I am not a communist!"-Castro's numbers El Jigüe 1-27-06


Thank you for providing these sources. It is perplexing that so long after the event there is still such a wide range of casualty figures given. I notice that in the wiki article on the Bay of Pigs, on which I believe you are one of the collaborators, the figure of "2,200; estimated casualties" is given. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't this be the figure used in this article also? Furthermore, wouldn't it be more appropriate to present the discussion of Fidel Castro's military tactics in either the "Fidel Castro" or "Cuba" articles, or one about the Cuban military, rather than here in the Che article? Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by your statement: " ... Lynch (p. 148 50X or about 5,000) ." To what does this "50X" refer?
A very specific problem that I have with the changes you have made in this section is the fact that you modified the last sentence in the paragraph from what it had been, i.e. "The victorious Castro government declared Guevara "a Cuban citizen by birth"; he divorced his Peruvian wife, Hilda Gadea, and married a member of Castro's army, Aleida March."
to read:
"Despite the fact that he was not involved in the fighting at the Bay of Pigs, the victorious government declared Guevara "a Cuban citizen by birth"; he divorced his Peruvian wife, Hilda Gadea, and married a member of the 26th of July movement, Aleida March." (You made this change at 10:22, 28 January 2006 , as can be seen on the History page.)
This non sequitur is so absurd that I can only wonder if you meant it as a joke? Surely everyone who has any familiarity at all with the subject at hand knows that the official decree making Che a Cuban citizen "by birth" was published in La Gaceta Oficial on 8 February 1959, i.e. more than two years before the Bay of Pigs invasion! And, he married Aleida March on 2 June 1959. I am therefore going to revert this sentence to its previous, correct version.
Finally, although the following comment refers to an error you have inserted into the section enntitled "Guatemala", I will include it here rather than setting up a separate topic to address it. To wit, at 11:56, 27 January 2006, you wrote:
"His economic survival was precarious and he pawned some of Hilda's jewelry. Then a shipment of weapons from Communist Czechoslovakia for the Arevalo Government arrived and he left Guatemala for El Salvador and then returned to Guatemala. As the invasion by Carlos Castillo Armas faltered and then began to gain ground. He joined an armed militia organized by the Communist Youth for several days but then returned to medical duties, tried to resist the new government of Castillo Armas, but when Hilda was arrested he fled to the refuge of the Argentine Embassy."
The statement that the shipment of weapons from Czechoslovakia was for the Arevalo Government (which I asked you to clarify previously) is certainly erroneous. I assume that you meant that the shipment was for the Arbenz Government? I will make this correction also, and hope that you will let it stand. Polaris999 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good shot Polaris You are correct that mention of Arevalo instead of Arbenz was one of my "brain farts." 50x merely means 50 fold a standard notation in some fields. El Jigüe 1-31-06

Thank you for your reply, El Jigüe. Re the "50X", I was actually trying to find out what the base number for the 50X was, i.e. 50 times what? It would not seem to mean that Castro's casualties were 50X those of the invading forces which are generally estimated to be about 1,300 (see Bay of Pigs Invasion) since in order to have lost 50X that number, Castro would have had to suffer approximately 65,000 casualties which certainly didn't happen. Furthermore you write "50X or about 5,000" which suggests the base number you are using is about 100, but, if this is indeed the case, to what exactly does that 100 refer?
After much consideration, I have removed the following sentences (delimited by parentheses below) from the Che article. While quite interesting, most of this information does not pertain to Guevara or battles in which he participated (in the case of Angola, he had, as you know, been dead for many years when that intervention occurred) and it therefore will be better placed elsewhere. I hope that you will expand this section and insert it into another Wikipedia article, perhaps Military of Cuba or Fidel Castro.

(While some consider Camilo Cienfuegos-Guevara's march on Santa Clara in late 1958 as the final blow that forced Batista to flee the country; there are others who consider Fidel Castro's own far bloodier far harder fought victory at Guisa [1], November 20 to 30, 1958 [2], the so called "Gate of Victory" [3] and the rest of the subsequent Cauto Basin campaign far more decisive (see Castro 1972 pp. 439-449)[4]At Guisa the still fighting Batista army lost perhaps 200 men, while in the armored train (shades of Trotsky) that Guevara attacked the demoralized Batista army only offered token resistance. Later wars when Castro changed to regular USSR style military tactics caused his forces to have far higher losses. During the Bay of Pigs Invasion Castro's losses were very high, Triay (2001 p. 110) mentions 4,000 casualities; Lynch (p. 148 50X or about 5,000) (as statistics only comparible to Soviet loss ratios at the beginning of WWII). Other sources indicate over 2,200 casualties [12]. In one air attack alone Castro forces suffered 1800 casualities caught on an open causeway in civilian buses and hit by napalm (and thus mostly horribly dead) [13][14] [15]. Thus over 2,000 militia died defending Castro at the Bay of Pigs; and perhaps ten fold that again Cubans were lost in the War in Angola. These statistics are comparable to Soviet loss ratios at the beginning of WWII, and reflect the Eastern Block training these militia were receiving.)

Polaris999 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with le Coubre explosion

It seems that some one has confused the statistics of the Bay of Pigs *(April 1961) with that of the explosion of the ammunition ship Le Coubre (La Coubre) (March 196))in which according to Castro Government information:

"Bombs planted at the point of departure and set to explode when the ship was unloaded. Whoever set the bombs did it quite carefully: a second bomb had been set to detonate soon after the first trapping and killing those who had come to help. More than 100 people died that day, among them six French sailors. Hundreds more were hurt.

Alberto Solís Sotolongo, the son of one of the longshoremen killed on the dock while unloading La Coubre, was 14 at the time of the explosion." [16].

The suggestion that this is the source of the confusion is that Che Guevara was around during Le Coubre disaster [17] this reference only has initial figures of 75 killed, in another reference a more complete figure of 136 killed is mentioned by Alberto Korda [18]. Others who place the Che and Korda there mention "hundreds" killed [19]. It is said that Guevara was perhaps responsible for sending people in after the first explosion to be caught in the second explosion. The Castro government had allowed the unloading of the ship at a dockside instead the regulation requiring unloading on to a lighter in the harbor. Guevara was not around the action at the Bay of Pigs, he was chasing a fake invasion (in Pinar del Rio I think). For further details read my coming book El Jigüe 1-27-06

Che in popular culture

This section has recently been created, in part because of a comment I made above (though I wasn't suggesting that we should have such a section). At the moment it consists mainly of links to commercial retailers of CG related merchandise, which is not really appropriate for a wikipedia. The rest is covered elsewhere in the article. Thoughts on removing it? Mattley (Chattley) 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding

Che Guevara has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards, and may become a featured article. Please continue improving this article!

If by "good" we mean "biased", and if by "quality standards" we mean "adheres to an angenda", then I have to agree. Haizum 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful remarks, which we all find witty, erudite and incisive. Or perhaps not. Mattley (Chattley) 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
(Chortle) It's funny that such a blatant patron of Thesaurus.com would use the word "erudite." Haizum 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolivian Communist Party

Whilst the statement

Guevara had expected assistance and cooperation from the local dissidents. He did not receive it; and Bolivia's Communist Party, oriented towards Moscow rather than Havana, did not aid him.

may be true, it should be noted that some members of the Bolivian Communist Party did join/support him, such as Rodolfo Saldana, Serapio Aquino Tudela, and Antonio Jimenez Tardio. PJB 15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aspecailist on that question was the Bolivian Communist Party legal or clandestine at that time ? Ericd 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was legal- which may explain it's leaderships wishs to dissasociate themselves from the guerrillas. PJB 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merchandising of his image a criticism of his policies and ideals? No!

How is

Some critics have used his popular image with t-shirts, caps, etc. to demonstrate exaclty how the spirit of Che has been defeated by capitalism through the merchandising of his image. Some of these critics have taken the criticism a step further by making merchandise critical of Che and his modern supporters.

a criticism of Che, his ideas or his policies? I think it should be removed from the section as it is not really a criticism of Guevara, but an example of how capitalism has perverted his image. I mean, its not like Che would have endorsed this, or would have seen it as a failing on his part. PJB 15:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.che-mart.com/

thats why, enough said. (Gibby 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Errr.. I dont see your point. Why is his image's use on products (Like in that website) a problem with Guevara's politics? PJB 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see any difference between the use of Guevara picture in Wikipedia and it's use by some commercial brand of Vodka you have a problem with your understanding of Guevara's views... Ericd 18:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Im saying that the Wikipedia article is about Che. Therefore criticisms about him in the article should be about his policies, views and actions. The use of his image by commercial businesses on T-shirts cannot be a criticism of Guevara as it was up to those comapnies (like the vodka company you mentioned)to use it. How then can the use of his face as a brand by comapnies way after his death for there own purposes be a criticism of Che Guevara? PJB 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point...Che-mart is critical of che...they think he was a murderous commie bastard, they hate him. They also get to poke fun of Che lovers for their ignorance of che's murderous ways and how he sells alot of great products (for profit) to alot of middle class American kids...

i'm sad but not surprised you dont see the point. (Gibby 07:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Some critics have used his popular image with t-shirts, caps, etc. to demonstrate exactly how the spirit of Che has been defeated by capitalism through the merchandising of his image.

Thats the bit I have a problem with. Isn't it just saying that businesses are just cashing in on the image of Che? If it is then how is it a criticism of him? It's saying that capitalists are using the image of a well known figure to make some money-shouldn't it make it clearer that the act of slapping his face over merchandise is to poke fun at Guevara?

I'll admit that I now see how Che-Mart is a criticism, as its selling products that criticise him, but the above sentence dosn't fit. I mean the spirit of Che has been defeated by capitalism through the merchandising of his image is not an example of someone make a criticism of him. The merchandising of his image is to make moolah, not a point...after all thats all the sellers of the products are after right...a few quick dollars off the back of a hero?. PJB 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the lines you quote are very badly written and seem out of context with the section. I have removed them as they don't contain any actual criticism of Che Guevera which is obviously the prerequisite for any information belonging in a section titled "Criticism of Che". Canderra 16:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank god (Not that god exists or helps me or is worthy of praise)! Someone who agrees with my criticism! I knew it didnt fit in and, as you said, its poorly written. PJB 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


The Che-Mart group is the group that not only criticized Che but criticizes Che and his supporters by pointing out in their t-shirts that Che is the "greatest T-shirt salesman" its a slap in the face against him and his supporters to note that capitalism is what keeps his image afloat in places like the United States. The wording of the sentence that you dislike is the result of compromise with a communist who refused to allow any mentioning of Che-Mart in the article (even after he demanded a source). (Gibby 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Well it sounded bad and was confusingly written. I would accept that companies would ridicule/criticise Che via their products, but that didnt come across clearly. PJB 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better now. Now it dosnt sound like its saying that because companies use his image he (Che) must be wrong. PJB 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs a mention?

Should it not also be mentioned that in the Bolivian campaign Che Guevara and his guerillas did not execute, torture or abuse any captured Bolivian troops?

In the Bolivian Diary Guervara's men capture several enemy soldiers (For example a Major on 10th April 1967), and not once do they beat them or kill them (unlike what happens to Che and his men at La Higuera under CIA direction).

I feel this is an important point to mention in order to give a balanced view of his actions. It also shows him not to be the blood thirsty maniac with no compassion. Maybe it should be put in the Hero? section? PJB 12:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also be appropriate to mention that Che gave medical attention to all of the wounded Bolivian soldiers whom the guerrillas took prisoner, before releasing them. Even after his last battle at the Quebrada del Yuro, in which he had been wounded, when he was taken to a temporary holding location and saw there a number of Bolivian soldiers who had also been wounded in the battle, he offered to give them medical care. (His offer was turned down by the Bolivian officer in charge.) Source: Paco Taibo Ignacio II.
PJB, perhaps you would like to made this addition to the article? Personally, I believe it would best be placed in the "Insurgent" or "Capture and execution" section since this is a matter of fact, not perception. Polaris999 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

O.k. PJB 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Added

The torture and subsequent execution of Guevara and his men by the Bolivian army, under CIA supervision, at La Higuera is in marked contrast to Che's treatment of Bolivian prisoners. In the Bolivian Diary Guervara's men captured several enemy government soldiers (For example a Major on 10th April 1967), and not once did they beat them or kill them.

to the section on his death. Its not biased or a POV. PJB 17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It IS POV. You are trying to place a hagiographic slant on Che.

Aggreed, its not only pov it is original research. Many critics of Che note that he was violent and often tortured his prisoners...no use saying just the opposite especially with no citations.(Gibby 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

During the Bolivian campaign Guevara didn't torture any of his prisoners. He did not conduct summary executions of prisinors. Read the Bolivian Diary..all of the prisoners he takes are released.

Compare to the Bolivians. They kill him on the spot (There was no death penalty in Bolivia at the time!!), they kill his comrades on the spot, with evidence of torture.

