Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Pic captions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

controversy section

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

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

Humberto Fontova and Che not needing proof to execute

The statement by C.J.Griffin

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

was removed because the stated source was

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

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

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

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

You can see it for yourselves right here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way too many images!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question re the killing of Che Guevara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Imaging

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

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

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

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

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

Added neutrality tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links cleanup

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

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

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

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

Linkfarm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand alone lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read Wikipedia:Article size and associated articles for the rationale for size limits as well as ways of calculating size. Also, at this point, I think any drastic changes should be through consensus. Look at the example of this article in its heyday:[2] Now the article is almost double in size. In my opinion, we must be very careful now, as it is out-of-control. Perhaps we should start with the lead, per WP:LEAD. As Ronz indicates, the article does not flow from the lead, or visa versa any more. I guess I would suggest that everyone stop and take a deep breath. Those of us who care about the article need to make some rational decisions as a group. It is very unusual to get an article about a controversial topic to FAC status as this article so painstakingly was. I would hate to see that status endangered. I would urge those working on the article to be familiar with Wikipedia:Featured article criteria To keep that status, this page should be written in summary style. Regards, Mattisse 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Book of Communism ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Suspected War Criminals" = Correct term

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

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

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

Feature Article Review

Perhaps this article needs to go to Feature Article Review. It was featured on the main page on June 18, 2006 (approximate version then [3]). Since then the article has deteriorated drastically. Many of the changes/revisions/additions have occurred without any attempt at consensus. The current revert war is like fiddling while Rome burns, in my opinion. Consensus needs to be achieved before further changes are made to the article. A Feature Article Review will draw attention to the article's obvious faults like the doubling in its length, the completely unacceptable lead section, and the loss of its summary style in its descent into inappropriate detail. These are my feelings as it is painful to see what has happened to the article over time. Regards, Mattisse 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative, perhaps we could revert to an acceptable version e.g. [4] or some similar version before the ballooning occurred. That might be easier than trying to reconstruct an acceptable article from what we have now. The serious ballooning appears to have begun in January 2008, as on January 1, 2008, the article was still 126,292 bytes. Are there other opinions? Regards, --Mattisse 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please seek consensus before editing article further

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

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

Trimming of Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ACTUAL" Article Size ?

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

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

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

User:SandyGeorgia posted the following on the FAR page:

Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:

File size: 143 kB

Prose size (HTML): 61 kB

References (HTML): 24 kB

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

References (text only): 7 kB

Images: 122 kB

Current version (Feb 23)

File size: 385 kB

Prose size (HTML): 113 kB

References (HTML): 108 kB

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

References (text only): 42 kB

Images: 348 kB

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

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

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

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

To quote further from SandyGeorgia:

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

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

Please do not revert to nonstandard TOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

---

My suggestion would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about another section heading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am looking at the DMOZ entries re Che Guevara [5] and do not see how all of the links that are being removed from here could easily be moved over there — but I may be missing something. Redthoreau, when the matter of the "link farm" was first raised on the Talk page a few days ago I copied the links sections that interested me over onto a page I created for that purpose within my User pages. I would suggest that you do the same. Then, at your leisure, you can look into the question of creating a list for them at WP:LISTS. I have decided not create such a list myself because the person who creates it is supposed to be responsible for it and I do not plan to be involved with it in the future, except to consult it. BTW, many thanks for your words of encouragement re the editorial "trimming" -- I think that I have mostly completed what I need to do in this area. I was wondering if you might be interested in preparing an alternative version of the lead section? I mean, just starting from scratch write in a sandbox a lead section for article as you would write it without taking into account what any of us has written in the past. When you have finished it, you could post a link to the sandbox where it is residing into this Talk page, so that we could all read it. I think that this could be very helpful when we turn to the task of figuring out what to do with that section. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

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

External image

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

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

Few suggestions for Matisse/Polaris

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

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

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

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

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

Missing /

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

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

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

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

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

Trimmed external links

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

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

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

Lessened font size of Content Notes and References

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

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

Legacy material

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

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

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

Problem with accuracy/source

Found in the "Cuba" section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed Neutrality

The article now has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Redthoreau (talk TR 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)