The Bolivian Diary gives info on his treatment of PoWs. He didnt lie in the diary as it was personnal and for his eyes only. PJB 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add

Despite the violent nature of the conflict it might also be appropriate to mention that Che gave medical attention to all of the wounded Bolivian soldiers whom the guerrillas took prisoner, before releasing them. Even after his last battle at the Quebrada del Yuro, in which he had been wounded, when he was taken to a temporary holding location and saw there a number of Bolivian soldiers who had also been wounded in the battle, he offered to give them medical care (His offer was turned down by the Bolivian officer in charge.). Source: Paco Taibo Ignacio II.

to the section on the insurgency. It shows a side to Guevara not apparent elsewhere in the article. Might need cleaning up a little, but I will include it in one form or another. PJB 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the above paragraph. PJB 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I've added

although some members of the Bolivian Communist Party did join/support him, such as Rodolfo Saldana, Serapio Aquino Tudela, and Antonio Jimenez Tardio against the party leadership's wishes.

to the Insurgent section's reference to his lack of support from the Bolivian Communist Party. PJB 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


There is already a section on the Bolivian Diary. I also suggest you try and read something else. Che is hardly the man you romanticize him to be. (Gibby 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Minor issue

The statement

On 7 February 1959, the victorious government proclaimed Guevara "a Cuban citizen by birth". He immediately proceeded to divorce his Peruvian wife, Hilda Gadea, and on 2 June 1959 married Aleida March[›], a Cuban-born member of the 26th of July movement with whom he had been living since mid-1958.

makes it sound like Guevara divorced his Peruvian wife either because he had just become a Cuban (did she object, forcing a breakup?) or because he wanted to celebrate victory by marry his female comrade. Which, if either, is it? It needs to be clearer why he divorced her, as at the moment it sounds like it was due to his becoming a Cuban citizen. PJB 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above and appreciate your pointing out that it needs clarification since it is often hard for the author to catch such flaws in his/her own work. The facts are these: Che had decided to separate from Hilda before he left Mexico on the Granma. The best information I have indicates that he was never "in love" with her, but they lived together in Mexico and when she became pregnant he decided to marry her for the sake of the child. Before sailing on the Granma, he reiterated all of this to Hilda, but she chose not to accept the fact that he intended for the marriage to end. Shortly after the "26th of July movement" triumphed (on 21 January 1959 to be exact) she took their three-year-old daughter ("Hildita") and flew to Havana, in her mind for the purpose of being reunited with Che and resuming their marriage. He immediately informed her that as far as he was concerned their marriage was over and that he would be initiating divorce proceedings immediately. This was before he had been proclaimed "a Cuban citizen by birth", and I feel quite certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship issue. During the years that he was fighting in the Sierra, Che had been involved with several women, but had "settled down" with Aleida March in the summer of 1958. He told Hilda that he intended to marry Aleida as soon as their divorce became final, and this is what he did. (As to his motives for marrying Aleida, I have no definitive information and prefer not to speculate ... )
I hope that you will re-word the relevant section of the Che article to improve its clarity.
Polaris999 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Polaris999...I didnt want to be picky but I thought it sounded a bit off. Ill rewrite that part. PJB 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, I can't see where/when he marries Hilda Gadea: the article just jumps to the divorce, which is a bit confusing. Needs adding? --Slp 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Slp! It definitely should be included -- I will try to find a place to insert it. Polaris999 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I included the information about Hilda in the first paragraph of the "Cuba" section. Thanks again for bringing this omission to my attention! Polaris999 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs a mention (2) ?

Shouldn't his nickname (Che) be explained in the first paragraph/intro? It means "friend/mate" in Spanish, and Argentines are stereotyped as saying it often. PJB 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Added it.

PJB 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The nickname is discussed at length in the "Guatemala" section where it probably belongs since that is where it was given to him.
Polaris999 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Also, in Critics of Che section, should something be mentioned of Cuban Exile critics in Miami? There must be members of that community who criticise him for helping to overthrow their beloved dictator Batista?

Re your statement "There must be members of that community who ... " : Definitely true -- and several of them are using the Che article here on wikipedia to express their point of view.
Polaris999 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


And another thing in the Critics of Che section...shouldnt it be flatly stated that his aim to overthrow the Bolivian government by force and violence rather than through politics (After all the Bolivian Communist Party was active, but banned I think after his actions) is a source of criticism? PJB 12:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mario Monje and the rest of the leadership of the Bolivian Communist Party (PCB) initially pledged their support for the operation, but Monje alleges that this was because they had been misled by Fidel Castro into thinking that the Cubans' intention was to use Bolivia merely as a transit point to infiltrate guerrillas into other South American countries. The Ñancahuazú farm was purchased by Coco Peredo, a member of the Communist Youth branch of the PCB who became a leader of the guerrillas, using money given to the PCB by Cuba for that purpose. The location chosen was, shall we say, unfortunate, and far from the area where Che had expressly directed that the land should be purchased -- he had selected the Alto Beni region. Exactly what was said among Fidel Castro, Manuel Piñeiro and Mario Monje remains murky and it seems probable that the exact truth will never be known. Che and Monje did not personally discuss plans for the guerrilla operation until after Che had arrived at the Ñancahuazú farm. This meeting took place on 31 December 1966 and it immediately became apparent that their expectations were very different and by the time it ended it was clear that the PCB would not be collaborating with Che's group. Monje asked Che's permission to inform those members of the PCB Communist Youth who were members of the guerrilla troop about the fact that the PCB would not be supporting the movement and to give them the option to withdraw from it. Che assented and Monje addressed them, laying out his objections to Che's plans and asking them to leave the guerrilla and return with him to La Paz. They unanimously chose to stay with Che and Monje returned to La Paz the next day.
Polaris999 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Also that could mean that the Bolivian Communist Party would criticise him...there might be an example out there somewhere. After all Che's actions got them banned (I think---please verify), which would have driven them ape-shit (especially if they were involved in elections etc. to win power peacefully). PJB 12:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


A parcel of jungle land in the Ñancahuazú region had been purchased by native Bolivian Communists and turned over to him for use as a training area.

Was the land purchased before he decided to go to Bolivia by the Communists or was it bought specifically for a training area for the guerillas? The answer could shed light on local support for Che.

If it was bought before hand, were the Communists (Were they members of the BCP, Bolvians who held communist views or some of the communists who had gone against the BCP's leaderships wishes?) supporting him secretly and supported his aims? PJB 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Please refer to my answer to this in the above paragraph. Probably there should be a separate article about Monje in which all of these issues could be explored in greater detail ... (Yes, the PCB was outlawed after the guerrilla operation was discovered.)
Polaris999 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know Monje had his three goals of:

  • Resigning from the Bolivian Communist Party, after ensuring its neutrality
  • Take control of the political and military leadership of the revolution
  • Try to get other groups on side

Che's refusal of point 2 (Military control of the revolution) seems to have angered Monje, who then went back, as you say, to La Paz, where he seemed to turn the Bolivian Communist Party against Che (Kicking out guerrillas from the Youth Movement, refusing support etc).

I agree that a seperate area/article or something should be made to further explore this.

PJB 12:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also a few other things that I would like to discuss for inclusion:

  • Lucia Alvarez De Toledo (Who translated my copy of the Bolivian Diary) writes in her introduction of an old Cuban peasant who has a 'Santeria' shrine in his house, which has a picture of Guevara amongst the other idols. The old Cuban peasant swore that Che was black and Cuban born! She also mentions a women in La Higuera, who was 19 when Guevara was in Bolivia, who tells her "Look at us. Nothing has changed since then (The Bolivian Revolution). El Commandante came too soon. We were ignorant of him and did not understand him. We abandoned him and he died because of us, when he had come to save us so that we could have a better life, and here we are, just as we were before he came or maybe even worse". Could these we used to write a couple of paragraphs in the Hero section on popular support and as an example of his legacy respectivly?
  • The land reforms of the government, inadequete and limited as they were, did give peasants a stake in the status quo. Lucia Alvarez De Toledo believes this will explain the lack of peasant support (as well as the fear of the conflict).

Whats your thoughts?

PJB 12:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting thing I've just read is the events on 24th March 1967. Che records that an officer whom he had captured 'gave the names of two other officers who were willing to co-operate.' Was the Barrientos regime popular, and could this be mentioned in the Bolivian Campaign section? If so, how?

PJB 13:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention requested

Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution, especiallly the Psychological profile section reads increasingly like an unencyclopedic attack piece. I can only guess that someone is taking advantage of that having been split out from the main article to write things that would never be tolerated in this more-watched article, and that are basically off-topic for an article about his involvement in the Cuban Revolution. I don't have time to wade into this now, but I urge those who are working on this article to read and watchlist that one as well. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree.--Dakota 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guevara’s effectiveness in combat

Guevara’s effectiveness in combat is doubted by some. At el Hombrito the Che fired a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) at short range and missed (James, 2001, p. 97); the one dead enemy was probably killed by Francisco Tamayo Rodriguez (El Mejicano) with a single shot .22. At Úbero, assigned to an intermediate position, the Che did not participate directly in the assault (James, 2001, p 92 -93) unlike Camilo Cienfuegos, Efiginio Almeijeras, and Jorge Sotus.

In the Che’s final combat (April 1958), near Santa Rosa, Buey Arriba, with his feared enemy Sánchez Mosquera, Guevara left his men to ambush Mosquera’s troops at very close range from beneath the cover of a grass covered bank of the upper Buey River. Guevara supporters claim that he taken this position to sniping at Mosquera (really does not bear up because Guevara usually carried shorter range weapons, at this time a Beretta submachine gun) and admits running away [20], [21]. However, Guevara’s men held firm, and came out of hiding, firing at the standing Batista’s who were firing at the Che running away, and managed to cause causalities including the wounding of Mosquera.

During the Batista’s army assault on Sierra Maestra, Guevara did not support Rene Ramos Latour and as a result Ramos was wounded and bled to death as "Benigno" watched (Alarcón Ramírez, 1997). The Che’s greatest victory the assault on the armored train is reputed bought [22]. The numerous overseas adventures which he participated in/ and or planned were all failures.

—This unsigned comment was added by 216.152.242.200 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2006.

Criticism Section being defaced

Some of the additions to this section (in particular from User:KDRGibby) are such blatant POV that the entire section is being put into disrepute. It seems everyday new extraordinary claims (e.g. "[Che Guevera has] no recorded combat victories", "Che was a major failure at managing the Cuban economy", etc) which are only backed-up by references to columns, blogs and rants on extreme right-wing websites (which normally do not provide references or only provide equally unreliable and biased references).

Looking at this user's contributions page, it is clear that this person has been trawling Wikipedia adding large criticism sections (albeit with very bad spelling) to anything which disagrees with his exact point of view.

While most people would probably agree that there are many issues to criticise Che Guevera on and the majority of these have already been listed. The article was after all peer-reviewed and specified as a 'Good article' with "excellent NPOV" in 2004). Now however the criticism section is in danger of becoming a "this guy was a communist satan incarnate" rant. Can people please take extra care to ensure this section is kept as neutrally orientated as possible and not further vandalised by users such as KDRGibby (who's user page advocates the use of multiple aliases to achieve POV orientated defacement). Canderra 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Canderra, it is ok to have a pov so long as the pov is cited with sources and presented npov style. For example one must say, Critics believe XYZ. CITE You are placing your own pov by deleting cited material on bogus grounds. The sources are not blogs. I doubt you've read them. You technically confirm this because, I looked at KDRGibby's page, and it appears as if he is addressing leftist behavior not condoning it. You do not actually read the material.
Please read what is cited. Please look up the definition for words such as blogs. And please refer yourself to wiki rules regarding vandalism, pov, and npov.
Oh and btw, you have already violated the 3rr rule on this page with 4 reverts in a 24 hour period.
You wouldn't happen to be KDRGibby would you? (It appears User:KDRGibby has been blocked for making personel attacks although blockings don't stop people using anon. ip's). Funny how you have only reverted his portions and duplicated his dubious "sources". I have read the "sources" and I think most people would agree that a rant by someone who claims to have lived in Cuba yet cites no sources and provides no evidence of this or his claims does not count as a source (anyone could write such a page and use it to cite anything).
For your information, I have not performed 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, only 3. As the Vandalism page states "(Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.)" - trying to flood numerous wikipedia articles with extreme right-wing properganda is obviously vandalism. You can start your own extreme right-wing version of Wikipedia if you wish but Wikipedia.org is a NPOV website Canderra 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From 1956 on Feburary 15 till 1916 on Feb 16 you made 4 reverts. You should be blocked. You should also be blocked for deleting sourced material on made up grounds. They are not blogs. I do not tthink you have bothered to read them. The quality of the article is reduced by making up rules as you go along, as you have done.

You are making claims of "right wing propoganda" that you cannot back up. Please stop abusing the rules and throwing baseless accusations around.

"This is the story of failure"

  • This is the story of failure

This is the first line from the preface of “The African Dream”, and was not written by a critic of Guevara, but by his daughter Aleida Guevara (correct me if I am wrong but it is either her, Gott, or Che). Guevara’s status as a “tactician” or successful “guerilla soldier” is, as the critics cite, wholly without merit and should be reflected in the article. Guevara is portrayed by those who idolize him as the David to America’s imperialistic goliath, but realistically this is more of a construct than any accurate reflection of history. Outside of a few engagements in Cuba, Guevara had no success anywhere else he tried to export the revolution to. In fact on the few occasions he tangled with US forces directly, he had was defeated. In the Congo, his forces were decimated by the local Congolese led by a 6 man Green Beret A-team, and in Bolivia, well we know that story. Interestingly enough, the purpose of the A-Team in the Congo was not to kill Guevara, but to grind him down and humiliate him, as they had numerous opportunities to kill him. There is a reason that the US Army’s special warfare school makes its students read Giap, but not Guevara.

So the question remains, how do we fix this in the article? Ten Dead Chickens 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple of suggestions:
For starters, if you are going to pretend to use a direct verbatim quote, why not get the quote right? What you have written above is not the first line from Aleida Guevara March's foreword to The African Dream. Check it out ...
Next, why not sign your comments on this Talk/Discussion page with your user name since that is the Wiki rule?
Polaris999 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Preface, intro, its all good. But what about the specifics? Ten Dead Chickens 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

changes to criticism section

A new IP editor suddenly burst onto this page [23], who looks suspiciously like User:KDRGibby, who is currently blocked for a week. [24] Anyone want to comment? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the History page of the Che article and the "contribs" pages of User:KDRGibby and 129.15.107.84, I would conclude that KDRGibby and 129.15.107.84 are one and the same. Significantly, the last posting by KDRGibby was made at 14:06, 16 February 2006 and the first posting by 129.15.107.84 at 15:37, 16 February 2006; KDRGibby had been blocked, and the block vprotected, by Jpgordon at 14:14, 16 February 2006.
This same user now seems to be appearing as 129.15.107.72 . This IP is based at the University of Oklahoma.
I requested semi-protection for this page a few weeks ago because of similar problems, but the admin who reviewed the request said that s/he didn't think semi-protection was necessary at that time. Perhaps some admin will agree that it is necessary at this time?
Polaris999 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hang loose for a bit. If KDRGibby continues using socks to evade blocks, the results of his arbitration will likely make this easier to take care of. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Jpgordon, for providing that link to the arbitration page of KDRGibby which is very interesting to read. BTW, another situation that we have developing here is that a certain user who refuses to register and who has many warnings and blocks has begun using a TOR router to slip in here pretending to be someone else. Do you happen to know if there is a Wiki policy re the use of TOR routers for this purpose? Polaris999 02:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure. See Wikipedia:No open proxies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, Jpgordon! I thought that Wikipedia had such a policy, but could not bring up information about it via any of the keywords I tried in the search engine. Polaris999 05:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Would y'all mind NOT steam rolling my edits in this merry go round? Ten Dead Chickens 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Might help if you signed your comment so we would know who you are ... Polaris999 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why all the fuss about who KDRGibby may or may not be? What about the point, namely that the entire criticism section is being remove, when clearly its cited, and reflects the source. Perhaps it could be worded a bit better, but I plan on doing some serious re-working of this article and hate to see my contributions rolled over. Ten Dead Chickens 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC, if you can figure out how to do this without being constantly "wiped out" as an unintended side effect of reverts that are done to correct vandalism, I will be eager to learn your method. All I can suggest is that you work on one section at a time as that makes it easier to recover your contributions if they do happen to get rolled over. I personally try to never revert the entire article but rather restore particular sentences if they get deleted, mangled, or vandalized. Sometimes, however, when a vandalism attack affects the entire article, there is no option except to rv it ... Anyway, I have always tried to respect your edits in the past and will certainly continue to do so in the future. Polaris999 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)



DELETE / MOVE / CORRECT ARTICLE AND / OR SIMPLY BE FAIR

==Delete==

________________________________________________________________________________

or put it anywhere else

this article is on a revolutionary politician, NOT a PHOTOGRAPHER

if the picture of Che is of importance, please mention the author / photographer of the picture by name and directly at the picture. Please regard the international guidelines in behaviour of pictures and photographers. If you do not so, please leave wikipedia alone, because this tryes to be a seriously platform and scitifically encyclopedia, but no kid's play ground.

For the record, the above unsigned comment was created and edited by 217.7.165.169 aka User:Photomania between 03:27 and 03:47, 17 February 2006.
Polaris999 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A Blog Or Not a Blog, that is the question

Editor Canderra argues that the sources below are blogs and has deleted the material. The material is still not present in the article but no other editor has bothered to confirm or deny these assertions (For whatever reason). Please take your time now to review the section and check the sources for yourself, lets see if they really are blogs.


New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a "sociopathic thug".[25] Other US newspaper critics have made similar remarks. They point out that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. Contrary to Che supporters, these critics also argue that Che was a blundering tactician with no recorded combat victories. They claim that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence that he earned a medical degree.[26] [27] They note that Che murdered individuals on dubious grounds and took their property, seized private manors for himself, and distributed property among communist bureaucrats rather than the peasants. The also state that he not only oversaw the prison, over which he ordered the execution of hundreds if not thousands of Cubans, but also helped institute forced labor camps when volunteerism failed. Finally, these critics believe that Che was a major failure at managing the Cuban economy as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship."[28],[29],[30]
Some critics, such as Che-Mart, have merchandised their dislike of Che Guevara by marketing t-shirts poking fun at both Che Guevara and his supporters, for example, pointing out what they percieve as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalisms hotest selling images.[31]


  • They are not blogs. Put the material back in. (Gibby 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC))


I think that User:KDRGibby has raised an important issue here and hope that other editors will comment on it. The sources cited in the first paragraph s/he references above are not blogs, but most of them are of an extremely POV nature and dubious quality -- they hardly seem to meet the Wikipedia requirement set forth in Wikipedia:Verifiability that only "reliable and reputable sources" be used. But, then again, how is one to categorize a source as "reliable and reputable" or not? Perhaps the following section of Wikipedia:Verifiabilty can serve as a guide:

Self-published sources
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

Polaris999 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


I actually only stated that a couple of specific websites User:KDRGibby 'cited' were blogs not all of them. It should however be noted that all the sources KDRGibby lists above are either commentaries by right-wing journalists (half from less than reputable and politically biased websites) or unreferenced rants by supposed Cuban exiles. Also, references for most of the material in these sources are few and far between. As Polaris999 notes, they definatly fall below the reliability required by the Wikiepdia policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Of the content KDRGibby contests must be included, there are numerous factual flaws, as a sample:
  1. The quote "no recorded combat victories" is categorically false as most biographical sources list at least several combat victories e.g. the winning of the battle of the city of Santa Clara by the column he led was probably the most decisive victory of the Cuban revolution!
  2. The sentence which starts "Che was a major failure at managing the Cuban economy" contains several misleading statements and besides which when exactly did Che Guevara manage the Cuban economy? His only economically related role was minister of Industries for just 3 years, hardly long enough to "over[see] the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization". Also, to imply Cuba was a economically succsessful country under the previous Batista dictatorship is extremely dubious.
  3. As far as I can see, the claim that he failed his medical degree comes from a single unreliable researcher several decades after Che's death and is based pretty solely on the fact that his documentation could not be located by the researcher and ignores all testimonies of his graduation. Besides, try and find the documentation of any other of his 1948 University of Buenos Aires medical degree classmates, not easily done. Sure the claim has been made none-the-less, but it is a controversial one (as is currently noted in the article).
Obviously a biographical article on someone like Che Guevara (who played a major part in the formation of a new political system) deserves a criticism section, in particular, to draw attention to the evidence of his involvement in the widespread execution of political adversaries after the revolution. But to add some of KDRGibby's more extreme claims, which are backed up only by the most unreliable and doubtful “sources”, only degrades the quality of the article and is out of keeping with the intended objective nature of biographical articles on Wikipedia. Canderra 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Polaris, Wiki does not prohibit the use of POV sources, that is afterall how we get all our info anyway. What wiki wants is to present pov material in npov fashion which means citing the source and informing readers that this is the opinion or belief of the source. These sources have a different pov than most of the editors adding to the Che page, the pov of these people is that Che was a good man. If we delete opposition to this we do in fact promote a pov without actually saying so.

Canderra, if you read the sources, one of them mentions that there is dispute over the battle of Santa Clara stating that it may not actually have been a battle at all but a pre-arranged surrender. Nevertheless these are reputable sources and they are NOT blogs, nor are they self published. IRI, HNN, and FPM are not blogs, they are not self publications, they hire people to research and write and or pay scholars and journalists for their material.

In regards to Cuban economics there are multiple sources that mention the pre revolution economy and the post economy...if Milton Friedm et. al. are correct it doesnt take long to ruin an economy with communism. Lennin managed to nearly ruin Russia in 18 months. AT anyrate, if the claims are dubious the burdon of proof is now on you to say otherwise. You can't just delete the information if you yourself have no cited counterpoints and no good reasons other than protecting your own POV.

As far as dubious sources, this page has most of its sources coming from various Che biographies written by friends and appologists for them...this gives a pov. If you leave out my section, then almost everything else from the page should be deleted as well. Furthermore, if my sources are "dubious at best" what kind of dubious pov is giong to be provided when quoting the thoughts and words of Che directly? Do you really think Che would criticize himself? If supporting Che and being Che are the only qualifications for being a proper source for this article (And that seems to be what is being said here) then we have violated the Wiki NPOV rules...quite blatantly. (Gibby 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous, one cannot just introduce whatever claims that can be found from all corners of the internet regardless of the source website's material not even being properly cited and then state it is up to other editors to prove the claims are false. A quick search on Google yields this website [[32]], of equal validity to many of the sources you quote above, claiming that hundreds of people think that Napoleon is god. Obviously this website does not mean however that the Napoleon article should now be updated with a section stating that he may be god with a link to the quoted website somehow validating the claim.
This is an encyclopedia we are trying to create here so primary and secondary sources are always preferable over other tertiary sources. You are mistaken if you think I believe Che was a "Good man", I (like most Wikipedia editors) just want an accurate npov biographical article on him and all other similarly notable persons. This is why (as noted by Polaris999), the [guideline on partisan websites] as well as the [publication guideline] clearly states that the material from websites such as frontpagemag.com and independant.org are not acceptable as a secondary or tertiary source. A quick glance at the general content of these websites should reassure any editor of this (frontpagemag.com even sells 'bumper stickers' which say "right-wing extremist"!).
I do not wish to continue this discussion further as it appears to be going around in circles. Myself and other editors have stated several times why some specific contributions you have made to this article are not valid and have shown the relevant Wikipedia guidelines which state exactly why. It would be a loss to the article to have an editor such as yourself not contribute so please start assisting us in constructing and maintaining a good, factual article, not one full of wild accusations. Canderra 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That said, the majority of KDRGibby's sources are mainstream news and opinon outlets. Why are these bieng thrown out with the other more contentious sources? Ten Dead Chickens 23:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


The sources are valid, they are respectable, they are published. And the material is presented as a information regarding these critics views of Che Guevara. It should not be deleted. Canderra is treating views he does not agree with poorly. Wikipedia does not prevent the disimination of published points of views. The section is npov because it demonstrates these are the views of particular critics.

If we throw out something like frontpagemag (especially IRE which is nonpartisan (for godssake) then we HAVE to throw out autobiographical material and or other material written by LEFTWINGERS! Ultimatly we will be left with very little on the page.

What is going on here is the systematic elimination of any material contrary to the views of certain editors who like Che. The deletion of this material is unfair and not logically consistant with what is present on the page in other sections.(Gibby 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

And forgive me if I don't believe you Canderra but your main criticism on the section said, repeatidly, that the citations were blogs, which they clearly were not. You are attempting to delete the material by whatever means are necessary and I do not think it is to keep a good factual article...otherwise your complaints would have been...say good and factual themselves. (Gibby 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

I have no problem with deleting the reference to FPM, as long as its author is not a widely published individual. Wikipedia suffers from too much sourcing from non notable individuals with big megaphones (i.e. Kevin Drum). With that said, I think that there is some debate as to the notability of Fontova, and a case could be made either way as to the inclusion of his opinion and notes. But I do agree that KDRGibby contributions are cited with mainstream sources, NOT WEBLOGS AS IS CONSTANTLY CLAIMED, and removing it is indefensible for the reasons given above. Ten Dead Chickens 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, TDC. I notice that you have removed the NPOV tags placed on both sub-sections of the Legacy section with the comment on the History page, "(since both sections appear to be adequately sourced, this should be removed)". I am glad that you have removed the NPOV tags because I do not think that POV was the main issue with these two sub-sections; in my opinion, the problem continues to be the matter of sourcing. In the case of "Support", I do not consider it to be adequately sourced. The only source given refers to the Korda photo. I think that more references are definitely needed here, including one for the Sartre remark: although it may be "common knowledge" for many that he said that, this doesn't eliminate the need for it to have a proper citation.
As for the "Criticism" sub-section, I think that it reads like a rant. And I continue to maintain that most of the sources cited therein do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability standards. How can we have confidence in the accuracy of Fontova's reporting when he wasn't even able to find out how to correctly spell "Dzerzhinsky"? If a "Legacy" section is supposed to contain diatribes such as these, I suppose that someone will have to re-write the "Legacy" section of the article on Franklin Roosevelt to include the opinions of him expressed by Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito ...
Polaris999 20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If you question the sourcing of the support section, then fix it. If you have a problem with the content of the “legacy” section, than I suggest a name change, as I don’t feel it is appropriate. It deals very little with Guevara’s legacy, and is more of a “why we hate him” vs “why we love him” argument. If the criticism section reads like a “rant” to you, then change the language, don’t remove it. All the sources, except for Fontova, are linked to mainstream sources, and passes the WP:Cite criteria. As for Fontova, spelling variations on names are common, and if this is the best straw man you can provide to exclude his comments, you are setting the bar awfully low. Ten Dead Chickens 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I had no part in writing either of those sub-sections and therefore do not plan to add citations or alter their content in any way. I did just now change the name of the section from "Legacy" to "Aftermath"; perhaps another editor will come up with a better name for it. BTW Fontova also gets Guevara's own name wrong, but I guess that wouldn't bother you. As for the statements he makes quoting unknown or little-known persons, I could hardly track down these individuals to find out whether they did or did not make such statements, and, in the case they had, whether there was any evidence to support them. It is interesting to note, however, that on his own blog/webpage[33], Fontova describes himself as "America's bestselling, incorrigibly incorrect, Cuban-Cajun author and columnist".
Polaris999 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: Because the Che Guevara article was promoted to FAC status earlier today and no one else has undertaken to clean-up the Support and Criticism sub-sections, I have reluctantly decided to undertake this task since in their present "unkempt" state they detract from the rest of the article. Polaris999 05:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Santa Clara

When the Che reached Las Villas Province that area was already occupied by very diverse anti-Batista forces which included Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo and William Alexander Morgan who are usually deleted from Cuban government photographs [34]. The Che soon ran into trouble with the other rebels to the point that he was disarmed and sent out of a certain area by rebel comandante Jesús Carreras [35].

The Che’s greatest “victory” the assault on the armored train is also reputed bought [36]. In this “action” only “El Vaquerito is reported killed, losses of the Batista soldiers are apparently zero [37]; however, it seems that 37 Batista soldier prisoners were executed immediately afterwards [38], [39]. Finding himself without the kind of support he had from other rebels and auxiliaries, the numerous unsupported overseas adventures which El Che participated in/ and or planned were all failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs)

In the article by Humberto Fontova that you cite above -- giving two separate footnotes for the same article located at different URL's -- I have noticed that the number he actually mentions is 27, not 37. He writes as follows:
"Yet immediately after the Santa Clara bribe and skirmish, Che ordered 27 Batista soldiers executed as 'war criminals.' "
Polaris999 08:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Polaris you are correct, it should have read 27 not 37. As to the Mexican you will find him scattered through out the references either as El Mejicano, the Mexican or Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo for instance he is cited on page 264 of John Anderson's book. He also probably killed the only Batista fatality with a one shot .22 at El Hombrito, which Che takes credit for even though he missed at close range with his BAR (see James). Why the heck Che was using that very heavy and cumbersome weapon I do not know. The Mexican was also close to Universo Sanchez who used him as an executioner and bodyguard. It is said that the Mexican was involved in crime in Miami, and his name appears in various John Kennedy's shooting conspiracy theory site; frankly I think he too was "company" and that all this crime stuff is mere "cover"....

Thank you for the clarification, El Jigüe. BTW I do not mean to argue that the "Battle of Santa Clara" was on the scale of, shall we say,
the Battle of Kursk ;-) . By all measures, it seems to have been a minor engagement -- but, since it is generally referred to by the name "Battle of Santa Clara", I think that we need to continue using that terminology unless someone wants to write a separate article on the event explaining why it should be called something else ... Polaris999 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

I reverted to remove a sentence which in part contained "However this is a load of nonsense."--Dakota ~ ° 01:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the bit you mean -- someone just added that a few minutes ago, maybe as a joke. In any case, it definitely needs to go! Polaris999 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This article sees much ip action. Is there or was there a move on to semi protect. Just curious--Dakota ~ ° 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)



Hello, Dakota. In response to your inquiry, I am posting below the request I made for semi-protection on 23 February 2006 and the reply received from User:Voice of All. I found this reply quite enigmatic as I have not been able to figure out how the vandalism could be "Not yet as bad as it looks." Since the abuse has abated somewhat since then, I have not taken any further action. Perhaps you could make a better case than I did ...

It seems to come in spurts with this article. I hope it stays low. It's on my watchlist.--Dakota ~ ° 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for watchlisting it, Dakota. I just had to undo a new kind of vandalistic attack -- this time someone replaced one of the URL's in the References section with a link to a commercial site seeking to exploit Che's image. Polaris999 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just reverted again it again.--Dakota ~ ° 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect against continuing, mostly obscene, vandalism from unregistered users. Polaris999 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not yet as bad as it looks. Keep me informed...this may soon need protection. Lets wait for now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Polaris999 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term Left-wing Milieu

From University of Cambridge Faculty of History http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/graduate_students/mphil/students.html

"Mr Sebastian Klaus Gehrig

Churchill skg29 Left-Wing Milieu and Civil Society in the Federal Republic of Germany during the 1970s The dissertation deals with the question how the discussion inside the left-wing milieu evolved during the 1970s until the year of the "german state crisis" in 1977. This shall be compared with the view of civil society on the milieu and its fear that the left-wingers could support the actions of the "Rote Armee Fraktion" (RAF) and so mabye challenge the strukture of german democracy"

El Jigue 3/1/06

The relevance of this completely escapes me. Care to explain? - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A reader questioned use of the word "Milieu." My note provides and example of its use. In the general context it was used by me to challenge the idea that Guevara had a sudden conversion to marxist thought by reviewing his upbringing. 4-11-06

Polaris the allegedly Faulty website is from Cuba

The site you believe brought the system down is from Cuba and has a whole series of images of the explosion of "le Coubre." Very interesting, you can probably take any of them since the Cuban government does not believe in copyright (si no le conviene). I just looked it up again and stuck it in here, had done that previously and nothing happened. The site URL, with a V in front of it to deactivate it in case it is really some kind of Trojan is “[Vhttp://www.fotospl.com/Default.aspx?Class=23&Epig=001~01&PA=18]”


Probably there is a place for an entry on the Le Coubre affair. It has a Morgan, an Evans and a Jones involved in it, so the Welsh Mafia should like that.

The Cuban government has trouble with power supply and by repute they are said to use viruses, Trojan horses etc to harm others. If you recall it was the Cuban government that blocked the exile Iranian satellite broadcast [40]. El Jigue 3/1/06

Hello El Jigue a.k.a. user 205.240.227.15 --
The problem with the reference you tried to add -- and which I had to remove -- was not anything to do with the URL (website) in question, but rather a result of the way you had formatted it. Instead of creating a new, completely separate source note (<ref></ref>) for the link you wanted to insert (i.e. the one to the Cuba-based Prensa Latina photos of La Coubre) as would have been the correct procedure, you "dropped" the new URL into the middle of an existing source note, and, not surprisingly, this caused the source note to "bomb".
I am inserting below two "takes" of the sentences in question in order that you can see exactly what you did wrong. The first shows the properly-working source note immediately before you edited it. The second shows the result of your editing, i.e. how you "dropped" the second URL into the existing source note.
BTW when I saw what had happened with this reference/link, my first thought was that I would create a separate source note for the URL that you had attempted to add, but then I saw that we already had a link to the photos of La Coubre on the Prensa Latina website in the first sentence of this paragraph (included below) , so that it would have been redundant to add another.
Revision as of 02:01, 27 February 2006
Alhutch (Talk | contribs)
In 1960 Guevara was involved in the ''[[La Coubre]]'' arms shipment cleanup<ref>[http://www.fotospl.com/Default.aspx?Class=23&Epig=001~01&PA=17 FotosPL images] of ''La Coubre'', accessed [[26 February]] [[2005]]</ref> that went further awry when a second explosion occurred, resulting in well over a hundred dead.<ref>Cuban Information Archives, "La Coubre explodes in Havana 1960". [http://cuban-exile.com/doc_151-175/doc0166.html Online], acessed [[26 February]] [[2006]]</ref> This is the time when "Korda" took the most famous photograph.
================================================================================================
Revision as of 02:55, 27 February 2006
205.240.227.15 (Talk | contribs)
In 1960 Guevara was involved in the ''[[La Coubre]]'' arms shipment cleanup<ref>[http://www.fotospl.com/Default.aspx?Class=23&Epig=001~01&PA=17 FotosPL images] of ''La Coubre'', accessed [[26 February]] [[2005]]</ref> that went further awry when a second explosion occurred, resulting in well over a hundred dead.<ref>Cuban Information Archives, "La Coubre explodes in Havana 1960". [http://cuban-exile.com/doc_151-175/doc0166.html Online][http://www.fotospl.com/Default.aspx?Class=23&Epig=001~01&PA=18], acessed [[26 February]] [[2006]]</ref> This is the time when "Korda" took the most famous photograph
=================================================================================================
Polaris999 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Polaris Thank you, apparently I goofed. I had formatted it the way I do all the rest and they do not bring my system down. The photographs at the site you discarded speak for themselves far more than the other link you left. Why don't you pick one or two and link to them. They speak so very eloquently of Guevara's arrogant incompetence that in no circumstance would I have messed them up deliberately. If you like make a site for Le Coubre explosion and I will fill it in with a carefully annotated account. BTW I was miles away when it happened, so it is no quite like being there but most of who were there died, you will have to rely on witnesses a little further away. El Jigue 3/3/06

Hello El Jigue -- Probably your link would have worked all right if you hadn't accidentally placed it inside a <ref></ref> source note. BTW I did look at the photos of La Coubre on both Prensa Latina sites and it seemed to me that they were identical except for the fact that those accessible by the 2nd URL had a kind of watermark over them which made them hard to see; that is why I chose to keep the 1st URL rather than replace it with the 2nd one. But, moving on from all of that, I think that your idea of creating a separate article for the La Coubre explosion is an excellent one and I just did so. Here it is: La Coubre explosion. I originally set it up without content as I was going to notify you immediately that it was available for you to begin working on, but amazingly enough, even as I was in the process of writing this message to you I received a warning that it was about to be deleted because it was empty! A little too fast, I would say. Anyway, I then had to jump over to that page and write a first paragraph in order to keep the article from being deleted, and also a message to the admin who had marked it for deletion. So, please do write some more in there as quickly as you can, and feel free to remove my first paragraph as I didn't intend it to be permanent. Incidentally, it was always my understanding that it was Raúl Castro who had ordered the La Coubre to be unloaded on the dock, not Che. Do you have other information? Polaris999 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Topics related to Che Guevara

A list of topics related to Che Guevara so the "See also" section can be improved;

LordViD 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Political events: 26th of July Movement - Cuban Revolution - La Coubre explosion - Cuban Missile Crisis
People: Fidel Castro - Carlos Fonseca - Luis Carlos Prestes
Legacy: Che Guevara (photo) - Guevarism - Che-Lives - Colegio Cesar Chavez
Other: Guerilla warfare - Socialism - Marxism - Summary execution - Extrajudicial punishment

LordViD 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Timeline, it disrupts the article (Gibby 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Guevara's plaza in Rosario

I've just uploaded three pictures of the Plaza de la Cooperación in Rosario, where Guevara was born. I think they're much clearer than those that appear at the "Rosario de Santa Fe" website (http://www.heyche.com/4), and the large mural painting should probably be included in the article, but everything's so neatly packed in it that I'm not sure where. So I ask established editors to do as they see fit with commons:Image:Che Guevara Rosario 1.jpg, commons:Image:Che Guevara Rosario 2.jpg, and commons:Image:Che Guevara Rosario 3.jpg. The author of the aforementioned website also comments that it's a modest monument in a small town. I can assure you the plaza is not hidden, though it's neither large nor extremely flamboyant, the mural is quite large, and Rosario is by no means a small town (it has 1 million inhabitants). I'll go get a picture of Guevara's house soon. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Info on Ricardo Carpani, author of the paiting (in Spanish):
Polaris999 asked why the severe, stern expression of Guevara in the painting. Seems Carpani simply chose to draw like that all his characters. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Two pictures of Guevara's appartment block in Rosario have been uploaded to Commons (commons:Image:Casa_Che_Guevara_1.jpg, commons:Image:Casa_Che_Guevara_2.jpg). Not really impressive, I guess, though the facade is nice. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Che - a humanitarian?

In what way is Che Guevara a humanitarian? Probert 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probert Perhaps Swedenman is mistranslating the word "Humanist" which is often code (as used by Castro) for communist e.g. in 1959 "The revolution was humanist, he stressed, not Marxist" [41]. This is sometimes called marxist humanist [42]. The rationale behind this misleading label appears to be that marxist revolutionary actions, although bloody, are expected (although never proven to) result in future human paradise on earth. That is the "the road map to Cuba's New Jerusalem might be found in the covers of Das Kapital." [43] (:>) El Jigue 3-11-06

He is a humanitarian becorse he fought for the right, He fought against the diktator of Cuba and the americans, He fought for goodnees for South America and he become murded for it. Swedenman 21:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Swedenman, Guevara really fought for the "right" since his idiotic guerrilla manual and tactics got a lot of the left killed. Besides every military man in Latin America was not going to let Guevara or his kind execute them if they could get them first. El Jigue 3-11-06

He has NEVER torture and kill people. The fought the dictator of Cuba who, with support of the americans, tortured and kill people of Cuba who fought against him. Swedenman 10:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Fidel Castro torture and kill people but Che has never doing it. Swedenman 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Y'know: I generally admire Che, but to say he didn't kill people is clearly just plain wrong. He oversaw the executions of numerous prominent Batististas, and he did so proudly. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Some consideration should probably also be given to the fact that he passionately wished that the USSR leadership had launched the nuclear-tipped missiles installed in Cuba against US cities rather than withdrawing them. He felt so strongly about this that he personally confronted the top Soviet leaders over the matter and chastised them for not having fired the missiles. When they replied that such an action on their part would have doubtlessly resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of people in the USA, USSR, Eastern and Western Europe, and the virtual obliteration of Cuba and its inhabitants, he retorted that this would have been "a necessary sacrifice". His reasoning was apparently that if 500 million people in the "oppressor nations" of the North were to die in a nuclear holocaust, this would mean the liberation of the 2,000+ million people (1960 population figures) in the impoverished countries of the South, and the net effect for humanity would therefore be a positive one. In other words, he considered the value of the life of a human being who happened to be residing in a developed country to be less than zero. He also seemed to have no conception whatsoever of how terrible life in a post-nuclear-war world would have been for the survivors, nor any concern for the catastrophic effects a war of mutually-assured destruction would have had on the Earth's ecosystem ... Polaris999 23:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilda Gadea = Hilda Gardea

Polaris you may find additional info under Hilda Gardea [44]as well as Hilda Gadea. Gardea is a name of a place in la Vascongada [45], but Gadea also is a place in Spain [46]. Anyway she might deserve a section; BTW will attend to the Le Coubre (I believe that is the correct name of the ship) explosion when I get a chance El Jigue 1-11-06

Che in Mozambique

I just stumbled across a source which suggested that Che offered assistance to FRELIMO in Mozambique in late 1966 or early 1967, assistance which they turned down because they felt that his strategy of a concentrated military campaign against specific localities would ultimately hurt their chances of success, and that they would be better off pursuing a strategy of inciting nation-wide resistance and rebellion. I've added just a small piece of information in the article to reflect this, and cited the source, but this isn't something I've ever heard before, so if anybody knows otherwise, go ahead and revert it. Thanks! The Disco King 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Curiously enough, this is something I have heard before, from a very different source, many years ago. I had always wondered what to make of that report, but your contribution suddenly makes it appear more credible. Polaris999 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dumb deletions

That insert deleted on the photo of the Che with a tank is the reference to the tank it is a Sherman with a 76 mm cannon [47]. As to that tonnage was estimate as 2000 tons, in a 4,800 ton ship [48]. How much do think a freighter can carry. You guys don't have any idea about how heavy weaponry is or how much a cargo ship can carry do you? A light tank can weigh 12 metric tons see above. A 7,000 ton Liberty ship can carry 9,140 tons cargo. Now I bet you guys do not have the scholarly integrity to change these things back. I can just hear the old warriors and sailors laughing at you. Matter of fact I think I will bring the matter up in as many old soldier and sailor sites as I can. Why the heck did you bolix up the old reference method now it is almost impossible to find the old citation Citation is at [49]. Xe xe El Jigue 3-15-06

I regret to say that I do not know to what you are referring when you write:
That insert deleted on the photo of the Che with a tank is the reference to the tank it is a Sherman with a 76 mm cannon [50].
I made no such deletion or any other deletion concerning this photo or the tank in it and wasn't aware that any such deletion had been made; therefore, I am unable to comment on it.
Re the source note and link to the CIA memoranda you mention, they are still there (as note number 9, as I recall). When this article was peer reviewed, it was strongly recommended that all notes should be put into, and maintained in, the <ref></ref> style and this was done by a group of editors working together.
Re the tonnage, I will be glad to re-word it to say that the CIA estimated it to be carrying 2000 tons. I have spent several days trying to find a third source re how much tonnage the Alfhem may have been carrying and can only find the two estimates, namely the one by the CIA of "2000 tons" and that by Jon Lee Anderson of "2 tons" -- I therefore thought that the truth was likely to be somewhere in the middle and a compromise figure of 200 tons seemed reasonable, but perhaps it will be better to cite the two disparate estimates and let readers draw their own conclusions. Polaris999 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Alfhem cargo

[51] Pro-Arbenz says two tons of small arms and one light artillery piece An artillery piece weighs quite a bit even a light one.

[52] says 2000 tons and starts with “1949 - Jacobo Arbenz Guzman killed his rival Gen. Francisco Javier Arana and sought to become the successor of President Juan Jose Arevalo” this citation uses CIA documents

[53] This pro-Arbenz source says 2000 tons were purchased but they that they were railroad mounted cannon and antitank artillery plus antiquated inoperable small arms. How this author knows this is not specified. Czech weapons even antiquated ones are considered excellent WWI rifles were in good rifles.

[54] A Center for Democracy reports ” after Alfhem berthed, Allen Dulles convened intel advisory committee and laid out argument that Arbenz had arms enough to roll down Central America and grab the Panama Canal (domino theory). Rip Robertson took in a demolition team to blow railroad trestle. Hersh, b. (1992). The old boys 339-348”

In addition this source talks off 50 tons of support for Castillo Armas. Guatemala, 54 after the overthrow of Arbenz gvt the armas regime established the CIA-backed national committee for defense against communism. Nacla (magazine re latin america) 2/83 p4 Guatemala, 54 after Alfhem arrived, secretary of state proclaimed a mutual defense treaty with Honduras and fifty tons of arms sent for distribution to armas insurgents. U.S. submarines and 3 B-36 bombers turned up in region. Eisenhower ordered navy to stop and search all "suspicious foreign-flag vessels." Hersh, b. (1992). The old boys 347”

[55] Reports 2000 tons of Skoda (high quality) small arms, ammunition and light artillery and that the amount far exceeded any legitimate needs of the Guatemalan army.

[56] Mentions many details “Two thousand tons of arms and ammunition, more than all Central America has received in the last 30 years, ...the arms, in 15,000 cases, were loaded on the freighter Alfhem in the Baltic port of Stettin,” “Guatemala's Defense Minister José Angel Sánchez was down from Guatemala City to superintend the unloading, and the dock was cleared of idlers. Day after day, on cars of the U.S.-owned International Railways of Central America, the crates rolled up to the capital, 197 miles away. Armed guards rode each car. One night a stick of dynamite exploded without serious damage under an arms train, presumably set by anti-Communist Guatemalan exiles who had come over the Honduras border, 15 miles away. Tracing the fuse, soldiers wound up in a gunfight. One sergeant and one saboteur were killed.”


[57] “In May 1954, Arbenz turned to Czechoslovakia for military weapons in order to guard against a possible American intervention. Arbenz purchased 2,000 tons of arms which were sent on a Swedish ship Alfhem which evaded several attempts of interception enroute to Guatemala. One CIA official wanted to sink the ship in the Guatemalan port of Puerto Barrios, but that plan was rejected by his superiors. Instead, the CIA approved a plan to dynamite the railroad tracks outside Puerto Barrios, so that the arms shipment would be stalled. But that plan backfired when the rain-soaked detonators failed. CIA operants quickly opened fire on the passing train but failed to stop the shipment of weapons to the Guatemalan military. As it turned out, the weapons were of little use to the Guatemalan military, since they were comprised of cannons which could be used when mounted on railroad cars; anti-tank guns but there were no tanks in the area; and antiquated small arms, most of which were inoperable”

[58] Cites a report that the weapons were to be used by a “Workers militia”


“Holland, Max "Private Sources of U.S. Foreign Policy: William Pawley and the 1954 Coup d'Etat in Guatemala" Journal of Cold War Studies - Volume 7, Number 4, Fall 2005, pp. 36-73 The MIT Press

Abstract

As a wealthy American businessman and former ambassador, William Pawley was a key actor in PBSUCCESS, the covert operation that brought down the government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954. The anti-Arbenz rebels, led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, could not have defeated the Guatemalan army on their own. The key to a successful coup was getting the army to act on their behalf, and in this regard, control of the air was vital. Pawley, owing to his knowledge of Latin America and experience in aviation, played a central role in ensuring that the rebels enjoyed air superiority during their move against the president. At a more abstract level, Pawley exemplified the role non-governmental actors played in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. The "state-private network," as it has been dubbed, remains a rich vein for scholarly investigation.” This paper discusses air support of Castillo Armas and also mentions 2000 tons of weaponry.

All this goes on an on… Some say either the weapons were no good others that they were excellent. Some say two tons, some say two tons plus artillery, most say 2000 tons. Two tons can be carried by a large dugout canoe or a heavy truck and the artillery pieces could be towed. Yet all agree the weapons went by rail suggesting a really heavy cargo. It is my opinion that the 2 ton figure with or without artillery is merely an excuse for defeat. What ever, the air support may well have made the difference. Perhaps the Guatemalan military unhappy with Arbenz’s killing of Arana was not reliable, and the “Workers Militia” were simple not ready. As to the quality of the weaponry they were from the Skoda works, the highest quality in the Soviet block. Castro once complained that the Mauser rifles shipped to him by Costa Rican President Figueras were of bad quality, while most experts regard Mauser rifles as excellent. It would seem that the trouble was incompetence because the Mausers used 7mm ammunition that is slightly different from 30.06 Springfield round in Cuba and using 30.06 jammed the Mausers. Besides Anderson has made a number of other mistakes in his excellent book. You will have to read mine when it comes out.

My conclusion is that the weapon shipment was 2000 tons, and it should be place in Wikipedia: Commonly [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], Holand (2005) but not universally, Anderson (1997), [64] believed to be a very significant 2000 tons. El Jigue 3-16-6

Thank you, EJ, for all of this outstanding information! Do you think that we should have an article for the Alfhem similar to the one for La Coubre? Because all of the citations you have included here are of interest and they certainly wouldn't fit into a source note ...
Re Anderson, I too have found a number of errors in his book and have been wondering how to let him know about them without going through all of the formality of writing him a letter. Do you think we should create a JLA article and then have a sub-section where people could list the errors they have noticed so that he can correct them in the next edition?
Re your upcoming book, I do look forward to reading it and keep checking amazon for notice of its publication date but so far have found no mention of it. Do you know when it will be released? Polaris999 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Polaris thank you for your kind words, sorry I was so abrupt by as I get older it is harder to be polite when I am tired. It will take a least a year before my book is in press, so do not hurry, I think yours will come out before that. Yes, please open sections on to both articles especially on the Alfhem. As to Anderson it is hard for me to be that critical, but perhaps a contribution to a revised edition may be useful. In addition, there are other author's correspond with me on the topic. Still there is much novel material coming to light. Today I saw an item coming out of Cuba stating that the Mexican (Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo) was part of Che Guevara's "suicide squad," he is supposed to be in Miami and must know so much I hope he tells all soon. What is happening now is that many of the old even in Cuba, are rushing to write before they die. But complete freedom to write for those inside Cuba will not occur until the senior leaders pass from power. El Jigue 3-16-06

Hello El Jigue. Thank you for your message -- I know what you mean about getting tired. Right now my eyes are getting so tired from staring at information about Alfhem that I expect to start seeing double at any moment. BTW some unknown person came by and deleted everything you had added in there without giving any explanation. I put it all back, but think it will be good to develop the Churchill reference a bit because apparently not everybody catches the connection. Right now I just stuck a couple of paragraphs that I found in the WC article here on WP to the end of the article and am going to think about where the best place to mention the speech, etc. might be. Re the other information you found about Alfhem (above), it occurs to me that we might set up a separate section in the article entitled "Details of the Alfhem incident" where you could put some or all of that? I did find quite a bit of good data about the ship itself, the only problem being that it is all written in Swedish and I don't know Swedish. (But I definitely know more now than I knew this morning.) When you have a chance, please look at the "Specifications" section I just added and tell me if it needs any correction or modification.
About your book, I am sure that it will be published long before mine because I have not even decided whether I want to write one yet ... Polaris999 04:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue to be banned again

I just inserted ""After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the PCF (French Communist Party) was declared a proscribed organisation. The PCF pursued an anti-war course during the early part of the Second World War." Maurice Thorez head of PCF "deserted from the French Army and fled to the Soviet Union. " [65] " into Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact thus, I expect to be banned again soon. Will be back after ban ends. El Jigue 3-24-06

Che's heritage is as lively as ever - even in L.A. !

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/03/25/immigration.rallies.ap/t1.rally.la4.gi.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 March 2006

Thank you for this information -- I have included a link to the photo in the "Legacy" section. Polaris999 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For Lokifer: Please look at the HISTORY section to see ...

who removed those sentences about the neo-Nazis. You will find the following entry and explanation:


23:32, 2 April 2006 Nikodemos (one of the sources doesn't seem to exist, the other isn't particularly reliable and makes little more than a passing comment about 3rd positionists (not "neo-Nazis"))

I checked the link that Nikodemos mentions -- which used to go to the ABC article -- and found that it was indeed dead (because ABC seems to have moved that article into an accessible by payment only archive); therefore I did not restore the sentence since it is now unsourced. If you want the sentence in question to remain in the Che article, you will probably need to find another source for it and update the reference; otherwise, it will probably be deleted again. Polaris999 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because a source has been moved to a pay area doesn't make the fact less true. Only using free accessed sites on the internet is asinine. Citing a book or magazine is exactly the same thing as citing an article from an online news organization that has moved material to a pay site. Not everyone can access the information, unless you worked at the Library of Congress and even then you'd be unable to access all sources. Most of the stuff slapped onto wikipedia isn't even cited and you're razzing me because I was able to access the information before it became unaccessible for free.
As for the supposed passing comment without a mention of NeoNazis in the second article, the first freaking line in the article saying "In times when German Neo-nazis are walking around with Che t-shirts at their marches..." Go there and read it, [66] and as far as it being unreliable, the site is Che-Lives, a forum by people who idolize Che...Why would people who idolize Che want to make up stuff about NeoNazis using his image? Lokifer 10:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why the fact that some of a small group of neo-nazi's have been spotted wearing Che Guevara t-shirts even warrants a mention in the main article anyway. If it were the German communist party then I would understand but Che Guevara and German Neo-Nazi groups aren't generally associated together for obvious reasons (their politics are completely different afterall).
Are we going to start mentioning every group of which some of it's members have been seen wearing such a t-shirt? I think this would be absurd, who's next? most of the bartenders at a local bar near me recently wore Che t-shirts when they hosted a Latin America themed evening, should we therefor include a mention of this bar and it's staff aswell? Canderra 11:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm mostly with Canderra here, but the thing about the ABC article mostly just underlines why blind links are lousy references. If the reference is spelled out (I didn't check on this one) or can be spelled out retroactively, great, useful, someone can probably seek the print version, etc. But if it is just a dead link with no title, date, etc.? Pretty useless. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
* * * * *

Inaccuracies were introduced into the "Congo" section: Intentionally or Accidentally?

On 19 April 2006, User 68.9.241.233 pointed out via a note inserted into the text of the third paragraph of the "Congo" section of the Che article that the person referred to as directing a US Green Beret A-Team supposedly operating against Che in the Congo is actually a fictional character who appears in the series The Brotherhood of War written by author W.E.B. Griffin. I was interested to determine who had inserted the sentences referring to this character as if he were a real person and traced back through the HISTORY page until I found the point when the modification was made, and I will attach that information below:


Revision as of 13:05, 16 March 2006

South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[5][6] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.[7] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.[8] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.

Revision as of 13:25, 16 March 2006
TDC (Talk | contribs)
(→Congo)
Newer edit

A six man US Green Beret A-Team led by Lt Colonel Craig Lowell along with South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara. Lt Colonel Lowell convinced the Congolese that it would be better to not kill Guevara and turn him into a martyr, but to grind his forces down and humiliate the Cubans. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.[9]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.[10] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.


Additional information about the novel in question, i.e. The Brotherhood of War: Special Ops, Part 2, can be found at Audio-to-go.

Polaris999 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Griffin's military stories (as opposed to his spy and cop stories) are fictionalized history -- that is, he starts with facts then tweaks them into fiction. In the case of the Guevara book cited above, it is hard to know how much of the skeleton is accurate and at what point it goes off into fantasy. However, given Griffin's fascination and familiarity with the Congo and with Argentina, there is likely to be quite a bit of fact in with the fantasy.
That said, it is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE to get background for an encyclopedia article from a novel! Critic-at-Arms 07:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you have a good point here, I will try and verify what in Griffins book is correct. The newly formed Green Beret's were active in Congo in the mid 1960's, and were organizing local, Cuban ex-pats, and SA mercenaries to counter the Cuban presense, but you are right about the rest. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

Every time I stop by this article every few months, I see that the iconic image up as the portrait photo. We are supposed to be writing a biography about the real Guevara, not confusing him with the cult figure. I will get around to inserting a neutral photo, such as the ones appearing in these links [67] [68] 172 | Talk 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the photo you inserted IS neutral. Mariano(t/c) 11:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's an AP photo, as opposed to something staged. The problem is that it's pretty small, grainy, and ugly. I couldn't find a better photo. Almost all the photos coming up in image searches were the famous iconic images. I'll try to find a better one pretty soon. 172 | Talk 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
All other considerations aside, the photo you have inserted is of extremely poor quality. I will try to find one to replace it until such time as you or someone else comes up with another one. Polaris999 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I really think we should stick with the Korda photo. I'm a very visual person, and I do a lot my learning by association with images. For those like me, if I were to come to this article not knowing who Che was, I could recognize the Korda photo and be able to develop instant associations. Likewise, those reading the article would be able to associate what they learned from Wikipedia when they see the prevalent image. Aside from that, the Korda photo is a good photo, the other substitutes have been grainy or had shadows. Not to mention that the Korda photo is free for whatever use so there's no fair -use potential problem. I also think there is not a neutrality problem here. The Korda photo doesn't show Che saving puppies or anything like that. It's a plain photo. Also, it's my understanding the photo is not staged (re:172's second comment). Even if it were, most of the articles on political figures in Wikipedia use publicity shots which diffinately are staged. I also don't think the photo in anyway detracts from the article as biography, especially considering the photo was the non-stylized image. Waxing poetic, the photo might even be a good symbolic representation since it's the photo behind the iconic image, just as the article is about the man behind the cult figure.--Bkwillwm 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
For those like me, if I were to come to this article not knowing who Che was, I could recognize the Korda photo and be able to develop instant associations. That's bad. An encyclopedia is a souce for factual content, not emotional associations with images. The facts, not the images and emotions, should underlie this article. Your comment makes me oppose the reinsertion of the Korda image even more staunchly. 172 | Talk 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I said nothing about emotions. I meant visual associations. I think it helps to have visual associations with factual material. I think articles should have easily recognizable photographs illustrating their subjects. I don't know what kind of emotional response you expect readers to have when they see the picture in this article. My guess is that most people say "Hey, it's the t-shirt guy." I think this recognition is a good beginning to informing people of the details behind the man. Also, the image does not make or break the article as a cult vs. biographical piece. Whether the article was pro-cult Che, anti-Che, or neutral, it might have the image (See this page for an example of an anti-Che article with the Korda photo). Why would an anti-Che site use the image? Because it's easily recognizable. The image is also the best image of Che we have available. The alternative you've inserted is low-res, fair-use. You have also failed to provide a fair use rationale for the photo. Please do if you plan to keep it on this page. However, I think your fair use justification will be weak considering there's a free use alternative. My knowledge of fair use is not that deep, but I can't think of a good rationale for using your image, and I do know that the availibility of an alternative, freer image weakens justification for fair use. Also, the Korda photo should be somewhere in the article; for better or worse, the image is iconic and an important part of Che's legacy; leaving it out is negligent.--Bkwillwm 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a different Korda photo version. I think this one is less idealized but still very recognizable, and hopefully alleviates your concerns. If this photo can be agreed on, it should probably be enhanced and maybe cropped. For now, thoughts?--Bkwillwm 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
PS, this version of the photo is tagged fair use instead of copyright with permission. Considering the many uses of the image, I think it's pretty much regarded as free though. The photographer has allowed for a variety of uses, only asserting a copyright claim once in an attempt to stop commericialization of the image. Beats any rationale for using an AP photo I think.--Bkwillwm 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's crazy to not show the photo that people widely associate with Che Guevera. Surely the photo is there to aid in reader identification of the individual? Showing the Korda potrait photo does not cause people to confuse the individual with a cult figure, if anything it does the exact opposite.

Also, the Korda photo is the only real portrait photo (i.e. the usual head-on-sholders framing) held on Wiki. Whether it was "staged" or not is completly irrelevant, most the biographies on Wikipedia display a potrait from a professionally co-ordinated photoshoot. At least the Korda photo shows him involved in politics (what he is primarily famous for after all) rather than simply standing in a room. Canderra 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category: Atheists

At 03:20 on 05 April 2006, User:67.171.226.128 added Category: Atheists to the Che article. At 03:34 on 5 April 2006, User:DakotaKahn removed it with the comment, "rv-please resource before adding Category:Atheists no source was given". Although it is widely known that Che was an atheist, I have waited to restore User:67.171.226.128's edit until I was able to locate a printed source for it; I have now done so – in a passage on page 25 of Che: Sierra adentro (Che: Deep in the Sierra) by Froilán Escobar and Félix Guerra (Havana: Editora Política, 1988), wherein Oniria Gutiérrez, a combatant in Che's column, describes her first meeting with him, as follows:

"I cannot forget the first night he talked with me … He spoke of my religious ideas and that made me ask him if he was religious. No, he answered, I cannot be religious because I am a Communist."

Polaris999 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an additional source, very much to the point, also from Che: Sierra adentro. In this section, Evelio Laferté, another combatant in Che's column, reminisces:

"As part of organizing the school, Fidel wanted us to come up with certain kinds of oaths for the recruits. The kind of oath we were familiar with was the classic one that existed in the army, which involved God, the word of God, "I swear before God and Country, the Flag" - that sort of thing. We sent two drafts, one of which, by accident, included the word God; accidentally, because we had not intentionally put it there. I recall that this one had to go through Che to get to Fidel.

"Che replied to us in a letter that he had not sent the oath on because, in his view, it was not correct to make someone swear to something in which he did not believe. That he, for example, did not believe in God, and that no one was capable of making him believe in God. That was his reply to us. At the time, it seemed to me that the reply was not very good politics, because the concept I had of politics was to make concessions. But for Che, when it came to questions of fundamental principles, no concessions were possible; it was wrong to try to enlist men through deceit."[69]

(bolding is mine) Polaris999 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Polaris999, I reverted that ip edit because it was unsourced and no edit summary. I had heard Che was and did a quick google but really nothing reliable came up. That was my reasoning. Good job on the article.--Dakota ~ 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dakota, Thank you very much for your kind words about the article. I do agree with you that User:67.171.226.128 and others should provide some explanation, and preferably a recognized source, when adding a category unless the article itself provides sufficient justification for such an action. For example, since the article discusses Che's Irish heritage, it seemed reasonable that someone added him to the category "Irish Argentines". But, as you noticed, the article contains no text from which one could deduce that he was an atheist. Furthermore, this matter is somewhat clouded by the fact that he was both baptized in, and received Last Rites from, the Roman Catholic Church — however, these events were beyond his control since the first occurred just a few days after he was born, and the second shortly after he had been killed and there is every reason to believe that he would have refused consent for them had he been able to do so ... I am wondering if you happened to notice the recent edit warring that went on here over Category:Humanitarians ? I would appreciate hearing your opinion about whether a source should be required for his inclusion therein. Polaris999 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware of the edit warring. I re-read the entire article again and it's links. Some aspects of him I admire but I do not know if he could be strictly cast as a humanitarian. I believe we would need a reliable sources for that inclusion. I agree that editors should probably read this talk page and at least leave edit summaries when expanding or making changes also as with any article.--Dakota ~ 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thoughts about this, Dakota. Probably he should be removed from that category until someone provides a source; personally, I do not remember ever having seen one. There is no doubt that he was guided by what he considered to be humanitarian goals, but I believe that there is significant disagreement as to whether they really were primarily humanitarian or primarily political. Also, there can be debate as to whether the method he employed in pursuit of those goals, i.e. armed struggle, fits within the category "humanitarian".
A change was recently made on the article's page that I would like to ask you about. At 05:58, 30 April 2006 Wasabi20 removed an entry in the "External Links" section with the comment "(→External links - - removed link to Spanish website from English article)". The link in question was to an excellent website (based in Cuba) that has one of the best collections of photographs, texts, mp3 files, etc. that I have ever seen. While it is true that it is in Spanish, so are several other websites included in "External Links". So, I would like to ask you, does Wikipedia have some rule against including links in a language other than English in the "External Links" section of an article in the English wikipedia? Polaris999 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hola Polaris999. Spanish was Che's language and the major portion of writings about him are in written in it. The major portion of literature I have read about him are in Spanish. I cannot see that the image link in Spanish should be a problem as the images of him as are mostly on Spanish sites. In fact one of the images [70] on this page I translated and it had been here awhile without being removed.--Dakota ~ 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Saludos, Dakota. And many thanks for your take on the "External Links" section -- and also for translating the information about the photo of the school in La Higuera. I did an rv to restore the link in question, with an explanation in History. Polaris999 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Polaris999, this image archive is probably already linked but just in case[71].--Dakota ~ 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hola Dakota. Thank you for mentioning these links. The article does have a link to the first website; as for the second, I have seen the postmortem photographs displayed on that site many times elsewhere but they still make me ill each time I see them again. This causes me to wonder what the impact would be on others, especially children. I personally do not feel that they contribute significantly to the article. However, if you believe that they should have a link, I implore you to include in the description some reference to their extremely graphic nature so that readers will be forewarned. Polaris999 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, I did not scroll down far enough. Can't bear them either and do not think they should be an include. No I would not include that link. I reverted myself on the second one.--Dakota ~ 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Criticism

Is it just me, or does this section not make sense? On one hand detractors say he was ineffective, but on the other hand detractors say he was responsible for the deaths of scores. Obviously both aren't right. Does anyone know of a source that addresses this contradiction, and perhaps even reconciles it? Yankoz


Meaning of term "Che"

I performed a revert on a change by User:Mcmachete of the translation of the term "Che" from "pal" or "mate" or "dude" to "hey". My understanding of the term Che is that "pal" or "mate" or "dude" are much better translations than "hey" (although I agree "hey" is a possible additional translation). But "hey" is , is what you just described it as. It is the attention getting word before an endearing term. That endearing term can also be an insult, as friends often dish out insults as a way of demonstrating closeness. i.e. "Larry, you old buzzard, get in here and blow out these candles."

A common Argentine greeting among close friends is "Che, flaco! que hacés?" Of course there would be upside down punctuation to frame the front of the phrases with ! and ?.

It definitely is not used to get the attention of someone you don't know. Think like when you hear "ehye, buddy" rather than "HEY! Come back with my car!"68.55.206.184 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote up here, but I just want to say that here in Argentina (and usually in Uruguay too) the word 'che' is used to get the attention of other person, whether you know his/her name or not. I use it every day and I know that it doesn't mean "dude" or "mate": it can be traduced as "hey", but 'che' can be used to introduce a phrase and not to call a person. --201.235.44.133 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm argentinian and I explain that "che" is an expression used colloquially to call the attention of a person. Just like the example of one user, the phrase "¡Che, flaco! ¿qué hacés?" means literally "Hey, dude! what you do?". In fact, "flaco" means "slim", but in the phrase it works like "dude". In this case, "che" means "hey". "Che" is also used meaning "dude" in another kind of phrases like "No te preocupes, che", meaning "Don't worry, dude". How you can see, the word have not an exact definition, because it varies depending the situation. However, the use of the word is to speak to a relative, not for formal use.
My english is poor, I'm sorry of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.207.60 (talk • contribs)
Thank you, User:201.252.207.60, for this clear explanation and the excellent examples. I hope that you won't mind that I am going to move your comment up to the section where the discussion re the meaning of the term "che" is in progress -- I am doing this because down here it is somewhat of an "orphan" and editors and/or readers who have been following the discussion in that section might not see your contribution if it remains in a separate section down here. Polaris999 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(Note: Comment has now been integrated into the section Meaning of term "Che".) -- Polaris999 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
User:201.252.207.60´s description is indeed pretty accurate.--Rataube 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that the term "che", which is identical in use and pronunciation as the catalan vocative "xé", has been tracked back to the medieval Spanish word, "ce" (pronounced "tse"), whose purpose was to address someone whose name was not known (in Lombardy, North Italy, there's a "ce" word as well, with similar meaning and pronunciation). This spanish term is assumed to derive from the latin "st" (as documented in Cicero and Terentius, among others). Sources for this explanation are Athos Espíndola ("Diccionario del Lunfardo", Buenos Aires, 2002) and Angel Rosenblat ("Filología" magazine, Buenos Aires, 1962). Sadly, I could not find online links to those resources. Other, less well accepted, ethymologies track this word back to the mapuche language (which is an aborigin population of Argentina), where the word "che" should mean "man" or "son", the very name of this people contains the word: mapu-che (which literally should mean "man", or "son", "of the earth").
Not that this information bears much importance in Che's biography, but if you deem it important or at least interesting, feel free to add it to the article.--EmirCalabuch
That would belong in the article Che, which is about the word, not the person. I'll copy your remarks to that talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Che T shirts

How come wearing t-shirts with Che is legal? It is illegal to wear a t-shirt with image of Hitler or any other top Nazis, yet is is legal to wear one with image of Che. He was a communist and they were worse than the Nazis. This should be disallowed. Communists were cold blooded murders as well. Che was not a hero.

Norum

Another communist hater? So what you are saying is that a communist is a coldblooded murder only because you say so, am i right? this reminds me of the debate about Lars Ohly calling himself a communist in Sweden. Che is not a murderer because he is a communist, as a matter of fact he said; 

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.
 It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality".

Che killed people, yes, But for me it would be the same thing as forbidding the use of George Bush on t-shirts because he invaded Iraq and therefore is guilty of thousands of deaths. Of course, i am probably biased since i am a communist myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.136.18 (talk • contribs)

This guy was a terrorist, plain and simple. There is nothing to be proud of by declaring yourself a communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.205.201 (talk • contribs)

It isn't illegal to wear shirts depicting Hitler. Welcome to America.

So you call me a communist hater...well, unlike you, I grew up in a communist country so I happen to know what they are capable of. For example, in 1940 communists killed 25,000 polish officers, aristocracy, priests etc within 2 weeks. Now that's a very good reason to hate them.

So it's not illegal in America to wear tshirts with Hitler. Try wearing one of these in Germany and you'll get arrested. Maybe it's legal in America, but try to wear it publically and someone will lynch you. Norum

I persume you are referring to the Polish September Campaign. It was certainly a troubled time for the whole of Europe but Poland definatly suffered particularly bad. Still, I don't think it's fair to blame a socio-economic philsophy for the deaths of all those people. Just like the recent Iraq invasion by the USA (should they be called "the Capatalists"?), which has resulted in the deaths of around 40,000+ Iraqis, the Poland September Campaign was an invasion by one regime, largely due to political relations with many others.
Besides, people don't tend to refer to the Nazi's as the "Capatalists - who executed 8 million people", no they refer to them by their correct name: "the Nazi's", just as the regime which invaded Poland wasn't "The Communists", it was "the Soviet Union", a regime actually opposed by Che Guevara. Not that any of this has anything to do with him. Capatalism isn't defined as being "evil" simply because of what the Nazi's did, so neither should communism be defined as "evil" because of what the Soviet Union did. They are both socio-economic philosophies that both get implemented in however good or evil ways the implementors in charge choose. Canderra 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why on Earth would someone refer to the Nazis as "Capitalists"? They were a form of socialists, with government regulated prices and productions. The fact that company owners were still owners on paper has little to do with it, since they were told exactly what - and how much - to produce, by the government.
Same with America. The US of A isn't a capitalist nation, it's a heavily mixed economy, like all of Europe. It's more capitalist than most (all?) of Europe, sure, but it's not free from heavy government regulations on trade and production.193.11.202.125 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the Katyn massacre in 1940. Many people have hard times believing that communists were worse than Nazis. See, communists did what they did long after the war. Do you know what they did with with the free Polish government right after the war? They arrested them right after the war, tried them with false accusations and executed. How can you claim we were not invaded by the communists, but by the Soviets? SU was a communist country therefore Poland was invided by the communist. Don't forget they formed communist goverment in Poland that lasted for 45 years (well, the system, not the gov). What the communists did was not only during the years of the war, it was long into the time of "peace".


Norum

My point was Poland was invaded by another country not a socio-economic policy, the idea of a artificial train of thought taking physical form is a tad obsurd. It's the exact same as stating that the atrocities commited by the Nazis were committed by the "Capitalists" rather than the "Nazis".
Your point is idiotic. Most capitalist countries do not commit large scale attrocities. OTOH almost every communist dictatorship commits attrocities including USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethopia (yes the famines in Ethopia were caused by the communist government), Cuba (through their death camps) etc. The total death toll from communism is estimated to be 100 million
Unfortunatly, imprisonment and execution of previous leaders by a victor is not at all uncommon after a war. It is still happening today (e.g. Bosnian war, Iraq War and many others) and will likely always occur. I am not trying to justify what they (The Soviet Union) did at all, but it is important to recognise who "they" were and not to over-generalise.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Che Guevara, who wasn't even much of a fan of the Soviet Union anyway. I'm not trying to glorify anything here, but this is all entirely unrelated to communism, let alone Che Guevera. Canderra 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems rather POV. Isn't the point of the discussion page more to debate the facts regarding Guevara than engage in these kind of hypotheticals about what should and shouldn't be legal? Maybe this sort of thing would be better served on a political webpage or discussion room. Canderra has a point. Wyldkat

Indeed, besides the silliness of this discussion being here... Che wasn't a communist... if anything he was a maoist... not that you should start argueing about mao here... Misterniceguy7 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, those shirts are so pimpin'! Man! lol,--DoomsElf 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is my favourite. I own one: Che Shirt --M4-10 07:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What the Soviet Union did to their own people and others was "in the name of" communism and an interpretation of Marx-Lenin, rather than being true to wider socialist philosophy. Don't confuse those who use a doctrine for their own power with those who use it for the freedoms and rights of others. George Bush "says" he is a Christian - would you say everybody that was a Christian behaved or thought like him? There is nothing wrong with being a socialist or communist, like there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. There is something very wrong with abusing people for your own ends as the Soviet Union did and still does.

In America it is seen as very wrong to be "socialist"; in Europe it is often an ideal and a sign of care for the disadvantaged. Events like Katrina last year showed that the US is far from any notion of social care and fair distribution of means. 62.3.70.68 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Russia and Maoist China were not "interpretations" of socialism, they were its ultimate expression. Means aren't distributed, they are earned, and the deaths of the elderly in France's recent heat wave show European notions of social care. --M4-10 09:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The US is the perfect case study for JK Galbraith's expression "private affluence and public squalor". Shame on you. 86.137.14.147 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's your POV. Is the US the ultimate expression of captialism? As for the "recent heat wave": Overall live expectancy in France is about two years higher than in the US (according to the CIA World Factbook). Live expectancy in "socialist" Sweden is higher still. But none of these countries is "socialist", they have a social market economy. --Stephan Schulz 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sweden has the best standard of living (for all) in the world. There is definately something more civilised having a strong social policy at the heart of your culture. Social justice is the mark of a mature, humane society. 62.3.70.68 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess what you don't understand is that truly advanced societies allow all to reach their highest potential- in the US, you don't have mommy(aka government) guaranteeing you everything, but you have freedom. For some, myself included, although it comes with personal responsibility, being free is far better than being a child for your entire life. Oh well...some people just aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsiility. 71.241.68.99 17:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't have your society guaranteeing anything. You get ill - pay up. Oh you can't afford insurance? You die then. Nice that your potential and opportunities in life are based on your own personal wealth. If that's your opinion of bring advanced and grown-up then you can keep it. You seem to be brainwashed into the thought that social justice is incompatable with freedom. How many below minimum wage Walmart workers are truely free? They must feel really responsible having to have 2 jobs just to make bread line - but hey they're Mexican so what do you care? Enjoy driving your 4x4 to the mall on 50c a gallon petrol and feeling superior because your in the moneyed section of the US economy. I really wish you a mishap that requires help from others and its not there. 62.3.70.68 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonwalkerwiz 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) These talks bore me. Each side has enough reason to justify their position. The reason why the Communism vs Capitalism debate never ends is that its very purpose is to prolong the talks and never get to doing something concrete. The Utopia of Communism can never be achieved by such stupid argumentation, it's merely pre-empting it (like the US and Soviet War is pre-empted by videogames and Hollywood movies). People who debate about these things would like to think they're actually getting nearer the reality of whatever they say, but this is merely simulation, empty gratification of dry desires. We don't have wars anymore, because we have people like you talking. And whatever wars we have, it's as real to us as a Looney Toons cartoon.

... And this is the point when you open up a private chatroom and continue the conversation outside Wikipedia talk space. Really. Please. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted agreement: this is enough argumentum ad hominem, please. It is quite possible to have a disagreement with someone without wishing them ill, calling them immature or questioning their upbringing. Thanks. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know you can get Che tea towels? Sadena 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Communist=Evil? Answer: No. He may have killed people, but all revolutionaries (well most) have to kill people. "Communists were worse then the Nazis". Wrong again. Nazis murdered people who were differant. Communists dont run on rascism. Communism isn't bad, in fact what people consider communism isn't even really. A communist dictatorship is actually an oxy-moron. Complete opposites. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. He may be a terrorist to you, but the fact is, some consider him a hero. You think the patriots in the american revolution never killed anyone out of cold blood? Doubt it, im sure they killed people in cold blood, but we think of them as heroes. Good and Bad is a mteer of point of view.

And that concludes my 8-year old son's essay on communism. He got a C+. --M4-10 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Che" or "Ché"?

NB: Because confusion has once again arisen about whether or not there should be an accent on the "e" of Che, I am reprising this section where the matter was thoroughly discussed. [Original text can be seen in Archive 2.]   Polaris999 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed to find not one word about whether the spelling is "Che" or "Ché". I've seen the latter in a number of publications, most recently in Famous Last Words (C. B. Ruffin). Yet there is no clarification which it truly is, nor is was there even a redirect from Ché Guevara for those who might think to spell it this way. In my own ignorance, I can't tell if this is a case of English authors ignoring inconvenient accents or the equally peculiar habit of adding accents where they may not be needed. Can someone authoritatively state (preferably with cited references) which is correct? Not only is it a question of how to spell the appropriate Spanish (or Argentinian slang) for "buddy", but it's perhaps more important how Guevara himself (or his buddies) spelled it, as people's names don't necessarily follow their origins. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the spelling might belong in the article Che, but probably not here. I'll add the redirect, though (not that very many English-speakers throw accents into searches). -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Adding accents to monosyllabic Spanish words is pretty unusual. It is usually done only to distinguish two otherwise identically spelled words: for example, "¿Qué dices?" vs. "Lo que me importa…" or "…lo más importante" vs. the (now largely archaic) "mas" as a synonym for "pero". I wouldn't be surprised to see an accent on "¡Ché!" used to get someone's attention, but wouldn't expect to see it on "Che" used as a name. But I'm not a native speaker, and while I'm pretty knowledgable on Argentine Spanish, I'm no expert. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
The accent he is refering to is called "diacritic" (acento diacrítico); I've never read an accentuated "che". It is a mistake to accentuate that word since there are no other homophones; even in Che Guevara it wouldn't, since the Che is derived from the original. Plober 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmabel. I feel more comfortable leaving it "Che" instead of starting a possibly misguided crusade to add the accent. I can see that this may be a case of little documentation about something that native speakers take for granted, and non-Spanish-speakers are in ignorance about. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Che, definitely without accent. --Marianocecowski 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I've got a book by el Che (pasajes de la guerra revolucionaria), printed in Cuba, and that uses the spelling without an accent. DirkvdM 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
And correctly so. Here is a bit of background: Historically, monosyllabic Spanish nouns ending in "e" had been accented. Therefore, if you look at one of the peso bills that Che signed while he was President of the National Bank of Cuba, you will see that he accented the "e" in "Che". Circa 1962, the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA in Madrid, which sets orthographical and grammatical standards for the Spanish language, issued a ruling to the effect that it made no sense to have an accent on monosyllabic words, except to differentiate between homonyms (such as "te" and "té"), and that therefore, from that time forward, the accent should not be used on the "e" of non-homonymous words. Che immediately adopted the new spelling and his signatures after that date do not have an accent on the "e". Moreover, while he was being held captive in the school room in La Higuera, Bolivia [8-9 October 1967], he noticed that on the blackboard the teacher had written the word "fé" [faith] with the archaic accent on the "e"; when she [Julia Cortés] came into the school room later and they had a conversation, he explained to her about the ruling by the RAE and suggested that she erase the accent from the word so that it would be correctly written (i.e., "fe"), which she did. Polaris999 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I am inserting here a scan of his signature to remove all doubts about this matter ... Polaris999 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
His signature
His signature
Good job Polaris999. I hope it settles the matter also. Good reference to go by.--Dakota ~ 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, well done to all who contributed, I have always wondered about the validity of the accent myself. Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to have stopped one or more anonymous users constantly re-inserting the accent but oh well, this article witnesses a lot worse vandalism. Canderra 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

I reverted the removal of external links. Did not see any discussion recently on this page concerning removal of links so did the revert. Such changes such be discussed first.--Dakota ~ 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dakota

I re-reverted your revert but only saw afterwards your explanation here after I have done so. Sorry!

Please look at the history of the guy who originally added his link (200.55.155.193) is constantly link spamming wikipedia with links to his website (nothing else in contribution, just adds his link). I followed him here from another page he keeps adding his links to. Cabanos 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually four links were removed in 3 revisions. Not exactly sure what particular link you refer to.--Dakota ~ 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Uncertainty about Che's Birthdate

According to Che's mother, he was actually born on May 14th. She was three months pregnant when she married Che's father, so they pushed his date of birth a month ahead. - Che, Jon Lee Anderson, Chapter 1.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.169.68 (talk • contribs)

There is no documented record of Che's mother ever having told anyone this. Anderson repeats a story that was told to him by a woman he identifies as "Julia Constenla de Giussani" (page 9) who he says told him that she had arranged for an astrologer to draw up a chart for Ernesto, and this said Julia is reported to have stated that the astrologer in question told her that Che's mother had told her that he was actually born on 14 May 1928 rather than on 14 June 1928, the latter date being the one that is recorded on his birth certificate and all of his other official documents. Since no one before or after Anderson has ever presented evidence of the alleged falsification, and since Che and all of his family always celebrated his birthday on 14 June, and since the reason for the alleged falsification, i.e. to "avoid scandal", doesn't make sense because Celia and Ernesto (his parents) were quite well known for their total lack of concern as to what others might think of them and their lifestyle, it does not make sense to conclude, on the basis of this one hearsay report and in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, that Ernesto was born on 14 May.
Nevertheless, the story related by Anderson is summarized in the article's Content Note entitled "Birthdate" as follows:

Birthdate: While 14 June 1928 is Guevara's official date of birth, it may not be the actual date of birth. The official story is that he was born eight months after his parents married; several sources suggest that he was born earlier (the date 14 May is the most prevalent), and that his mother was already pregnant at the time of her marriage.

This Content Note is linked to in the first sentence of the first paragraph, right after the date "14 June 1928".
It was the consensus of all of the editors working on the article just prior to its being nominated for FA status that this was the correct way to handle the matter of the birthdate, and this is the version that was promoted to FA. If you want to read further detail about this subject and how the decision was reached, please consult the Archives (listed at the top of this page). Also, in the future, kindly sign your comments. Polaris999 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

I readded some of the links from the Cuban Ministry of Culture website containing historic videos and images of Che Guevara. They are not spam links and are easily navigated. Please discuss any changes before removal of material. --Dakota ~ 20:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of the policy of adding external links, non-English links are to be avoided on the English Wikipedia. Exceptions are made when they have information that is not available on any other English language external link or the article itself, which is not the case in this article. However, after digging deeper it would seem that this link in particular can be considered an "official" link seeing how it is hosted at the Cuban Ministry of Culture (I misunderstood what was meant by "cult" in the cult.cu domain) and therefore it should stay.
However, we have now had another Spanish link added (http://www.echeguevara.com.ar). Should this one stay? Earlier there was a Russian and Dutch link that was removed. Should those also be brought back? Cabanos 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that consensus has been reached re inclusion of the Che, Guía y Ejemplo site. I do think that Cabanos has directed our attention to a matter that needs consideration: i.e., the desirability of clearly labelling external links to foreign language sites so that readers who do not know the language in question will not click on them assuming that they are in English. To make this differentiation as clear as possible, I have set up a separate sub-section for links to Spanish-language sites within the External Links section, and the same can be done for other languages, as appropriate.
Concerning the site Revista Social "Proyecto Che Guevara" mentioned by Cabanos above, I have removed it because (1) although it purports to be a non-profit site, it is filled with advertisements and (2) my review of it so far has failed to turn up any information not already presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. On the positive side, it would be interesting to have a link to an Argentina-based site, but I am just not certain that this one meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have an opinion on this matter, please present your reasons for supporting or opposing its inclusion here on the Talk page.
I have also removed the newly-added site, Che Guevara Information Archive because (1) it devotes much of its space to commercial advertising, (2) it seems to be seriously out of date and (3) my review of it so far has failed to uncover any information not presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. Again, if others disagree, please present your reasons for supporting its inclusion here on the Talk page.
Concerning the Russian and Dutch language sites referenced by Cabanos, the reasons that they were excluded were, in the first case, that the Russian site continuously caused problems during loading and, in the second case, because none of the editors working on the CG article at the time the link to the Dutch language site was added had sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language to be able to evaluate that site. Here, too, these decisions are open to discussion and could be reversed if the problems mentioned are overcome. Polaris999 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/

Remark on labeling foreign-language links

Just wanted to make sure that people know about templates like {{en icon}}, {{es icon}}, etc., which show up as (in English), (in Spanish), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't know about these templates -- many thanks, Jmabel, for mentioning them. -- Polaris999 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Che the Murderer

I have many Cuban friends ....many with families that were either tortured or killed my this thug. I refer you to an article in National Review on December 31, 2004 pp 28-30 "Che Chic" by Jay Nordlinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.57.233 (talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233

It's kind of funny, as I am not from the USA I had not heard of the "National Review" before. Logging onto their website though, the first thing I am greeted with is a quote stating in large letters "There is no solid evidence that we’ve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend." and then the next line of text is a statement from the editors: "The Senate isn’t serious about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws". I think these statements give a clear indication of the political views of that publication. I have not yet read the article you mention but I think it should be treated with about as much scepticism as if it cam from a magazine called the "Communist Review". Canderra 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
National Review like New Republic or The Nation is a political journal so it does have an opinion. But it has over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable....it has fewer incidents of plagarism or straight up made up stories than the NY Times. Also read the essays of Humberto Fontova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.57.233 (talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233
National Review is very notable, just like the above mentioned sources. Also if we are going to use KGB agent/journalist Richard Gott as a source than anything goes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The National Review is a far-right propagandistic and Bush Administration apologist vehicle. As for anyone "tortured or killed [b]y this thug," that's original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As far as the National Review having "over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable," that's POV bunk -- it trumpeted the non-existent WMDs in Iraq and still insists they exist. 4.232.228.62 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The National Review is conservative, but there are those generally on the Left who are uncomfortable with Che. Film critic Roger Ebert is certainly not right-wing, but in his review of The Motorcycle Diaries he says, "Che Guevara makes a convenient folk hero for those who have not looked very closely into his actual philosophy, which was repressive and authoritarian."[72] There are other criticisms among liberals, and some Leftists, when it comes to Che some of them are dealt with in the article.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Guevara was a communist, plain and simple. I think that ideology's despicable track record speaks for itself, regardless of whether the National Review is a piece of "far-right propaganda" or not. --Impaciente 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether he murdered or not, to call him a thug is insulting. He is a revolutionary. How does does a revolutionary take and consilidate power? Violence. He is far from a murderous thug.

Well, he wasn't a murderous thug, I'll admit that. What he was instead was a soulless, bloodthirsty, homicidal mercenary. Yes, I think that's more accurate. 69.118.97.26 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I say Ronald Regan was a genocidal murderer. They both killed people didn't they? The difference is Ronald Reagan got people to do it for him while Che did it himself. While were at it, lets round up all the revolutionary war heroes who killed and call them murderous thugs cause it doesn't suit your idealogy.-69.123.9.255 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd consider the National Review generally citable on matters of fact (like The Nation at the other end of the spectrum they're pretty scrupulous), suspect on matters of interpretation (they've been known to make some leaps in their time; it would depend on who the particular writer was), and highly citable as an instance of U.S. right-wing opinion (they are the leading journal of their type on the right in the U.S.). In a matter like this: I'd be reasonably certain that if they say particular killings occurred they did (at least in this case: they have been known to be duped, as over some supposed atrocities that have justified various wars); I'd believe them on the existence and accurate quotation of any documents or other sources they brought forward; I would not give them much credibility on the interpretation of those sources; and I'd consider them citable as an illustration of right-wing U.S. opinion of Che Guevara, if there is a need for that in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    * * * * *



  1. ^ Fidel Castro, "The 40th Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution", 1 January 1999.Online at The New Humanist, accessed 4 January2006.
  2. ^ CNC TV,"Recuerdan famosa victoria del Ejercito Rebelde en Guisa", 1 December 2005.Online at Google's Cache, retrieved 30 December2005.
  3. ^ Radio Bayamo,"Batalla de Guisa, noviembre de 1958: La puerta de la victoria", 30 November 2004.Online at Google's Cache, retrieved 19 December2006.
  4. ^ Cuban Aviation,"1958: The last operation of the FAEC against the guerrilla".Online at Cuban Aviation, accessed 4 January2006.
  5. ^ Mad Mike Hoare Site, "Mad Mike". - Che Guevara's Exploits in the Congo Online at African History, accessed 5 January2006.
  6. ^ Mad Mike Hoare Site, "Mad Mike". Online at Geocities.com, accessed 5 January2006.
  7. ^ Ireland's Own, "From Cuba to Congo, Online at Geocities.com, accessed 5 January2006.
  8. ^ Ireland's Own, "From Cuba to Congo, Dream to Disaster for Che Guevara". Onine at irelandsown.net, accessed 11 January2006.
  9. ^ African History Blog, "Che Guevara's Exploits in the Congo", Che Guevara's Exploits in the Congo Online at African History, accessed 5 January2006.
  10. ^ Ireland's Own, "From Cuba to Congo, Dream to Disaster for Che Guevara". Onine at irelandsown.net, accessed 11 January2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara/All-1to5&oldid=191507183"